Aboriginal Rights Resource Tool Kit
Canadian Labour Congress Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department
Aboriginal Rights Resource Tool Kit
This painting by Mark Seabrook – an Ojibwe artist, combines the central concepts in Aboriginal culture: community
spirit, unity in diversity and their attachment to the land. The four individuals – two men and two women –
and the connecting lines represent a community where people are interconnected with each other and also with
the land. The Medicine Wheel portrays four families of humankind – red, black, white and yellow: each within the
circle of life, living separately and not interfering with one another’s way of life, yet each being part of the whole.
The four individuals stand on land before a rising sun, signifying a new day and new hopes.
Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department
Canadian Labour Congress
2841 Riverside Drive, Ottawa ON K1V 8X7
Tel: (613) 521-3400 ext. 262; Fax: (613) 521-3113
E-mail: anti-racism&[email protected]
www.clc-ctc.ca
Aboriginal Rights Resource Tool Kit
Canadian Labour Congress Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department
What is in This Tool Kit
Section One
Introduction
Acknowledgements ............................................................................ 1.1
Preface ................................................................................................. 1.3
Guidelines for Use.............................................................................. 1.5
Introductory Analysis........................................................................ 1.11
Section Two
The Historical and Contemporary Situation
of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada
Aboriginal Societies at the Time of Contact with Europeans
and The Impact of Contact ..............................................................
Overview ........................................................................................
Points to Remember......................................................................
Introduction...................................................................................
Time of the First Encounter .........................................................
The Fur Trade and Alliances: Colonial Policy After 1500s.........
Demand for Land and Aboriginal Land Acquisition:
Imperial Policies of 1700s.........................................................
Civilization and Christianization:
Imperial Policies of Assimilation of 1800s ..............................
Creation of Manitoba: Métis in New Confederation ..................
The Second World War to the Present:
Absolute Failure of Assimilation Policies ................................
Understanding Treaties ....................................................................
Overview ........................................................................................
Points to Remember......................................................................
Introduction...................................................................................
Historical and Numbered Treaties ...............................................
Modern Treaties.............................................................................
Aboriginal Treaties: Chronology ..................................................
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.15
2.15
2.16
2.18
2.21
2.23
2.26
iii
WHAT IS IN THIS TOOL KIT
Land Claims – Aboriginal Rights and Policies...............................
Overview ........................................................................................
Points to Remember......................................................................
Introduction...................................................................................
Claims Policy Today ......................................................................
Comprehensive Claims in Canada ...............................................
The Steps in the Comprehensive Claims Process ........................
Who’s Involved in Negotiations....................................................
Objective of Negotiation...............................................................
Settled Claims ................................................................................
Aberrations in Comprehensive Claim Process ............................
2.27
2.27
2.28
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.34
2.35
2.35
2.36
The Indian Act ................................................................................... 2.39
Overview ........................................................................................ 2.39
Points to Remember...................................................................... 2.40
The Indian Act .................................................................................2.42
The Indian Act of 1951 and Onwards.......................................... 2.44
Definition of “Indian” in the Indian Act in a Nutshell ............... 2.45
Indian Act: A Chronology of Its Development ........................... 2.47
Self-Government – A Fundamental Human Right ........................
Overview ........................................................................................
Points to Remember......................................................................
Self-Government: Its Origin and Various Interpretations ..........
Aboriginal Perspective...................................................................
The Nisga’a Treaty .........................................................................
Conclusion .....................................................................................
2.49
2.49
2.50
2.52
2.53
2.56
2.57
History: A Chronology ..................................................................... 2.58
Native People and Environmental Crusaders:
Racism, Re-Colonization and Do-Gooders:
An Interview with Rodney Bobiwash ............................................. 2.73
Section Three
Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile of Aboriginal Peoples........ 3.1
Overview ........................................................................................ 3.1
Points to Remember...................................................................... 3.2
Profile of Aboriginal Peoples...........................................................
Demographics................................................................................
Age..................................................................................................
Residential Patterns .......................................................................
Bands..............................................................................................
iv
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
WHAT IS IN THIS TOOL KIT
Reserves ..........................................................................................
On and Off-Reserve Population ...................................................
Urban Migration ...........................................................................
Language Use and Retention ........................................................
Family.............................................................................................
3.9
3.10
3.10
3.11
3.12
Socio-Economic Status .....................................................................
Income ...........................................................................................
Employment and Non-Employment Income..............................
Labour Force Participation ...........................................................
Employment – Unemployment Rates And The Economic Gap ..
Aboriginal Labour Force by Occupation and by Industry..........
Education .......................................................................................
History of Aboriginal Education................................................
Current Situation.......................................................................
Educational Attainment.............................................................
Indicators of Educational Success ..............................................
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.18
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.24
Living Conditions and Quality of Life............................................
Housing..........................................................................................
Health.............................................................................................
Current Health Conditions of Aboriginal Peoples .....................
Aboriginal Peoples and the Justice System...................................
Conclusion .....................................................................................
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
Section Four
Aboriginal Rights..................................................................................... 4.1
Discovering the Context – Theory and Practice at the Juncture
of Human Rights and Indigenous Rights in Canada .................... 4.1
Overview ........................................................................................ 4.11
Points to Remember...................................................................... 4.12
Occupation of Land at the Core of Aboriginal Rights................ 4.14
Legal Recognition and Affirmation of Aboriginal Rights ........... 4.15
Royal Proclamation of 1763....................................................... 4.15
Constitution Act of 1982 ............................................................ 4.15
Leading Aboriginal Rights Cases and Development of
Legal Definitions of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights ................. 4.17
Conclusion .......................................................................................4.22
Aboriginal Women and Equality Rights.........................................
Overview ........................................................................................
Points to Remember......................................................................
Colonization and Origin of Discrimination
Against Aboriginal Women ......................................................
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.23
4.23
4.24
4.27
v
WHAT IS IN THIS TOOL KIT
The Indian Act as a Tool for Discrimination
Against Aboriginal Women ......................................................
Key Amendments Brought by Bill-C-31 ......................................
Impacts of Bill C-31 on Aboriginal Women................................
Aboriginal Women’s Rights and Self-Government .....................
Conclusion .....................................................................................
4.28
4.30
4.32
4.34
4.36
Section Five
Aboriginal Peoples and Labour Issues................................................... 5.1
Overview ........................................................................................ 5.1
Points to Remember...................................................................... 5.2
Introduction................................................................................... 5.3
Solidarity Between Aboriginal Peoples and Organized Labour... 5.4
Special Provisions to Achieve Employment Equity..................... 5.5
Agreements Among Stakeholders................................................. 5.10
Joint Action Plan between Aboriginal Advocacy
Organizations and the Unions ................................................. 5.13
Reasons for Involvement of Organized Labour........................... 5.18
Organizing in an Aboriginal Community......................................5.20
Conclusion .......................................................................................5.22
Section Six
Resources ................................................................................................
Misconceptions about Aboriginal Peoples.....................................
Definitions.........................................................................................
Contact List........................................................................................
Bibliography ......................................................................................
vi
6.1
6.1
6.7
6.9
6.19
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Acknowledgements
In memory of A. Rodney Bobiwash, a well-known Anti-Racist and
Indigenous Rights activist and a strong supporter of labour movement,
who was instrumental in the development of this Tool Kit
Rodney Bobiwash, who suddenly passed away on January 13, 2002, was a
member of the Anishnabek Nation from the Mississagi First Nation on the
north shore of Lake Huron and a member of the Bear Clan. Educated at
Trent and Oxford Universities, he has taught in the Native Studies Departments
at Trent University and the University of Manitoba. At the time of his death,
Rodney was teaching in the Aboriginal Studies Program at the University of
Toronto and had an appointment as an adjunct faculty member at the Centre
for World Indigenous Studies based in Olympia, Washington and Yelapa,
Mexico. He was also working as the Executive Director of the Native Canadian
Centre of Toronto and at the same time, held an appointment since 1992 as an
adjudicator on the Ontario Human Rights Commission Boards of Inquiry.
Rodney was widely known as an anti-racist and Native activist who researched,
wrote and published numerous reports and studies in the areas of urban
Native issues, Native history, anti-racism and employment equity, and
Indigenous/State relations. He was involved in and led various Aboriginal
organizations and Aboriginal initiatives. To name only a few: Rodney was the
Director of First Nations House at the University of Toronto; the President
of Mukwa Ode First Nations Consulting; the National Self-Government
Coordinator for the Congress of Aboriginal People in Ottawa; President of the
Toronto Aboriginal Social Services Association and the Chair of the Ontario
Joint Aboriginal Anti-Racism Strategy Committee; and, worked in education
and land claims tripartite negotiations for the Indian Commission of Ontario.
Rodney Bobiwash, a strong supporter of the Canadian Labour Congress,
its Affiliates, Federations of Labour and Labour Councils, is greatly missed
both for his knowledge on Indigenous issues and his tireless advocacy work
for Indigenous rights.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
1
SECTION ONE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Canadian Labour Congress would like to thank the Economic Development Policy Directorate of
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, for providing financial support for this very important project.
A project such as this could not be possible without the support and assistance of the following people
in developing, writing and editing of the Tool Kit:
• Senior and support staff of the National Headquarters
• Members of the Aboriginal Peoples Working Group and the Human Rights Committee
• Those affiliates and the federations of labour who provided material for the “Labour Issues”
section of the Tool Kit.
Special thanks to Bonnie McCluskey for the initial research, David Smiley for the cover photograph,
National Archives of Canada for invaluable historical photographs, Native Canadian Centre of
Toronto for additional photographs and Denise Maxwell for design and layout.
We also acknowledge the gracious assistance of Heather Howard-Bobiwash in providing material
developed by the late Rodney Bobiwash.
1.2
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Preface
The Canadian Labour Congress has a long history
of its involvement in policy analysis, advocacy and
lobbying work internationally and within Canada
on Aboriginal issues. It also encourages initiatives
among its union affiliates on Aboriginal issues,
including the racism faced by Aboriginal Peoples.
CLC is committed to strengthen the voices of
Aboriginal workers through caucuses, forums,
conferences and workshops. The Aboriginal Rights
Resource Tool Kit is a resource aid to assist unions
and the staff in working toward that goal.
At the same time, the Tool Kit can be just as useful in developing
such collective agreement language and provisions which will
advance and improve the status of Aboriginal workers. Many
Aboriginal workers view the CLC and its affiliates’ values as
completely compatible with the struggle against racism. Just
as the unions believe that fighting racism is about defending
equality, justice, and collective rights and responsibilities,
similarly, the Aboriginal workers believe in equitable and fair
economic opportunities, equal access to and treatment from
our institutions, and the right to live in affordable and safe
communities. Both sets of goals can be achieved, among other
things, with proactive collective agreements. To this end, the
Tool Kit and its information provides the union leaders and
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
1.3
SECTION ONE
PREFACE
negotiators with the concepts, notions and events necessary for a better understanding of Aboriginal
society and its relations with the rest of Canada. It will assist the unions to negotiate positive and
achievable language in the areas of Aboriginal workers’ rights.
The material included in the Tool Kit can be used as the information base for education courses for
union members about Aboriginal Peoples and the injustices done to them. Aboriginal workers will
not be able to take their rightful place in this country until there has been enough education of their
non-Aboriginal colleagues. The Aboriginal Rights Resource Tool Kit serves to assist workers and the
general public to gain a better understanding of Aboriginal issues. It will be a positive step for the
labour movement to welcome more Aboriginal workers into the workplace.
In addition, the Aboriginal Rights Resource Tool Kit can also be utilized to raise awareness among
rank-and-file union members. With the help of its content, various awareness raising activities and
tools, such as workshops, community forums or pamphlets, can be developed. The Tool Kit is for
people with different levels of awareness and knowledge about Aboriginal Peoples. For the novice,
it provides as panoramic a view as possible. For the more advanced user, the document has
incorporated up-to-date statistical material.
Moreover, CLC firmly believes that the Resource Tool Kit will make workers’ solidarity even stronger.
The topics in this Tool Kit on Aboriginal history, rights, demographics, social and living conditions,
etc. will enable the union leaders and organizers to engage in coalition building with grassroots
Aboriginal organizations or to launch organizing campaigns around a critical issue described in the
Kit. Also, certain common causes and structural links, such as unemployment due to racism, between
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal workers can be established quite easily. It will then, in effect, help
both groups of workers to form solidarity with each other.
In short, CLC membership is diverse and the Kit has been designed with that diversity of users in
mind. Although it has been created for CLC membership, other organizations, Aboriginal and nonAboriginal, may also find the Kit an useful public education tool:
1. Non-Aboriginal members may want to use the Kit to enhance their knowledge;
2. Aboriginal membership can use the Kit to raise awareness among their co-workers about their
issues of concerns and their current situation;
3. Union educators will be able to use the Kit for membership education on Aboriginal issues;
4. Equity advocates in the labour movement may want to use the Kit to develop effective strategies
to improve the status of Aboriginal Peoples;
5. Union organizers can use the Kit to launch a campaign on Aboriginal issues; and
6. Union leadership will be able to use the information in the Kit to lobby to the government on
issues of concerns to their Aboriginal members.
At the end, the CLC hopes that the affiliates will take the ownership of this document and use the
Tool Kit as a resource to develop activities, campaigns, courses, brochures and other initiatives to
assist workers to gain a better understanding of Aboriginal issues, to join in the fight for justice and
rights with Aboriginal workers and to create linkages with Aboriginal communities.
1.4
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Aboriginal Rights Resource
Tool Kit: Guidelines For Use
The Tool Kit has been developed as a resource
on Aboriginal issues. It has been organized with
tabs in a binder format which allows you to
personalize, expand and update the information
in it. You are encouraged to see this Kit as a
transitional educational tool that provides a basic
structure upon which you will build your own
personal experience and action.
Purpose of the Tool Kit
The Tool Kit has been developed:
• To provide you with background information and analysis
to understand the historical and contemporary situation of
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada;
• To enable you to contextualize the stories you hear on the
news about Aboriginal Peoples;
• To help dispel myths/stereotypes about Aboriginal Peoples;
• To communicate more effectively with brothers and sisters
in the labour movement who deal with these issues;
• To initiate an informed dialogue with Aboriginal Peoples
both within and outside of the labour movement;
• To enable respectful working relationships with Aboriginal
Peoples; and
• To provide you with some tools to take action in solidarity
with Aboriginal Peoples.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
1.5
SECTION ONE
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT: GUIDELINES FOR USE
Design of the Tool Kit
•
•
•
•
It is designed to be user-friendly and accessible;
It has been written in plain language;
Information has been organized in a specific way to maintain a logical flow in the topics;
A clear and structured formatting has been used to make information readily and easily accessible
to the readers;
• Certain features have been included to put key information at users’ fingertips; and
• Inter-related topics and sections has been put together in the Tool Kit.
Organization of Information
The Tool Kit is divided into six sections:
• Section One:
What is in this Tool Kit
Acknowledgements
Preface
Guidelines for Use
Introductory Analysis
• Section Two: The Historical and Contemporary Situation of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada
• Section Three: Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile of Aboriginal Peoples
• Section Four: Aboriginal Rights
• Section Five: Aboriginal Peoples and Labour Issues
• Section Six:
Resources: Misconceptions About Aboriginal Peoples, Definitions, Contact List
and Bibliography
(* For further details, please see the section on “Materials in this Kit”.)
• From Section Two through Five, each section includes several relevant topics/items. For example,
Section Two includes topics such as Treaties, Land Claims, Indian Act, etc.;
• Each topic begins with an “Overview” which says what is there under that topic;
• After Overview, there is a “Points To Remember” which summarizes the most important facts
related to that particular topic. This gives the users of the Kit a general understanding of the topic
and also a quick and efficient access to information about that topic;
• A text on the topic follows after that to provide you more details; and
• Many of the sections as well as topics ends with a “Chronology” to provide you a bird’s eye view
of the development of events.
Materials in this Tool Kit
Section One:
1.6
The Tool Kit begins with a dedication to the memory of A. Rodney Bobiwash,
who was instrumental in the development of the Tool Kit. It follows with a What
is in this Tool Kit which is a list of contents, and with an Acknowledgement.
Next comes the Preface which answers the following questions: a) what is the link
between the CLC’s commitment to anti-racism and the development of the Tool
Kit; b) how does the CLC foresee the Tool Kit being used by the labour movement
to fulfill that commitment?
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION ONE
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT: GUIDELINES FOR USE
Guidelines for Use is the next topic in this section. The Tool Kit is designed to be
user-friendly and flexible for people with different responsibilities and needs. The
Guidelines for Use describes mainly the organization and design characteristics of
the Tool Kit that facilitate this goal.
The section completes with an analysis of interlocking oppressions of race, gender
and class.
Section Two:
It focuses on the Historical and Contemporary Situation of Aboriginal Peoples in
Canada. In small information pages, a few pages long each, it takes a look at the
following historical issues affecting Aboriginal Peoples in Canada today:
• Aboriginal Societies at the time of Contact with Europeans and
The Impact of Contact;
• Understanding Treaties;
• Land Claims – Aboriginal Rights and Policies;
• The Indian Act;
• Self-Government – A Fundamental Human Right; and
• Native People and Environmental Crusaders: Racism, Re-Colonization
and Do-Gooders: An Interview with Rodney Bobiwash.
The section finishes with some thoughts on Racism and Environmentalism drawn
from an interview with Rodney Bobiwash, originally published in the book Sacred
Earth, Sacred Community: Jubilee, Ecology and Aboriginal Peoples.
Section Three:
This section puts out the demographic and socio-economic profile of Aboriginal
Peoples. It includes statistical information on Aboriginal Peoples related to three
broad categories: Profile of Aboriginal Peoples; Socio-Economic Status; and,
Living Conditions and Quality of Life.
Data have been provided on several items under each category which are
important for a clearer picture of the current status of Aboriginal Peoples.
We have tried to include as much comprehensive statistical information as possible
on various groups of Aboriginal Peoples, such as Registered and non-Registered
Indians, Métis and Inuits.
Data on Aboriginal women have also been included in separate paragraphs under
each item.
Comparisons have been made with data on non-Aboriginal population all
throughout the section.
Section Four:
It outlines Aboriginal Rights as a concept that has been developed over time.
The first item in this section is a “hands on” tool for use by educators and staff.
It is called Indigenous Rights: Discovering the Context; Theory and Practice at the
Juncture of Human Rights and Indigenous Rights in Canada.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
1.7
SECTION ONE
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT: GUIDELINES FOR USE
The presentation contains a wealth of information which examines the question
of Indigenous Rights in Canada and its cultural and historical context. The Notes
themselves are a valuable resource in the understanding of the origin of
Aboriginal Rights and how Aboriginal Peoples see and understand their rights
in modern times.
The Section also includes: the main essence of rights as it is understood by
Aboriginal Peoples; the rights of Aboriginal Peoples entrenched in the Constitution
Act of 1982 and its significance; some of the important jurisprudence of recent
times which have been instrumental in defining Aboriginal Rights in Canada.
The section ends with an analysis of Aboriginal women’s equality rights and
how it is defined by the Aboriginal women in the context of Aboriginal right
to self-government.
Section Five:
Deals specifically with Aboriginal workers and looks at their organizing rights,
special provisions for Aboriginal workers included in collective agreements,
examples of successful employment or training initiatives where all the
stakeholders, including unions, were involved and the dynamics between
Aboriginal employers and Aboriginal employees.
With the overwhelming youth demographic in the Aboriginal community, the
paradigm will shift significantly for employees and labour organizations who will
be dealing with access, recruitment, retention, equity and cultural and social issues
as a result of this. This section analyzes some of the important labour related
issues in that context.
Section Six:
The last section of the Tool Kit begins with some basic misconceptions about
Aboriginal Peoples. These misconceptions are often the source of prejudice
and stereotyping. Ten most frequently encountered misconceptions have been
included in this segment and factual information has been provided to dispel
these myths. The next segment is on definitions or the terms applied to Aboriginal
Peoples in Canada.
One of the most frequently asked questions asked when dealing with Native
People is, “How do I refer to you?” There are a number of names and terms out
there and it can be confusing – First Nation, Aboriginal, Indigenous, Métis,
Indian. What is the correct usage of each and which should I be using?
In addition, a list has been included in the section with addresses and contact
information for Aboriginal organizations across Canada, contacts in the labour
movement and web sites that one can use for further study or for workshops.
The section ends with a bibliography of books and articles that have been cited
or consulted for the development of information incorporated in the Tool Kit,
or have been suggested for further research.
1.8
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION ONE
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT: GUIDELINES FOR USE
How to Use the Tool Kit
The kit is designed to provide quick access to comprehensive information pertaining to Aboriginal
Peoples of Canada. It includes a variety of topics which are quite significant for understanding the
contemporary situation of Aboriginal population.
1. The Tool Kit itself has been organized with tabs for easy reference and in a binder format which
allows you to personalize, expand and update the information in it;
2. You are encouraged to see this Tool Kit as a transitional educational tool that provides a basic
structure upon which you will build your own personal experience;
3. The Tool Kit is deliberately a mix of shorter pieces and longer ones in order to be flexible
according to the uses that it might be put to, and the audiences who may be addressed by the
information in it; and
4. It is designed to provide quick access to information geared to Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
It is not necessary to read the entire Tool Kit for it to be beneficial. Read on to determine the
most efficient way to use the Kit.
Who Can Use the Kit
CLC membership is diverse and the Kit has been designed with that diversity of users in mind.
Although it has been created for CLC membership, other organizations, Aboriginal and nonAboriginal, may also find the Kit an useful public education tool.
• Non-Aboriginal members may want to use the Kit to enhance their knowledge;
• Aboriginal membership can use the Kit to raise awareness among their co-workers about their
issues of concerns and their current situation;
• Union educators will be able to use the Kit for membership education on Aboriginal issues;
• Equity advocates in the labour movement may want to use the Kit to develop effective strategies
to improve the status of Aboriginal Peoples;
• Union organizers can use the Kit to launch a campaign on Aboriginal issues; and
• Union leadership will be able to use the information in the Kit to lobby to the government on
issues of concerns to their Aboriginal members.
The hope is that this Tool Kit will serve you well and that it will build bridges between all of our
communities, in the end this is only a tool and like all tools its usefulness will be determined by how
you use it. There is at the very back of the Tool Kit an evaluation sheet which you can fill out and
mail back to the Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department of the Canadian Labour Congress
with suggestions for improving this Tool Kit. Again, you are encouraged to do this.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
1.9
Introductory Analysis
Interlocking Oppressions: Race (Racism), Gender
(Sexism) and Class (Exploitation)
The fundamental starting point of an analysis of the critical
issues of concerns to Aboriginal Peoples is an understanding of
the interlocking oppressions of race, class and gender. Neither
race (racism), gender (sexism) nor class (exploitation) can be
understood in isolation from the other two concepts. Each of
these concepts, each of these realities is being continuously
created and re-created in social life through the political and
economic institutions of our capitalist society. These oppressions
are critical to how capitalism functions and these are the tools
that capitalism uses to control the resources necessary to maintain
a system of production which produces maximum profit.
To workers and trade unionists, class is a concept which is more
easily understood as a social structure such as capitalism wherein
one group of people live off the labour of another. And class
analysis is critical to understand the events in our society, past
and present. Yet again, without the related concepts of race and
gender, class analysis by itself is quite incomplete. It is not
enough to say that workers are exploited by capitalists, which is
only partially true, unless we realize that certain workers because
of their race or gender or both, are exploited in particular ways
that other workers are not.
As people struggle against these three forms of oppression and
domination, the dominant group of society changes the
definitions of these three concepts to legitimize their oppression.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
1.11
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTORY ANALYSIS
In other words, race, gender and class are social concepts and thus only exist through social actions.
They are products of human history and not the products of some fixed biological nature. In the case
of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, the European colonial powers after coming to Canada, began
exploiting the labour power of Aboriginal men and women to establish fur trade in North America.
In the process, they used race and gender to create a hierarchical division of labour placing
Aboriginal men and women at the bottom of the class structure. Consequently, the Aboriginal
Peoples’ status in Canadian society was determined by all three factors: race, class and gender.
Race, gender and class are inter-connected processes, not separate systems. Certain economic
practices cannot be reduced down to only one form of oppression. For example, colonization of
Aboriginal Peoples was at the same time a system of race and class oppression: Aboriginal Peoples
were forced to give up their land; their cultural practices were eliminated; Europeans created an
under-class by engaging Aboriginal Peoples forcibly to gather fur and in exchange receive goods
needed for basic survival. Aboriginal Peoples were barred to work as wage workers with a guaranteed
and easier source of income, only Europeans could work in that capacity.
In other words, a person does not experience these forms of domination and subjugation independently
of one another. For example, before the European contact, the Aboriginal women had equalitarian
relations with men in terms of work and status in the society. Both men and women worked side by
side in production of food and other items necessary for their survival and the fruits of their labour
were shared by the entire community equally. After the arrival of Europeans, Aboriginal women were
forced to work to upkeep the fur trading posts. Their jobs were regarded as less important than the
Aboriginal men which resulted in receiving lower value for their labour. This created a hierarchy
between sexes in Aboriginal society and Aboriginal women started to experience sexism from Aboriginal
men and racism from Europeans and they were further disadvantaged by class discrimination as the
value of their labour was put in the bottom rung of the fur production system.
In short, there is no common racial experience for Aboriginal Peoples that does not involve gender and
class, similarly, there is no common gender experience for women that does not involve race and class
and; finally, there is no common class experience for workers that does not involve race and gender.
1.12
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Aboriginal Societies at the
Time of Contact with Europeans
and the Impact of Contact
Overview
This topic provides information on historical
events, including some of the recent developments,
that are considered as milestones in the history of
Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
The content primarily is focussed on events in
the post-European contact period, but a brief text
has also been included to provide a description
of Aboriginal communities in the pre-European
contact period.
The information provided is not an exhaustive
historical chronology, but rather important
contextual historical information, including
mention of some early treaties, which influenced
and determined the present situation of Aboriginal
Peoples in Canada.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.1
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Points to Remember
North American Aboriginal Peoples probably came from northeastern Asia via Siberia and the
Bering Strait. The first wave came between 40,000 and 70,000 years BC. The second wave, was
25,000 years BC, and then Inuit migrations some 15,000 years ago. The last wave, Inuit maritime
migration, was 5,500 years BC. At the time of contact with European explorers and fishermen in
the late 15th Century, the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada had spread into each of the six major
regions of the northern half of the continent.
As European awareness of the new world grew, attempts at settlement, trade and exploration
followed. Most important, however, in terms of the subsequent relationships between Aboriginal
Peoples and Europeans in Canada, were the French and the British. Both Europeans and Aboriginal
Peoples saw the exchange of metal and cloth goods for furs as advantageous. These beginnings
of trade reshaped both the Aboriginal and the European societies participating in it.
Aboriginal societies were often initially strengthened by trade, but other changes were dramatic
and devastating. European diseases devastated Aboriginal communities. The introduction of guns
and alcohol had a disruptive influence. Competition between Aboriginal groups for control of furs,
access to trade routes and to the Europeans sometimes led to open warfare.
The seventeenth century was a period of rivalry in which European conflicts spilled over into
the New World. Aboriginal Peoples generally formed alliances with one or the other European
power to gain assistance in wars against their traditional enemies. At the same time, European
alliances with Aboriginal Peoples allowed them to gain ascendancy over their rivals and
penetrate further into the interior of the continent.
French policy focussed on the fur trade and protecting it from British interference through
alliances with Aboriginal groups, which were seen as independent, outside the reach of French
sovereignty. Unlike the French, the policies of the British involved land as well as trade. Britain
established agricultural colonies that resulted in significantly higher populations than in the
trade-oriented colonies of France.
By 1659, the French and English had begun competition for the Hudson’s Bay trade. The
Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) was created in 1670 by the British and the Company took control
over the area known as Rupert’s Land, a large and ill-defined region ringing the Bay.
The fierce competition for fur trade between English and French and between the Hudson’s Bay
Company and other rival companies depleted fur bearing animals more quickly, raising
dependency on European goods and increasing food shortages among the Indians. This situation
had both social and demographic impacts on Native Peoples.
At the same time, the invasion of Indian lands by mostly British settlers continued, creating a
simmering resentment among Britain’s Aboriginal allies who did not see themselves as having
been conquered in the wars between European powers in America.
2.2
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was an attempt by the British to address the illegal encroachment
of Aboriginal land. The Proclamation established an Indian Territory in which Whites could not
settle or buy lands and it also clearly stated that land cessions could only be made by Aboriginal
Peoples through treaties with the Crown.
After 1796, when Anglo-American relations improved, land superseded military policy as the
focus of the British Indian Department. Responsibility for Indian Affairs was transferred by Royal
Instructions from military control to civil authority by 1800. Nonetheless, from 1796 to 1830,
Aboriginal Peoples continued to govern themselves.
However, the reach of the Indian Affairs Department slowly began extending into every facet of
the lives of Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples. A new policy was developed in 1830 promoting
civilization and Christianization through a program of assimilation of Aboriginal Peoples into the
larger society. This policy was further reinforced and accelerated in the post-Confederation
period as well by the 1857 Gradual Civilization Act, by the First Indian Act of 1868 and 1876 and
also by the Enfranchisement Act of 1869, all built on the pre-Confederation policy of protection,
assimilation and Christianization of Aboriginal Peoples.
In the meantime, the British Crown created Manitoba in 1870 with1,400,000 acres of lands
set aside from Rupert’s Land for the “benefit of the families of the half-bred (Métis) residents.”
But the federal government retained control of Manitoba’s natural resources and the remaining
portions of Rupert’s Land. However, for bureaucratic difficulties and fraud, very few Métis
managed to keep title to any of the 1,400,000 acres.
As a result, in 1885, the Métis, under the leadership of Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, took up
arms and fought with the federal government. The government forces defeated the Métis and
executed their leader Louis Riel. Following this, the government established a Scrip Commission,
which lasted until 1921, to address the Métis’ grievances. However, due to the half-hearted
efforts by both the federal and provincial government to genuinely take care of this situation,
the Scrip Commissions could not resolve the issue of Métis land rights and their grievances
have persisted to the present.
The federal government continued disregarding the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and therefore,
the encroachment of Aboriginal land persisted. Two of the blatant examples were the Greater
Production Campaign in World War I and Soldier Settlement Act of 1919 which allowed the
Aboriginal land to be used for the purpose of increased production of crops and settlement of
returning soldiers.
After World War II, the federal government was forced to pay serious attention to the plight of the
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. As it had been in World War I, Aboriginal participation in World War
II had been high. The unequal treatment of Aboriginal veterans and the destitute condition they
were in upon their return from war, once more increased awareness of the problems faced by
Native Peoples. It prompted the federal government to consult with Aboriginal leaders. Thus, the
changes made in the Indian Act of 1951 contained some inputs from these consultations.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.3
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Points to Remember
Since the sixties, more extensive changes in the relations between Aboriginal Peoples and nonAboriginal people in Canada occurred. The federal government finally acknowledged a limited
responsibility for Aboriginal land claims and a new policy was announced in 1973 to deal with
Aboriginal land titles. In tandem with the resolution of land claims, discussion of Indian selfgovernment increased. A significant result of this was the recognition and affirmation in the
Constitution Act, 1982 of “existing Aboriginal and treaty rights” for all Aboriginal Peoples of
Canada, Indian, Métis and Inuit.
The land allotment fell short of the required territory for a society whose traditional subsistence
was obtained by hunting and trapping. Although many Métis were switching to farming with the
decline of the fur trade and of the buffalo, the steady increase of settlers on their lands presented
a new threat. The Métis tried several approaches to alleviate their dilemma. Some requested
grants to assist them in developing their farms. Some Métis claimed an Aboriginal title to their
traditional lands, while others sought large reserve areas similar to those set apart for Indians by
treaty. This would have allowed them to reserve their traditional long river lot holdings.
The federal government rejected any Aboriginal right for the Métis, considering them little more
than squatters on the land. Further, the government policy was to issue only a fixed plot of land
for each individual Métis claim. Many of the Métis moved west to the Northwest Territories,
where river-front land was still available.
By the early 1880’s, the Métis, who had organized politically during their struggle against the
control of the Hudson’s Bay Company a decade earlier, experienced new tensions with the
federal government over the loss of land in their new location. In 1885, under the leadership of
Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, they took up arms, and were joined by some Prairie Bands
resisting the treaty process. Their defeat at Batoche, and the trial and execution of Riel created
controversy across the new Dominion. Punitive measures against the Indian participants included
confining them to their reserves.
The federal government had been slow to respond to the decade of protestations from the Métis
before 1885. Although the Scrip System was extended to the Territories in 1879, few Métis
acquired land. As a result of their persistent demands and the events of 1885, the government
established a Scrip Commission and ordered a census of Métis people born before 1870. The
Commission envisaged that each Métis family would be entitled to a certain acreage of land or
the cash equivalent. Only with these initiatives did the Métis obtain what amounted to little more
than was granted to any new settler, despite their long standing claims to the land. The first
Scrip Commission was convened on March 30, 1885, the last in 1921. In all, a dozen
Commissions met; four sitting between 1885-89 dealt with the land abuses of 1870-85; three
others addressed Métis claims in Treaties 5, 8, 10, 11 and an adhesion to Treaty 6; and, the
remainder were associated with lands in northern Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
2.4
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The Scrip Commissions did not resolve the issue of Métis land rights, however, and their
grievances have persisted to the present. Part of the difficulty is that both federal and provincial
levels of government assert that the other has responsibility for the Métis, who are not included
in the Indian Act. Both levels of government have made only partial attempts to resolve this
issue; Alberta and Quebec established special colonies for destitute Métis, while the federal
government has established programs through departments other than Indian Affairs. However,
Métis and non-Status Indians generally have had much more difficulty bringing their cases
before the public and the politicians than have Status Indians.
By 1877, a series of seven treaties were negotiated covering a region stretching from
immediately west of Lake Superior through the Prairies to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains.
Treaty making slowed down for twenty years after that while the Prairies filled up with
immigrants. Between 1899 and 1930, further treaties were negotiated covering northern Ontario,
the northern parts of the Prairie provinces into the Athabaska region, and northern British
Columbia. These treaties usually involved payment of small, fixed annual per capita sums or
“annuities” and the allocation of reserves based on a formula, typically one square mile per
family of five.
In 1811, an agricultural colony was established at Red River which had an irrevocable impact on
the lives of the Métis who had migrated there from around the Great Lakes. The new colony was
a direct threat to the survival of the Métis.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.5
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Introduction
“At the beginning , the sea everywhere covered the earth.
Above extended a swirling cloud and within it the Great
Spirit moved. Primordial, everlasting, invisible, omnipresent
– the Great Spirit moved. Bringing forth the sky, the earth,
the clouds, the heavens. Bringing forth the day, the night,
the stars. Bringing forth all of these to move in harmony.”
Wallum Olum (The Sacred Texts of the Delaware or Lenni Lenape)
In order to understand the relationship between Canada’s First Peoples and non-Aboriginal
Canadians and to appreciate the Aboriginal Peoples’ aspirations for their inherent rights to the land,
resources and self-government, we have to look back in history at the time of first contact of the
Aboriginal Peoples with the Europeans.
Long before the first European settlers crossed the Atlantic, prior to the “discovery” of the Americas
by Europeans, it was estimated that up to 90 million Aboriginal Peoples lived across the Americas.
Their societies were organized in very different ways socially, culturally and economically from one
another depending upon where they were located. It is theorized that in North America there were a
number of great political and trade confederacies that existed at this time. These included those of
the Anishnabai of the Great Lakes; the Haudonosonee of the Southern and Eastern Great Lakes; the
Mississippian Peoples of the Mississippi River Basin; the Mandan of the Great Plains; the Peoples of
the Southwest; and many others. These Confederacies were the central political bodies of these
peoples, who were mostly united by language and geopolitical interests. Trade between the various
peoples was extensive.
Food gathering, was much greater than people of comparable times and societies. In general, people
were healthy and lived to a much older age than Europeans at the same time. Their diets varied
according to the local resources available to them with diets higher in protein and lower in carbohydrates
being the norm. They also developed complex ceremonial systems and spiritual understandings of
the universe. There was an immense amount of trade, travel and interchange between various Native
societies, all of which contributed to a rich understanding of the community and individuals place in
the universe in relation to one another and the natural world. While conflict between peoples was
inevitable, warfare was conducted according to a series of accepted protocols which guaranteed the
survival of the Nations as a whole - it was accepted that war was made to secure gain rather than to
exterminate your enemy. Similarly, justice was based on compensation and remedy rather than
punishment, with severe punishment reserved only for the most heinous crimes. Therefore, contrary
to popular belief, it was not an empty land here when the Europeans first arrived.
2.6
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Time of the First Encounter
The following excerpt is from the speech of Chief Seattle in 1854 and illustrates well the clash of
cultures and world views that occurred when Native met European. This speech was given as a
response to the American President who offered to buy a large tract of Indian Land in what is now
Washington State and ordered Chief Seattle’s Peoples to move to a reservation.
“Every part of the earth is sacred… Every shining pine
needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods,
every clearing and humming insect is holy….
We are part of the earth and it is part of us….
The white man is a stranger who comes in the night and
takes from the land whatever he needs.
The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has
conquered it he moves on.
His appetite will devour the earth, and leave behind only
a desert.
All things are connected.
Teach your children that the earth is our mother.
Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth.
This we know: The earth does not belong to man; man
belongs to the earth. This we know.
Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in
it. Whatever he does to the web he does to himself.”
Most important, however, in terms of the subsequent relationships between Aboriginal Peoples and
Europeans in Canada, were the French and the British. Aboriginal Peoples of the southeastern
regions of Canada were to first meet Europeans traders and settlers. It was the Indigenous
population’s support and sharing of knowledge that enabled the earliest European settlers to survive
in Canada’s harsh environment. As the fur traders moved into unsettled areas, particularly in the
West, liaisons between Europeans and Aboriginal Peoples led to the creation of an additional
Aboriginal group, the Métis. Mixing its European and Aboriginal heritage, this evolving group
developed its own culture and a strong sense of community.
Encounters between Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginal People began to increase in number and
complexity in the 1500s. For the most part, Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginal people
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.7
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
maintained cautious cooperation and saw each other as separate, distinct, independent and in charge
of its own affairs. Early contact unfolded roughly as follows:
• Mutual curiosity and apprehension;
• An exchange of goods, tentative at first, then expanding steadily;
• Barter and trade deals, friendships and inter-marriage, creating bonds between individuals and
families;
• Military and trade alliances, creating bonds between and among Nations; and
• European newcomers receiving help from the Aboriginal Peoples in surviving the climate and in
succeeding in fishing, whaling and fur trading.
The Fur Trade and Alliances: Colonial Policy after 1500s
Subsequently, after 1500, with the rise of the fur trade, the relationship between the Aboriginal Peoples
and the Europeans changed radically. Competition between Aboriginal groups for control of furs,
access to trade routes and to the Europeans sometimes led to open warfare. The introduction of guns
and alcohol had a disruptive influence. The Aboriginal societies, for the first time, became exposed
to, and were devastated by, European diseases.
During the colonial period, from the beginning of British colonization in 1607 to the end of the
American Revolution in 1783, political relations between European and Aboriginal groups were
determined as much by Aboriginal Peoples as by European interests and concerns. It was a period of
rivalry in which European conflicts spilled over into the New World, where the goals and interests of
European powers and Aboriginal Nations meshed and collided. Aboriginal Peoples generally formed
alliances with one or the other European power to gain assistance in wars against their traditional
enemies. At the same time, European alliances with Aboriginal Peoples allowed them to gain ascendancy
over their rivals and penetrate further into the interior of the continent.
French policy was focussed on the fur trade and protecting it from British interference through
alliances with Aboriginal groups. The emphasis in French policy included establishment of King’s
posts in competition with the English, legalization of the activities of the coureurs de bois or the fur
traders and loggers, the founding of Detroit in 1701, and lavish use of gifts for diplomatic advantage.
Through this policy, the French were able to maintain control over the interior until 1760. The
French presence extended from Newfoundland and Labrador, through the St. Lawrence valley, to the
headwaters of the Mississippi and around the Great Lakes. In Acadia, French and Micmac military
alliances were the most important aspect of French policy. The French were able to maintain the
loyalty of the Micmac even after the acquisition of the region by the British in 1713. The Micmac,
however, had never ceded their right to the land to anyone, even to their French allies.
Unlike the French, the policies of the British involved land as well as trade. Britain established
agricultural colonies that resulted in significantly higher populations than in the trade-oriented
colonies of France. Colonial governments acted relatively independently, creating a patchwork of
policies that lacked coherence. The creation of the Indian Department by the Imperial government
2.8
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
in 1755 alleviated the lack of central control and strengthened the ability of the British to establish
alliances with Aboriginal groups. British Aboriginal allies were encouraged either to fight the French
or to maintain neutrality. The establishment of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1670 and the victory
in the Seven Years’ War with France, gave the British further stronghold over trade as well as over a
vast area of land. Britain slowly gained control over all of North America east of the Mississippi and
began to consolidate its gains by fortifying the fur trade, controlling developments in Indian territory
and also by implementing governing structures. At the end, the British Indian Department also took
responsibility for Indian Affairs in regions formerly under French control and relations between the
British and the Aboriginal Peoples formerly allied with the French were strained.
The competition between English and French and the creation of a fur trading monopoly, had both
social and demographic impacts on Native Peoples. The increased demand for fur depleted furbearing animals more quickly, raising dependency on European goods and increasing food shortages
among the Indians. Hence, as the natural resources that had long sustained Native economies began
increasingly to disappear, the dependence of Europeans on Aboriginal Peoples was displaced by the
dependence of Aboriginal Peoples on Europeans and their supplies.
Demand for Land and Aboriginal Land Acquisition:
Imperial Policies of 1700s
The need for land for the settlers who eventually followed the fur traders and missionaries evolved
and consequently, the invasion of Aboriginal lands by white settlers continued, creating a simmering
resentment among Aboriginal Peoples who did not see the European powers in America as
conquerors and themselves as conquered Nations relinquishing their rights to the land.
With the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the British attempted to address this growing resentment and
to establish the basis for a colonial policy with respect to Indian land. In the Proclamation, which set
out the boundaries of the newly acquired province of Quebec and those of the American Colonies,
Aboriginal rights were more clearly defined. The Proclamation specifically reserved a large tract of
land for the use of the Aboriginal Peoples. Purchase or settlement of this land was forbidden without
special leave from the Crown. The rules specified that Aboriginal Peoples could sell land only to
crown representatives. The Proclamation required public negotiation and agreement of the Aboriginal
Peoples and prohibited any private acquisition of Aboriginal land. Thereafter, it was government
policy that, while title to the land mass of Canada was vested in the Crown, the Aboriginal Peoples
could continue to use and occupy the land. This right to land is often referred to as “Indian” or
“Aboriginal” title. It was to be administered by the Indian Department and proper procedures for
dealing with the Aboriginal Peoples were provided in instructions to governors and agents. The
American War of Independence (1775-1783) had a further impact on relations between the British
and the Aboriginal Peoples, particularly their Aboriginal allies around the Great Lakes and in Nova
Scotia. (Many Aboriginal Nations supported and fought on the side of the British in that war, in
exchange for their land, hunting and fishing rights. They felt betrayed when their rights were
completely ignored by the British who turned over the Indian lands in the Ohio valley to the
Americans at the negotiations of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.)
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.9
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Civilization and Christianization:
Imperial Policies of Assimilation of 1800s
“... non-Aboriginal society made repeated attempts to recast
Aboriginal Peoples and their distinct forms of social
organization so they would conform to the expectations
of what had become the mainstream. In this period,
interventions in Aboriginal societies reached their peak,
taking the form of relocations, residential schools, the
outlawing of Aboriginal cultural practices, and various other
interventionist measures of the type found in the Indian Acts
of the late 1800 and early 1900s.”
Chapter 3 – Conceptions of History, pg. 38;
Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
Volume 1 – Looking Forward, Looking Back, 1996
Anglo-American relations improved after 1796 and in 1830, the British Indian Department had
ceased as a branch of the military. It became a Department of Indian Affairs and the direction of the
Department was transferred from the Imperial authorities to the Province of Canada. The burgeoning
population of Upper Canada continued to encroach on lands occupied by Aboriginal Peoples, who
began to be seen as barriers to the advance of European settlement. Missionaries from both the US
and Britain were pressuring governments to improve the lot of Native Peoples through programs
designed to “civilize” them by teaching them both farming and Christianity. As a result, the colonial
policy took a new direction and began to put an emphasis on the acquisition of Indian land in
exchange for the perceived benefits of European society and religion.
The nature of the responsibility assumed by the new Department of Indian Affairs in the nineteenth
century is clearly illustrated by various statutes passed during this period. The ultimate thrust of all
such statutes was to “civilize” the Aboriginal population so that they would forsake their “Indian”
heritage, and achieve assimilation and integration as soon as possible.
This new policy direction brought drastic changes for the Aboriginal population. It promoted the socalled “civilization” and “Christianization” through the use of Reserved land. The Aboriginal Peoples
were to be relocated to these “Reserves” once treaties had been negotiated with them. The bulk of
their lands, thus acquired, could then be sold to settlers. It resulted in the transfer of thousands of
acres of land from the hands of Native Peoples to settlers. Municipal style government was
established on Reserves, the goal being to acquaint Aboriginal Peoples with the ways of the larger
society, enabling their assimilation into it.
The ultimate goal of assimilation received explicit declaration in the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857.
In the effort to reinforce and accelerate the assimilation of Native Peoples into the larger society, this
2.10
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Act provided for the enfranchisement of Indians of “sufficiently advanced” education or of Indians
who would be “capable of managing their own affairs.” The enfranchised Indians were granted 20
hectares of reserve land and an amount of money equal to his lost annuities. Additional amendments
to the Act in 1880 and 1933 took the concept of enfranchisement even further by removing Status
from Indians who had become university educated, even without a request for enfranchisement from
the individuals concerned. The policy makers arrogantly believed that the gain of active participation
in White society would more than compensate for the loss of Indian Status.
The policy of “civilization” developed to include cultural destruction at the time of the disturbance
surrounding the Riel Rebellion. In 1884, 1895, 1914 and 1933, laws were introduced barring the
incitement of riots among Aboriginal Peoples and half-breeds, banning the sale of “ammunition”
and proscribing traditional Aboriginal practices and celebrations such as “Potlach” and “Sun Dance.”
Regional differences continued in the Indian policy of the new Dominion. In the East, legislation and
policy focussed on enfranchisement and establishment of a band council system based on elections
rather than traditional means of selection. In the West, however, the immediate task of the New
Dominion government was to make extinct the Indian title in Rupert’s Land. By 1877, a series of
seven treaties were negotiated covering a region stretching from immediately west of Lake Superior
through the prairies to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Further treaties were negotiated between
1899 and 1930 covering northern Ontario, the northern parts of the prairie provinces into the
Athabaska region, and northern British Columbia.
(The word “enfranchisement” was used by the government to describe the process by which to deny
one’s right to register for Status under the Indian Act. However, the dictionary meaning of the term
is "certification." In this case, therefore, it was actually a system which was used to "de-enfranchise"
(de-certification or loss of Status) the Aboriginal Peoples. However, in this Tool Kit, the term
enfranchisement has been used since it was the term in the Enfranchisement Act.)
Creation of Manitoba: Métis in New Confederation
In 1870, prior to the treaty-making process, Manitoba was created. This was a result of demands
made by the Métis, who felt that their rights had been violated in the acquisition of Rupert’s Land.
Led by Louis Riel, an inspired yet controversial visionary, the Métis demanded parliamentary
representation in Ottawa, their own elected legislature, and official status of both the English and
French languages. The Manitoba Act of 1870 complied with many of these demands, including the
setting aside of 1,400,000 acres of lands for the “benefit of the families of the half-breed residents”
of the new province. But the federal government retained control of Manitoba’s natural resources
and the remaining portions of Rupert’s Land. The land allotment fell short of the required territory
for a society whose traditional subsistence was obtained by hunting and trapping. Although many
Métis were switching to farming with the decline of the fur trade and of the buffalo, the steady increase
of settlers on their lands presented a new threat. The federal government refused to treat the Métis as
Indians and rejected any Aboriginal right for the mixed bloods, considering them little more than
squatters on the land. Further, the government attempted to deal with them on an individual, not a
group basis. The thrust of the government’s approach to the Métis claim was to provide a paper or
“scrip” redeemable for a fixed plot of land. However, the plan was riddled with bureaucratic
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.11
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
difficulties and fraud and fewer than one thousand Métis managed to keep title to any of the
1,400,000 acres.
The federal government had been slow to respond to the decade of protestations from the Métis
and in 1885, under the leadership of Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, the Métis took up arms in
frustration, and were defeated at Batoche. The subsequent trial and execution of Riel created
controversy across the new Dominion which led the government to establish a Scrip Commission
and ordered a census of Métis Peoples born before 1870. The Commission envisaged that each Métis
family would be entitled to a certain acreage of land or the cash equivalent. Only with these initiatives
did the Métis obtain what amounted to little more than was granted to any new settler, despite their
long standing claims to the land. As such, the Scrip Commissions did not resolve the issue of Métis
land rights and their grievances have persisted to the present.
The Second World War to the Present:
Absolute Failure of Assimilation Policies
“This stage in the relationship between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal societies, which takes us to the present day, is
characterized by non-Aboriginal society’s admission of the
manifest failure of its interventionist and assimilationist
approach.... As a result, non-Aboriginal society is haltingly
beginning the search for change in the relationship. A period of
dialogue, consultation and negotiation ensues, in which a
range of options, centering on the concept of full Aboriginal
self-government and restoration of the original partnership of
the contact and co-operation period, is considered.”
Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1 –
Looking Forward, Looking Back
Aboriginal policy, which remained stagnant through the 1920s, had even further limited policy
development during the Great Depression followed by the Second World War. The effects of the
Depression on Aboriginal Peoples were determined largely by the type of economic activities in
which they were engaged. Those who had retained more traditional subsistence practices managed
to provide for themselves from the land. Aboriginal Peoples who had taken up farming on the
prairies or had entered the wage economy, particularly those working in the fishing industry in
British Columbia, suffered wage and price losses more deeply than other Canadians and generally
recovered more slowly.
At the end of the Second World War, the federal government began to pay more attention to the
conditions under which Native Peoples lived. As it had been in World War I, the Aboriginal
participation in World War II had been high. The return of Native veterans once more increased
2.12
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
awareness of the problems faced by Native Peoples. Hearings were held by a Joint Committee of the
Senate and House of Commons in 1946-48 which resulted in the Indian Act of 1951 containing
revisions based on consultation with Native leaders, including limitations on the powers of the
Minister of Indian Affairs (although some powers were devolved to the provinces) and increased
band control over local matters. In 1964, a “Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada” by Harry
Hawthorn and M.A. Tremblay, was commissioned by the federal government to examine the social,
economic and educational position of Indians in the different regions of Canada. In response to this
survey report, the government came up with the controversial White Paper of 1969. The White Paper
of 1969 ignored the policy recommendations of the Hawthorn Report and presented only another
thinly disguised form of the assimilationist goal based on a candid rejection of any special Aboriginal
rights. Native leaders angrily rejected the White Paper, presenting their own Red Paper, entitled
“Citizen Plus,” to the government. In the face of sustained opposition, the government withdrew the
White Paper. The status quo, it was decided, would remain until Native communities came up with
alternatives acceptable to both sides.
The government finally admitted the foul-up and blunder made by its assimilationist policies. It also
acknowledged a limited responsibility for Native land claims, and the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development (DIAND) was instructed to resolve such claims through a new policy
announced in 1973. Following the policy, a successful resolution of a claim to the eastern Arctic
resulted in the creation of Nunavut in 1999. In 1980s, in tandem with the resolution of land claims,
discussion of Aboriginal self-government has increased. Discussions have also gone forward to
redress the gender imbalances that have been part of the Indian Act since 1868.
However, relations between Euro-Canadians and the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada remain complex.
The Aboriginal groups began their effort to re-establish their own societies suffering from many
years of dominance by non-Aboriginal people. They have also taken steps in order to gain control
over their own affairs by reducing reactive and unilateral interventions by the non-Aboriginal society.
The traditional struggle for land and treaty rights has broadened to include the issue of the rights
of urban Natives and other non-Status, off-Reserve Indians as well as Métis claims to lands in Manitoba,
Alberta and Saskatchewan. In 1990s, a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was set up with
a broad mandate to examine in detail the relations, both historical and contemporary, among the
Aboriginal Peoples and Euro-Canadian People of Canada. Overall, from 1990s onwards, earnest
and conscientious attempts have been made by Aboriginal Peoples and groups as well as by nonAboriginal people sympathetic to Aboriginal cause to establish a relationship of mutual recognition
and respect for differences.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.13
Understanding Treaties
Overview
Information has been provided here to facilitate
a greater understanding of the “treaties” signed
between the European governments in Canada
and the Aboriginal Peoples:
• Circumstances and reasons behind the signing
of the “treaties”;
• Interpretation and understanding of the intent
of the “treaties”;
• Types, nature and content of the “treaties”; and
• Political Implications of these “treaties” today.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.15
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Points to Remember
A treaty is a formal agreement between Nations, signed and approved by all parties. The rights
of Aboriginal Peoples, who signed treaties with the colonial governments, are specified in the
treaties. These are called treaty rights and cover different areas.
A treaty in Canada is unique in that it is not an agreement between the conquerors and the
unconquered. These were agreements between autonomous Nations. By signing treaties, the
Aboriginal Nations did not give up their Nationhood or their own ways of living, working and
self-governing. Rather, it was a mechanism to achieve peace and harmony, to agree on rules
of coexistence and solving disputes between Peoples, Nations and governments.
The Europeans needed to establish alliances with Aboriginal Peoples in order to protect their
trade and other interests on this continent. Therefore, they signed treaties with the Aboriginal
Nations to formalize cooperation and alliances. Later on, however, treaties became an instrument
to expropriate land for European settlers.
The Europeans’ approach to the treaties was very different from the Aboriginal view. Europeans,
by signing the treaties, expected the Aboriginal Nations to come under the authority of the
monarch and to give up their land for European settlements.
In the early 1700s, the British Crown utilized the treaty-making process for cessation of hostilities,
peace and friendship with Aboriginal Tribes in the Maritimes and in Quebec. They also confirmed
the right of Aboriginal Peoples to hunt and fish at liberty as they had been accustomed to doing.
The most significant date in Canadian treaty that matters is October 7, 1763, when Britain issued
the Royal Proclamation outlining its plans for the new colony. It acknowledged that Aboriginal
Peoples lived as nations and had a claim to their traditional lands. It also stated that only the Colonial
government, and not individual settler, could buy Aboriginal lands only upon signing a treaty.
Thereafter, the discovery of minerals north of Lakes Superior and Huron precipitated the
negotiation of the Robinson Treaties in 1850 with the Ojibway. Similarly, plans to extend Colonial
domination in the Fertile Belt region of the Prairies led to signing of Treaties Nos. 1 through 7
between 1871 and 1877; the discovery of gold at the Klondike River needed clearing of the
access route from Edmonton to Pelly River and this was the main reason behind the Treaty No. 8
in 1899; plans for construction of roads and railways brought about the Treaty No. 9 in 1905;
Treaty No. 10 in 1906 was signed to establish Crown’s firm control in the newest two provinces
of the Dominion – Saskatchewan and Alberta; then in 1920, the discovery of oil at Norman Wells,
led to Treaty No. 11.
Besides the above mentioned historical and numbered treaties, there is a third group of treaties
which are known as Modern Treaties, consist of land claims negotiated according to Canada’s
Land Claim Policy established in 1973. Historically Aboriginal Peoples saw their lands
expropriated, and, for some time, Aboriginal Peoples were also denied the right to own land.
Negotiations of modern treaties consisting of land claims seek to restore these rights.
2.16
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The motivation for Aboriginal Peoples behind signing of treaties was primarily to protect their
land and natural habitat from land-grabbing settlers. Moreover, with the destruction of buffalo
herds and the advent of railways, their way of life was collapsing. Therefore, through treaties,
the Aboriginal Nations sought protection of their land which they could call their own and gained
compensation and ensured survival of their people amidst rapidly changing conditions.
Since the 1870s to the present, many Aboriginal Peoples have claimed that the treaties have
been misinterpreted and that many terms have not been honoured because the treaties did not
include some oral promises made by government negotiators. On the other hand, the government
has always insisted on looking only at the written document.
Thus, the nature and extent of the implementation of treaty provisions have been a constant
source of grievance in this area. Although Aboriginal treaty rights are now guaranteed in the
Canadian Constitution, yet the narrow interpretation of treaty rights and the discretionary power
of the federal government to deny treaty promises have led to long court cases and a stalemate
situation, and at the end, non-implementation of treaty provisions.
PHOTO: NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF CANADA
At the same time, federal policy and its instrument, the Indian Act, have failed to keep faith
with the treaties made with the Aboriginal Peoples or to confer any meaningful powers of selfgovernment on the Aboriginal Peoples. It presently appears that no substantial change from
policies of the last one hundred years has yet been contemplated.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.17
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Introduction
“Our treaties were entered into by using the sacred ways of
our First Nations Peoples, that is, the sacred pipe, sacred
tobacco, sacred sweet grass, and sacred power of our Mother
Earth. Our treaties were made to last forever: As long as the
sun shines, the river flows, and the grass grows. Through
treaty it was understood that the settlers would use the land
for agricultural and other purposes related to homestead
economy. It was also understood that the First Nations would
have access to and benefit from natural resources and all
other lands. By entering into the treaty, the Crown accepted
certain responsibilities, fiduciary and otherwise, which the
federal government would administer and uphold. The
failure of the federal government to uphold responsibilities
and to obey the terms of the treaty is well known, well
documented and notorious. Among its failures, the Crown
has not provided First Nations with access to their resources,
instead the Crown has appropriated the resources for its own
use. The government has not permitted the First Nations,
to share in the control and management of the resources.
In 1930, the government entered into a series of agreements
with the provinces through which it committed the transfer of
unoccupied lands and resources. There was no consultation
with the First Nations to define, permit, and engage in legal
actions on their own behalf. In making the transfer, the
federal government did not consider, or act to protect, the
First Nations’ interests. The agreements were later confirmed
by Parliament by each of the three provincial legislatures.
Parliament actions could now be considered null and void.
The conduct of the federal government appears to be contrary
to its treaty and fiduciary responsibilities.”
Huntinghawk, Mervin, “Since Time Immemorial: Treaty Land
Entitlement in Manitoba” In Sacred Lands Aboriginal World Views,
Claims, and Conflicts. Jill Oakes, Rick Riewe, Kathi Kinew and Elaine
Maloney, eds.Occasional Publication No. 43. Winnipeg: Canadian
Circumpolar Institute. 1998
A treaty in Canada is unique in that it is not an agreement between the conquerors and the
unconquered. The Aboriginals and the Europeans came to the table as equals, neither having ceded
or surrendered anything; their major task, then, was to explicate and elaborate the terms under which
both nations could peacefully, cooperatively, and reasonably co-exist and join together in unity. Thus,
Canada was built on the formal treaty alliances that European explorers, military commanders and
later civil authorities were able to forge with the Nations they encountered on this continent.
2.18
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
During the early stages of European settlement, Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginal people, for
the most part, maintained cautious cooperation and saw each other as separate, distinct, independent
and in charge of its own affairs. Cooperation was formalized in treaties which were set down in writing
by British, French and other European negotiators and solemnized by Aboriginal Nations in oral and
visual records.
From the early stages of their settlements, the Europeans knew the importance of treaties as a principal
means to fulfill their imperial ambitions of extending territories in America. In the colonies that
became Canada, the need for treaties was soon apparent. The land was vast and the colonists were
few in number. Colonial powers were fighting wars for trade and dominance all over the continent.
They needed alliances with Indian Nations.
However, the Europeans’ approach to the treaties was very different from the Aboriginal view.
Europeans, by signing the treaties, expected the Aboriginal Nations to come under the authority
of the monarch and to give up their land for European settlements. To the Aboriginal Peoples of
Canada, on the other hand, the treaties represent an Indian Magna Carta. The Indians entered into
these negotiations with faith, with the hope for a better life with honour. The Aboriginal Peoples
regarded treaties as statements of peace, friendship and sharing, not submission or surrender. In fact,
the Aboriginal Peoples were angered and dismayed to find out that the essence of the negotiations
was not captured by the Kings’ men with the marks scratched on parchment and thus, what had
been pledged in words during the treaty ceremonies, was not recorded accurately.
The Two Row Wampum, a belt commemorating a 1613 treaty between the Mohawk (Iroquois) and
the Dutch, captured the understanding of treaties by Aboriginal Peoples:
“ When your ancestors came to our shores, after living with
them for a few years, observing them, our ancestors came to
the conclusion that we could not live together in the same
way inside the circle.... So our leaders at that time, along
with your leaders, sat down for many years to try to work
out a solution. This is what they come up with. We call it
Gus-Wen-Tah, or the Two-row Wampum Belt. It is on a bed
of white wampum, which symbolizes the purity of this
agreement. There are two rows of purple, and those two rows
have the spirit of our ancestors; Those two rows never come
together in that belt, and it is easy to see what it means. It
means that we have two different paths, two different people.
The agreement was made that your road will have your
vessel, your people, your politics, your government, your way
of life, your religion, your beliefs - they are all in there. The
same goes for ours.... They said there will be three beads of
wampum separating the two, and they will symbolize peace,
friendship and respect.
Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Vol. 1, page 103
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.19
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The character of European-Aboriginal relations had been illustrated by the treaties. In fact, the right
of self-government originates from the treaties which were entered by both French and the British
Crown recognizing the Aboriginal Nations as self-governing entities with their own systems of law
and governance and respecting them as such.
“When our Peoples entered into treaties, there were Nations
of Peoples. And, people always wonder why, what is a
Nation? Because only Nations can enter into treaties. Our
Peoples, prior to the arrival of the non-Indigenous people,
were under a single political society. They had their own
languages. They had their own spiritual beliefs. They had
their own political institutions. They had the land base, and
they possessed historic continuity on this land base. Within
these structures, they were able to enter into treaties amongst
themselves as different tribes, as different Nations on this
land. In that capacity they entered into treaty with the
British people. So, these treaties were entered into on a
Nation-to-Nation basis. That treaty set out for us what our
relationship will be with the British Crown and her
successive governments.”
Regena Crowchild, President, Indian Association of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, 11 June 1992. (Report of the Royal Commission
on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 2, Chapter 2, pg. 9)
Treaty documents, however, have to be read with caution, because they are usually drafted by the
European parties and translated into Aboriginal languages, only later, with doubtful accuracy. For
example, the text of the peace treaty concluded at Quebec in 1665 between the French Crown and
four Iroquois Nations is heavily coloured by French attitudes and ambitions. However, it is interesting
for the light it casts on French perceptions of their relations with Aboriginal Peoples. By and large,
the articles of all written treaties between the Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown’s representative
should be considered misleading because they omitted substantial portions of what was originally
promised verbally to the Aboriginal Peoples. Additionally, they carry key phrases that are not precise
or things that were never granted by the Aboriginal Peoples who signed the treaties.
Treaties, historical treaties in particular, have had some disadvantages, most arising out of issues of
interpretation. Governments have insisted on the written document as embodying the entire agreement
between the parties; Aboriginal Peoples considered the oral arrangement, whether reflected in the
written document or not, as reflecting the true consensus reached by the parties. The courts have
favoured the Aboriginal position and have established that the fundamental principles of
interpretation should apply to historical treaties.
Moreover, during the treaty making process of the 1870s, translation of the documents from English
into the various Aboriginal languages was a problem. Consequently, for example, during the
2.20
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
negotiation of Treaty No. 7 in 1877, official records of the negotiation process show that the translators
only relayed one-sixth of the full presentation of the Canadian negotiators. One Stoney Nation Elder,
in describing the oral history of the negotiation, stated:
“... (the Stoney people) did not know in the White people’s
language what surrender meant – they did not talk about
giving anything up... The White people had placed this term
in the treaty but the Natives did not know or were not aware
of it, and thus did not talk about giving up anything.”
The True Sprit and Original Intent of Treaty 7.
Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, p. 131, 1996
In spite of their admissions and omissions, the treaties are doubly significant and important because
they represent or imply principles that are intrinsically part of the concept of justice and respect for
other peoples’ property. They have a symbolic importance to Aboriginal Peoples that cannot be
ignored. While we find much to quarrel within the treaties as they were signed, they are, however,
important, not so much for their content as for the principles they imply in their very existence.
For several centuries, treaties continued to be the traditional method of defining intergovernmental
relations between the Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginal people living side-by-side on the same
land. It continues to be the mechanism preferred by most Aboriginal Peoples today. They see the
central role of the treaties and treaty processes is in fashioning a just and honourable future for
Aboriginal Peoples within Canada and an equitable reconciliation of the rights and interests of
Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginal people.
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada signed three following groups of treaties with the Crown: PreConfederation Treaties, Numbered Treaties, and Modern Treaties (Land Claims). Pre-Confederation
Treaties include: Royal Proclamation of 1763 and also included are the Robinson Treaty of 1850 and
the additions to this treaty which are known as Treaty No. 12 and 14.
Historical and Numbered Treaties
Historical treaties are promises exchanged between the governments of France, Britain and
Aboriginal Peoples. To secure peace or alliance with Aboriginal Nations, or gain occupancy and
development rights on Aboriginal land, the Crowns of France and Britain and later, Canada
promised Aboriginal Peoples mutual protection, benefits and shares of wealth – in perpetuity.
These were agreements between autonomous Nations. Aboriginal Peoples did not and still do not
regard treaties as admissions of defeat or submission. By signing treaties, the Aboriginal Nations did
not give up their Nationhood or their own ways of living, working and self-governing. Rather, it was
a mechanism to achieve peace and harmony, to agree on rules of coexistence and solving disputes
between Peoples, Nations and governments.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.21
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The treaties were regarded as sacred and perpetual commitments to each other. The purpose of the
historical treaties was to create a relationship of lasting peace and friendship. The alternative was lost
trade, warfare and bloodshed. Treaties were sworn by sacred oaths, announced with great ceremony
and regarded as binding documents of state.
Treaties were required to be negotiated with Aboriginal Nations of North America including Canada
in order to comply with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation made it mandatory that
all unceded lands were reserved for the Aboriginal Nations and it was to be used for hunting grounds.
No land designated for Aboriginal Peoples could be purchased or occupied by the European settlers
without the Royal approval having first been obtained. In the event that an Aboriginal group wanted
to dispose of the unceded land, it would first have to be purchased by the Crown through a public
meeting or an assembly of the Aboriginal Peoples.
In 1850, the tradition of Crown treaty-making with Aboriginal Peoples was extended into the
mineral-rich lands north of the Great Lakes. Some of the Anishinabek Peoples in this region, who
were mostly veterans of the War of 1812, laid the groundwork for these negotiations by closing down
a small mine in Michipicoten. They did so to make the point that the Crown had never properly
addressed their land rights. After Governor General Lord Elgin intervened on their behalf, two
agreements were negotiated known as the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties. These
transactions established twenty-one new Indian Reserves, furthering the entrenchment of this
institution into Canada’s legal and territorial framework. The Robinson Treaties also recognized that
First Nations Peoples retained hunting and fishing rights on Crown lands.
The negotiation of treaties and the confirmation of rights under the treaties became the responsibility
of the Dominion government by virtue of Section 91 (24) of the British North America Act of 1867.
This section grants the government the jurisdiction to make laws in regards to “Indians” and “lands
reserved for Indians.” As a consequence, the Dominion government used its constitutional authority
to negotiate, between 1871 and 1921, eleven treaties with First Nations Peoples in the northern and
western parts of the Dominion of Canada.
The numbered treaties were the most influential treaties in the determination of federal Indian
policy. Most of these treaties were signed between 1871 and 1905 and provided the terms under
which the Canadian plains were settled. The express written terms do not vary significantly among
the numbered treaties and approximately one half of the Canadian Aboriginal Peoples are considered
to be subject to such terms.
The numbered treaties included promises to Aboriginal Peoples such as schools, teachers, and
agricultural instructors; reserves calculated at either 160 or 640 acres per family; one-time payments
and annuities of five dollars per year for every individual; medicine chests to be maintained on
reserves; ploughs, breeding stock, and other agricultural implements; housing; as well as flags,
medals, and buggies for the principal men. While some view the legal wording on treaty documents
literally, others see these agreements as establishing general principles for relationships between
peoples that are to last for as long as the sun shines and the waters flow. They see the truth of these
agreements not in specific details but in more general principles that establish a framework of
ongoing negotiations that must be made to adapt as Canada changes. Thus, the treaty provisions for
schooling, health care, economic development, policing, intergovernmental relations, etc., must
2.22
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
constantly be reworked so that treaty First Nations can contribute effectively in the constructive
transformation of the country.
The Aboriginals have asserted that many other promises were made that were not incorporated into
the text of the treaties. Courts in the past have been reluctant to look beyond the text. Moreover
Canadian jurisprudence had also determined that treaty rights may be abrogated by legislation of a
competent jurisdiction. As for example, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1964 upheld the conviction
of an “Indian hunting for food on lands surrendered by his band” contrary to the federal Migratory
Birds Convention Act. The conviction was upheld despite the terms of the treaty which had guaranteed
the right to hunt for food. Another particular manifest violation of the treaties has been evident in
the area of education. The numbered treaties required that schools be established on reserves. The
Department of Indian Affairs only did so a century later. Section 114 of the Indian Act, contrary to
the treaty promises, authorizes the Minister to arrange for Indian children to be educated by the
provinces, the territories, public or separate school boards and religious organizations and give the
Minister broad powers with all aspects of education of Indian children.
Many view the treaties as the surrender of First Nations land and resources to the Queen. But many
more people view the entire process as the biggest peacetime land grab in the history of the formation
of Canada. Moreover, the result of the narrow interpretation by the courts of treaty rights, the power
of the federal government to deny treaty promises by drafting contrary legislation and not taking
into consideration the oral tradition of the Aboriginal Peoples in treaty-making as terms of the
treaties, all these factors led to the gradual erosion of the treaties. Fortunately, such breaches of the
treaties have been arrested by the enactment of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Treaty and
Aboriginal rights are now constitutionally entrenched.
Our Supreme Court said in Simon v. The Queen (1985) “An Indian treaty is unique; it is an agreement
sui generis which is neither created nor terminated according to the rules of international law.” That
being so, it seems clear that historically, Canadian Aboriginal Peoples have not fared well in asserting
rights, which, on the face of their treaties, seemed assured to them. By way of an example, a majority
of the treaties contain a specific term guaranteeing continuance of the right to hunt and fish over the
lands surrendered. Later federal legislation – the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Fisheries Act
– has significantly curtailed these traditional activities.
This constitutional recognition may accord treaties and the rights therein superiority over federal and
provincial legislation. Certainly, this result is not beyond the realm of possibility if one considers that from
time to time Canadian courts have acknowledged that the federal Government’s curtailment of Indian
treaty rights amounts to a breach of faith by Canada. The courts, in failing to accord the treaties superior
status over federal legislation, have simply characterized the inconsistency as a situation in which the
treaties were overlooked, or a case of the left hand having forgotten what the right hand had done.
Modern Treaties
The third group of treaties are known as Modern Treaties which consist of land claims negotiated
according to Canada’s Land Claim Policy established in 1973. In modern day context, treaties are also
constitutional documents. The treaties set out broad social contracts between independent peoples.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.23
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
They are constitutional documents, recognized and affirmed by the Constitution Act of 1982 in
Section 35. As such, they are part of the law of the land.
A major preoccupation of those on the Aboriginal side of these modern-day treaty negotiations has
been how to establish a range of new institutions to help liberate Indigenous Peoples from the weight
of an onerous colonial system that has dominated their lives, often for many generations. The core
of that colonial system has been the federal Indian Act; its primary agents have been the federal
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Thus, a key to advancing First Nations selfgovernment is the development of infrastructures capable of generating some degree of economic selfsufficiency for Aboriginal communities. Accordingly, many provisions in modern-day treaties put in
place various means and formula for the sharing and apportioning of natural resources along with
the royalties they generate.
Section 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognize and affirm Aboriginal and treaty rights and
protect them against erosion. Also, rights negotiated in new or renewed treaties after 1982 would also
enjoy the same protection. Accordingly, the courts have enunciated new principles in recent years that
Aboriginal parties to treaties can use to their advantage, such as the fiduciary obligations owed by
federal and provincial governments to Aboriginal Peoples and the fact that any violation of treaty
promises would be seen by the courts as calling into question the honour and integrity of the Crown.
Contemporary Canadian law also recognizes Aboriginal rights as being based on practices that are
integral part of their distinctive culture. The unique nature of Aboriginal rights, as understood in
Canadian law, makes it difficult to fit them into the context of rights and obligations our courts are
accustomed to addressing. By entering into treaties, the parties can clarify how these rights should
interact with one another.
Hence, the terms of the treaties must be extended and interpreted in light of present social and
economic standards. To renegotiate the treaties does not necessarily mean to rewrite the treaties, nor
does it mean to repudiate the treaties. It was recognized that the importance of the treaties lies in the
recognition and acceptance of the true spirit of the treaties rather than studied adherence to archaic
phraseology. To renegotiate those treaties means to reach agreement, to carry out the full meaning and
intent of the promises given by the representatives of the Queen, as interpreted, and as understood by
the Aboriginal Peoples. To successfully renegotiate those treaties is to bring about a legal commitment
by the Government that the true intent and tenure of those treaties will be carried out.
In effect, what is contemplated in some cases is a renewal of the old treaties to make them meaningful
in today’s context – not to change their spirit and intent, but to interpret them in a reasonable way in
terms of today’s realities. In other cases, new treaties will be required to reflect the new relationship
between governments and Aboriginal Peoples as a result of modern land claims settlements and
negotiated arrangements for Aboriginal self-government, the two being inextricably intertwined in
the view of the majority of the Aboriginal Peoples.
There are compelling social as well as economic reasons for negotiating treaties. The Indian Act,
as the main federal tool of governance over Indian affairs, has not always been administered evenhandedly or with the best of interests of human beings at heart. As a result, the social conditions of
2.24
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Native communities in British Columbia, like many in the rest of Canada, are, to greater and lesser
degrees, substandard in comparison to those of other communities. First Nations have the lowest
rates of literacy and education and the highest rates of infant mortality, unemployment, incarceration,
and suicide of any single group in the province or in the country. The transfer of responsibility and
control of Aboriginal communities to Aboriginal Peoples is an essential step toward positive change.
As Canada’s laws and policies evolve in acceptance and understanding of the politics of the original
inhabitants of the nation, the paternalism that has been a major part of what Duncan Campbell Scott
called “the Indian problem” will give way to mutual respect and cooperation, and the Canadian ideal
of unity in diversity will evolve toward political reality.
The first of these modern-day treaties was a tripartite agreement in 1975 between the governments
of Canada and Quebec as well as the Cree and Inuit east of James and Hudson’s Bays. In 1983 the
Inuvialuit made a similar deal, which became the model for several other agreements in the western
Arctic and Yukon. In 1999, Nunavut was established after the federal government and the Inuit of the
eastern Arctic arrived at a complex set of compromises about how the terms of the Royal Proclamation
should be applied in that vast, sparsely settled part of Canada. The previous year a tripartite agreement
with the Nisga’a in B.C. was formalized.
In conclusion, federal policy and its instrument, the Indian Act, have failed to keep faith with the
treaties made with the Aboriginal Peoples or to confer any meaningful powers of self-government
on the Aboriginal Peoples. It presently appears that no substantial change from policies of the last
one hundred years has yet been contemplated. The government has to pay heed to the words of
Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, the North-West Territories, and Kee-wa-tin,
suggesting in the 1880s:
“Let us have a wise and paternal government faithfully
carrying out the provisions of our treaties, and doing its
utmost to help and elevate the Indian population... and we
will have peace, progress, and concord among them in the
North-West... we will see our Indian population, loyal subjects
of the Crown, happy, prosperous and self-sustaining....”
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.25
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Aboriginal Treaties: Chronology
1763
In October the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by King George III recognizes people as “nations
or tribes” and acknowledges that they continue to possess traditional territories until they
are “ceded to or purchased by” the Crown. The consent of First Nations is required in any
negotiations for their lands.
1817
In July the Selkirk Treaty was signed by the Saulteaux and Cree First Nations and the
Government of Canada.
1850
In September the Robinson-Huron and the Robinson-Superior treaties are signed by the
Anishinabe First Nations and the Government of Canada.
1862
In October, the Manitoulin Island Treaty was signed by the Ottawa, Chippewa and other First
Nations and the Government of Canada.
1871
Treaty 1 is signed by the Chippewa and Swampy Cree First Nations and the Government of
Canada.
Treaty No. 2 is signed by the Chippewa First Nations and the Government of Canada.
1873
The Saulteaux First Nation and the Government of Canada sign Northwest Angle Treaty No. 3.
1874
In August: Treaty No. 4 is signed by the First Nations in Saskatchewan and the Government
of Canada.
The Cree and Saulteaux First Nations in Saskatchewan sign the Qu’Appelle Treaty No. 4.
2.26
1875
The Saulteaux and Swampy Cree tribes of Indians sign the Treaty No. 5 in Manitoba.
1876
Treaty No. 6 is signed by the Plains and Wood Cree and the Assiniboine with the Government
of Canada.
1877
In March Treaty No. 7 is signed by the Tsuu T’ina, Siksika, Stoney, Peigan and Blood First
Nations in Alberta.
1899
In June the Cree, Beaver and Chipewyan First Nations of northern Alberta, British Columbia
and the Northwest Territories signed Treaty No. 8.
1905
In November, Treaty No. 9 was signed between the Cree First Nations in Northern Ontario and
the Government of Canada.
1906
Treaty No. 10 was signed by the Cree and Chipewyan First Nations in Saskatchewan and the
Government of Canada in July.
1921
Treaty No. 11 was signed by the Slave, Dogrib, Loucheux, Hare and other Indians of Yukon
and North-West Territories
1969
In December, the Canadian Government established the Indian Claims Commission to deal
with land claims.
1973
A federal government policy for the settlement of Aboriginal claims was established on
August 8, 1973.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Land Claims:
Aboriginal Rights and Policies
Overview
This segment outlines why and how land and
Aboriginal title to the land are two most important
aspects of the whole notion of Aboriginal rights;
It also describes briefly the Aboriginal and legal
viewpoints regarding land claims;
It elaborates on the types of land claims and the
current land claims procedures in Canada;
Finally, under this topic, the users will also find an
analysis of the challenges involved in filing and
settling of land claims.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.27
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Points to Remember
Aboriginal Peoples have a special relationship with the land. This relationship is different from
the concept of private property which exists in Canadian law. Aboriginal Peoples did not view
land as something which could be owned or sold. Whereas, most Europeans viewed land as
property which could be bought or traded like any other commodity. This is at the root of many
disputes today which emerge from the fundamental difference between Aboriginal Peoples and
the non-Aboriginals in their interpretation and meaning of land.
Aboriginal Peoples assert that their rights to land derive from their original occupancy. On that
basis, Aboriginal Peoples make claims to those lands where they lived and used the natural
resources in the lands before their contact with the Europeans. After the arrival of the Europeans
settlers, a wholesale encroachment of land and displacement of its inhabitants of Aboriginal
Peoples were started. This destroyed the hunting, fishing and trapping activities and thus
contributed to their underdevelopment to the extent that Aboriginal Peoples were unable to
sustain themselves. As a result, within a century this process had destroyed the Aboriginal
economic base.
Moreover, the land base was unequally distributed. The most fertile land was taken for European
settlers, control over water went to the government, and the environment was altered to the
disadvantage of Aboriginal Peoples. The result has been economic marginalization and dependency.
Therefore, land has always been an extremely important element in Aboriginal Peoples’ fight for
their rights and this notion of Aboriginal rights underlies all Aboriginal land claims in Canada. In
the twentieth century, the Aboriginal population became more and more aware that the material
standard of living that had been achieved by the Europeans in Canada, derived ultimately from
the exploitation of land and its resources. As a consequence, a resurgence of efforts by the
Aboriginal groups occurred to reclaim their rights to the land and other resources.
However, until the 1973 decision in Calder, the modern federal government policy on Aboriginal
title to land where a treaty was never signed, was to deny its existence. Ottawa’s strategy was
thoroughly undermined when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its historic Calder decision
in January, 1973. In this decision, the Court ruled unanimously that Aboriginal people who had
never signed treaties, still hold some claim and title to the lands they traditionally used and
occupied.
This decision had momentous implications for the struggles occurring in the North. Because
the majority of Native people north of the 60th parallel had never signed treaties, it meant that
Inuit, Dene, and Yukon Indians still potentially retained a legal right to lands covering one-third
of Canada.
The Calder judgement was also instrumental for taking Aboriginal land claims seriously by the
federal government and resuming serious negotiation with Aboriginal groups. To this end, the
federal government established an office to deal with Aboriginal land claims and recognized two
broad classes of claims - comprehensive and specific:
2.28
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Comprehensive claims are based on the recognition that there are continuing Aboriginal rights to
lands and natural resources. Such claims arise in those parts of Canada where Aboriginal title has
not previously been dealt with by treaty and other legal means. The claims are termed
“comprehensive” because of their wide scope. Comprehensive claims include such things as land
title, fishing and trapping rights, financial compensation and other social and economic benefits.
In 1986 the federal government announced a new comprehensive claims policy with options to
the total extinguishment of rights and title. It also widened the scope of comprehensive claims
negotiations to include crucial issues such as self-government, offshore wildlife harvesting
rights, the sharing of resource revenues and Aboriginal Peoples’ participation in environmental
decision-making.
Specific claims, on the other hand, deal with specific grievances that First Nations may have
regarding government’s improper administration of Indian land and other assets, and to the
(non)fulfillment of Indian treaties. In practise specific claims generally involve cases in which the
government has failed to provide lands it once promised, or it has mismanaged lands and assets
for which it was responsible by allowing land to be sold or taken illegally, or mismanaged band
funds and assets.
There are many different reasons why an Aboriginal group would file a land claim. These reasons
include:
I. If an Aboriginal group did not sign a treaty for the land with the Crown or where title has
not been otherwise extinguished, the group can still pursue a land claim based on the
ancient occupation and use of the land;
II.
If a treaty has not been honoured by the federal government, that is, if an Aboriginal group
did not get the land and other natural resources within that land which were promised to
them under a treaty;
III.
If the Crown promised to sell reserve land and give the money to a First Nation, but the
land was never sold and therefore, the First Nation can claim the land back;
IV.
If a third party is trespassing on reserve land or unlawfully occupying reserve land with the
consent of the federal or provincial government then the First Nation can file for
compensation and the land back;
V.
If a First Nation has access to off-reserve lands pursuant to treaty rights but for some
reasons it cannot use the land, then the First Nation can claim for compensation for the
loss of the use of the land; and
VI.
Although the claims of Métis and half-breeds to land are yet to be recognized, still they can
claim for grants of land.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.29
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Points to Remember
Besides the Calder case, another milestone in the development of land claims, has been the 1998
Delgamuukw decision (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1998). In this case, Gitksan or Wet’suwet’en
hereditary chiefs of northwestern British Columbia, claimed ownership and jurisdiction over separate
portions of 58,000 square kilometres in British Columbia. This was a very significant ruling. Before it
was made, unoccupied traditional lands were controlled by the government, and Aboriginal Peoples
maintained only certain hunting and trapping rights on the land.
The Delgamuukw decision has been a turning point for future land claims issues and the process
itself in the sense that it has sent a clear message to the federal government to embark on new
negotiations on Aboriginal rights and title to the land with First Nations. In fact, the decision
questions the sincerity of federal government’s effort to settle Aboriginal land claims and asks for
new negotiations in good faith.
Another landmark event in Aboriginal land claim and Aboriginal rights in general is the agreement
reached by the Nisga’a of British Columbia. The Nisga’a have been at the forefront of establishing
land claim and Aboriginal rights. The Nisga’a Indians are the original inhabitants and owners of
the Nass River Valley area of northwestern, British Columbia. Like most other First Nations in
British Columbia, the Nisga’a nation has never entered into a treaty. The Nisga’a people have
been consistently seeking a treaty with the British Crown, and then the Government of Canada,
and British Columbia ever since their initial contact with the white man.
Then, finally the famous lawsuit Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia in which the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled that Aboriginal title exists in Canadian law regardless of any recognition by
Government. In light of this lawsuit, the Government of Canada established the comprehensive land
claims policy and the Nisga’a decided that the appropriate course was to negotiate fair and equitable
settlement of the land question with the Government of Canada and British Columbia.
Finally on October 21, 1999, the Honourable Robert Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, introduced a Bill in Parliament, entitled The Nisga’a Final Agreement Act, negotiated
between the Nisga’a people, the Government of Canada and the Government of British
Columbia.This has been the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia.
The Nisga’a Final Agreement sets out all the rights the Nisga’a will have under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, including in the areas of lands, resources and self-government. The Nisga’a
will receive a settlement package which includes $253 million paid over 15 years, 2,019 square
kilometres of land in the Nass Area and other treaty benefits. The land and resource components of
the Agreement, have been combined with enhanced local decision-making powers by the Nisga’a.
Only time will tell how the 1998 Delgamuukw decision and reaching of a final agreement with
Nisga’a land claim will affect future land claims. The land claim process has been time-consuming
and difficult. The first step in land claim is proving that an Aboriginal group, as an organized
society, has occupied the land “since time immemorial.” This necessitates financial resources
and time for the Aboriginal group making the claim since the research needed to prove that
group’s historical right can take from two to five years.
2.30
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Introduction
“All of our structures and values have developed out of a
spiritual relationship with the land on which we have lived.”
George Manual, Shuswap Grand Chief and past President of the
World Council of Indigenous Peoples
The traditional ideology of the Aboriginal Peoples encompasses a special relationship to nature. They
lived completely off the land, relying on it for their shelter, subsistence and entire way of life. They
had a significant respect for the land, and the life on it. When they killed an animal for food, they
used every part of it out of respect for the animal. For example, the traditional dress of First Nations
Bands was usually made from left-over deer hide decorated with feathers and porcupine quills. The
jewellery was made from animal bone. They prayed for each slain animal, thanking its spirit for
giving its body to them so they could live. The Aboriginal hunters did not take more than what was
necessary to survive, fearing consequences which were reinforced by stories and myths.
Nothing is more important to Aboriginal Nations than their connection with their traditional lands
and territories; nothing is more fundamental to their cultures, their identities and their economies.
Extinguishment of Aboriginal land title is literally inconceivable in treaty nations’ cultures. The text
of the post-1850 treaties provides for the extinguishment. But the peoples of the treaty nations reject
the outcome and no court decision could ever change their minds on this central issue.
The Aboriginal Peoples still believe that they have these rights today, and many of their nations still
rely on the land to survive, whereas many non-Aboriginal people use the land for sport, recreation
and luxury at the expense of the environment. However, many people wrongly blame the potential
extinction of many species on the over-hunting by the Aboriginal Peoples.
Hence, the issues related to land claims are an integral part of the Aboriginal Peoples’ inherent rights.
The land claim cases in the past and its interpretation by the legal community very clearly demonstrate
how the differences in two cultures, in terms of their traditions, values and beliefs, resulted in two
completely polarized views and understanding of historical events.
The traditional views of the Aboriginal Peoples are very different than those of the European society.
They believed that every living creature was put on the earth by the Creator, and therefore, had equal
rights. They saw the treaties as an agreement to share the land with the newcomers as they had shared
the land with the animals for many thousands of years. They didn’t understand that they were giving
up their ability to live on it. The Aboriginal Peoples who are the original inhabitants of Canada did
not sign away any claim they had to the land in the treaties.
When the Europeans first arrived in Canada, they came with their views based on the English legal
tradition. This tradition was based on the concept that land could not be just taken away from its
original inhabitants, subsequently a series of conditions had to be met. First it had to be determined
whether or not the land was inhabited. The definition of “inhabitants” was extremely ethnocentric
and was limited to those people with the same traditions and values similar to the Europeans.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.31
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
If the land was seen as being inhabited by a civilized nation, there were three ways their rights to
their land could be taken away: by conquest or military subjugation of a territory over which the
conquering nation clearly expresses a desire to assume sovereignty on a permanent basis; by cession
or formal transfer of a territory from one individual political unit to another; and, by annexation or
assertion of sovereignty over another political entity without military action or treaty. In the latter
two cases, legislation had to be drafted with the rights of the original inhabitants in mind.
If the land was seen as uninhabited, it could be seized by “settlement or acquisition of the territory
previously uninhabited or not recognized as belonging to another political entity.” Since the Aboriginal
Peoples were seen by the European settlers as an “uncivilized” population, not having any form of
self-government, their land was seized on the basis of this condition.
Claims Policy Today
Aboriginal land claims today involve much more than legal questions about the collective property
rights of Aboriginal Peoples. They are also not simply concerned with determining appropriate
amount of financial compensation. Land claims are a balance between negotiation and litigation,
and government action and inaction, as well as being subject to passive and active resistance by both
Aboriginal organizations and governments. They are perhaps the most sensitive and volatile issues
now confronting Aboriginal Peoples and government.
Aboriginal Peoples have become more proactive in their claims over land. They have now taken on
the challenges of reclaiming land that they feel rightly belong to them. Aboriginal groups have become
more articulate about their unique relationship with the land, both past and present, and about the
meaning it has for them. They are also aware that the material standard of living that has been
achieved generally in Canada derives ultimately from the land and its resources. As a consequence,
they seek not only a role in determining the way in which the land and other resources are used,
but also a just portion of the benefits derived from the land.
However, until the 1973 decision in Calder, the modern federal government policy on Aboriginal title
to land where a treaty was never signed, was to deny its existence. The Supreme Court of Canada in
1973 first recognized land rights based on Aboriginal title. Aboriginal title is based on an Aboriginal
group’s traditional use and occupancy of that land. In the 1973 Calder decision, the Nisga’a Peoples
of British Columbia claimed continued Aboriginal rights in their traditional territory. Although the
court ruled against the case because of a technicality, its decision led the federal government to
announce its willingness to negotiate land claims based on outstanding Aboriginal title.
Since then, comprehensive claims are negotiated in areas where Aboriginal title has not been dealt
with by treaty or by other legal methods. At the same time, in 1973, the creation of a federal
government policy for comprehensive land claims (based on ancestral rights) and specific claims
(based on treaty rights and also concerning the administration of “Indian moneys and lands”), lead
to a new period of political development within the communities of the First Peoples. This government
policy is significant in the process of acknowledging Aboriginal inherent rights and, thus, cannot be
ignored if one is to have a sense of the reality of contemporary Native society.
2.32
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
One of the most noted comprehensive claims settled in this period, was with the James Bay Cree
people. In the mid 1970s, the Cree of James Bay went to court to stop the James Bay Hydro-Electric
Project. The Cree argued that they had title to the land that would be flooded by the project. They also
argued that the project would threaten their traditional way of life by damaging the environment.
After the Quebec Superior Court ruled in favour of the Cree, in 1975, the federal and Quebec
governments negotiated a comprehensive claim with the Cree and Inuit which involved financial
compensation. However, this agreement was supposed to assist the Cree to cope with the devastation
and flooding, and to maintain and strengthen their economies and Cree way of life. Since then, however,
the governments have extracted billions of dollars of revenues each year from the project, but the
Aboriginal Peoples in the land continue to endure environmental and social devastation, poverty,
shortage of housing and poor health condition. They also suffer from high rate of unemployment,
even though the agreement promised them access to jobs in the hydro-electric project.
In 1986, the federal government announced a new comprehensive claims policy to respond to
concerns expressed by Aboriginal groups. Historically, one problem with the treaty-making process
had been that the federal government would only negotiate treaties if Aboriginal Peoples accepted
“extinguishment” of their Aboriginal rights and title. The new claims policy provided alternatives to
blanket extinguishment.
Comprehensive Claims in Canada
Types of land claims:
Many parts of Canada are not formally covered by treaties and Aboriginal title to these land continues
to exist based on their occupation and use before the arrival of Europeans. Aboriginal title can only be
surrendered to the federal government, and it cannot be extinguished by a provincial government. In
recognition of the existence of Aboriginal title, the federal government has entered into large land claims
settlements in northern Quebec, the Arctic and the Yukon. By settling these claims, the Aboriginal title
to the land is extinguished and the federal government obtains the right to use the land as it requires.
Claims can be negotiated where treaty promises are not honoured. Claims can be made, for example,
that the natural resources within a reserve should be regarded as part of the reserve. A second example
involves claims where there are discrepancies between the land surveyed for a reserve and the land
entitlement promised in a treaty. A third example is that when there was a land promise in the treaty,
but no land was identified.
In the past, some First Nations were assisted by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
to surrender their reserve land so that the land could be sold and revenue go to that First Nation.
In many cases, land was never sold and the First Nation Bands did not receive any revenue.
Unlawful occupation of reserve lands can be a reason for a First Nation to file a claim. The Mattagami
First Nation’s claim based on the flooding of reserve lands is an example of such claim. In this case,
the federal government, without obtaining a proper surrender from the First Nation, gave permit to
a private hydro-electric company to flood part of the Mattagami reserve and this constituted the
basis of their claim.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.33
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Claims can also be made to access off-reserve land use pursuant to treaty rights. The most common
uses are hunting, fishing and trapping.
The Steps in the Comprehensive Claims Process
The claims process begins when the federal government accepts an Aboriginal group’s statement
of claim and supporting materials. The federal government will accept the claim if the statement
confirms that the group claiming:
1. The Aboriginal group is, and was, an organized society;
2. The organized society has occupied the specific territory over which it asserts Aboriginal title
since time immemorial. The traditional use and occupancy of the territory must have been
sufficient to be an established fact at the time of assertion of sovereignty by European nations;
3. The occupation of the territory by the Aboriginal group was largely to the exclusion of other
organized societies;
4. The Aboriginal group can demonstrate some continuing current use and occupancy of the
land for traditional purposes;
5. The group’s Aboriginal title and rights to resource use have not been dealt with by treaty; and
6. Aboriginal title has not been eliminated by other lawful means.
When the terms of the final agreement have been approved by all parties, the agreement is
implemented by federal settlement legislation. The rights the Aboriginal group receives from the
federal and provincial/territorial governments are protected by the Constitution and cannot be
altered without the consent of the Aboriginal group.
Negotiations can often last many years, because the issues are complex and wide-ranging. Federal
policy on comprehensive land claims currently allows six Native groups to negotiate at the same time
and to receive funding for expenditures relating to their claims, in the form of refundable loans. This
policy was last reviewed in December 1986.
Who’s Involved in Negotiations?
Comprehensive claims are negotiated by three parties: the federal and provincial or territorial
governments and the Aboriginal group. During the negotiations, which must also involve the
provinces in question, because they manage lands and resources under the Constitution, the issues
of lands, resources, wildlife, the environment, mineral rights, compensation programs, taxes, assets’
management, self-government, third-party interests, public access and the implementation of any
forthcoming agreement are considered.
2.34
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Objective of Negotiation
A basic aim of negotiations is to clarify the rights of Aboriginal groups to lands and resources in a
manner that will facilitate their economic growth and self-sufficiency. Settlements are intended to
ensure that the interests of Aboriginal groups in resource management and environmental protection
are recognized, and that claimants share in the benefits of development.
These rights and benefits usually include:
• full ownership of certain lands in the area covered by the settlement;
• guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights;
• guaranteed participation in land, water, wildlife and environmental management throughout the
settlement area;
• financial compensation;
• resource revenue-sharing;
• specific measures to stimulate economic development; and
• a role in the management of heritage resources and parks in the settlement area. (Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada - March 1996)
In short, the settlement of a claim is designed to create certainty as to the title to the lands that are
the subject of the negotiations. To date, federal policy has required extinction or an exchange of
ancestral Native title in return for rights that are specifically defined and become treaty rights. The
final agreement, except for clauses relating to self-government, becomes a treaty within the meaning
of Section 35(1) of Canada’s Constitution. There is no entrenchment of clauses relating to selfgovernment because of the failure to resolve this issue during the four constitutional conferences of
the mid to late 1980s.
Settled Claims
Since the establishment of a federal policy for the settlement of Aboriginal land claims in 1973,
twelve comprehensive claims agreements have come into effect:
• The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – November 11,1975
• The Northeastern Quebec Agreement – January 31, 1978
• The Inuvialuit Final Agreement – June 5, 1984
• The Gwich’in Agreement – April 22, 1992
• The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement – May 25, 1993
• The Sahtu Dene and Metis Agreement – May 29, 1993
• The Vuntut Gwich’in First Nation – May 29, 1993
• The Teslin Tlingit Council – May 29, 1993
• The Champagn and Aishihik First Nations – May 29, 1993
• Nacho Nyak Dun – May 29, 1993
• The Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation – July 21, 1997
• The Selkirk First Nation – July 21, 1997
• Tr’ondek Huech’in self-government agreement, 1998
• Nisga’a Final Agreement, 1999
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.35
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Aberrations in Comprehensive Claim Process
However, there are few anomalies and deviations from the normal rule that have made the claims
process unworkable. These have been very eloquently described by Georges Erasmus, National Chief,
Assembly of First Nations in the following paragraphs:
“When agreements to resolve treaty-land entitlement were
finally reached in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the current
[Ed. note: 1989] government saw fit to repudiate them
unilaterally. In this context the utility of even negotiating
with the Crown is called into question. Although “certainty”
is a concept that preoccupies the government lawyers, there
is no certainty that the Crown will fulfill its commitments.
In these and many other ways, the federal government has
blocked progress at the negotiating table, and in a bullying
and defiant way has challenged First Nations to go to court
if we do not like what we are offered, even though they know
that Aboriginal Peoples do not have the resources to fight
long legal battles. The Gitskan Wet’suwet’en court case...
illustrates the difficulties of this route.”
Land claims negotiations are too often associated with anger, with frustration, with divisions between
First Nations and their neighbours, and divisions within First Nations. That is the reality in many
land claim negotiations today. Certainly, it’s fair to say that the land claim negotiation process often
exacerbates the underlying conflict and opens more wounds.
There is anger on the First Nations’ side with the claims process itself, as it fails to treat First Nations
Peoples as equals. The policy and process was developed by the Crown governments in this country,
and particularly the Specific Claims Policy is hardly a document infused with a post-modern approach.
It is very much a legalistic document prepared by governments as a means of processing and clearing
an inventory of legal grievances.
There is also a lot of tension and anger on the non-Aboriginal side. There is concern that First
Nations are receiving special treatment and afforded rights that non-Aboriginal people don’t enjoy.
This is manifested throughout negotiations, whether as expressions of open racism at town hall
meetings where the feasibility of proposed settlements is being discussed or whether, as blatant as
politicians going against a proactive legislation.
As for negotiation strategy, a problem-solving approach has not been adopted, rather a positional,
adversarial approach has been followed. The Crown government will normally have more power –
an adversarial approach is not likely to witness a shift in position at a meeting and is more likely to
lead to anger and a lack of respect for the First Nations perspective.
2.36
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
First Nations has also made the mistake of not always ensuring that the Elders and community
leaders are present and have input throughout the negotiation process. The Elders know the traditions
of the First Nations. They are the link between the past and the future. A land claim is not a business
transaction. The First Nations that have brought their Elders to the negotiation table and take advice
from the Elders, are satisfied with the outcome. A constructive community debate about the proposed
settlement is feasible at the end of the negotiations when the community and Elders are involved
throughout the process.
PHOTO: NATIVE CANADIAN CENTRE OF TORONTO
Aboriginal Peoples’ rights will continue to be an issue. Their claims are not going to disappear.
Aboriginal Nations are entitled to the resources that were wrongly taken from them. In one way or
another, the movement toward claims resolution will continue for the foreseeable future. Given the
negativity associated with the process in the past, a critical question for First Nations and Crown
governments alike is how to ensure that the process is a positive step toward resolution of all the issues.
The process needs to address the underlying conflicts manifested in a land claim dispute, and in a way
that promotes healing. The claims process needs to promote healing between the Aboriginal/First
Nations and their neighbours, and to create cohesion within the Aboriginal community.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.37
The Indian Act
Overview
This part will help the users to understand:
• The major terms of the Indian Act and their
effects;
• How the Act has been changed over the years;
• How the Act was used for the purpose of
assimilation of Aboriginal Peoples into the
mainstream;
• How and why the federal government encouraged
and forced Aboriginal Peoples to lose their
Aboriginal identity and culture.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.39
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Points to Remember
In 1876, the Canadian government passed the Indian Act. Throughout its history, the Act has
sparked controversy. Though meant as a temporary measure, it has been changed many times
and still affects the lives of Aboriginal Peoples today.
It was a clear statement of the federal government’s policy to act as guardians over Aboriginal
Peoples, giving them “protection” but with the ultimate goal of assimilation and absorption of
them into general population. It was also an attempt to erase “the lingering traces of native
custom and tradition”. Agents of the Department of Indian Affairs enforced the Act for most of
its history and had almost total control over many aspects of Aboriginal Peoples’ lives.
In 1876, the Indian Act defined who was an “Indian” under the law and what “Indians” could or
could not do. It provided the most stark and formidable definition of First Nations membership
for the very first time, by including the distinction between “Status” and “non-Status Indians.”
Status soon came to have other implications. Status Indians were denied the right to vote,
they did not sit on juries, and they were exempt from conscription in time of war, although the
percentage of volunteers was higher among Aboriginal Peoples than any other group. It was in
1960 that the right to vote in federal elections was at long last extended to First Nations
members.
The Indian Act of 1876 and later, the amendment to the Act in 1889, extended government
control to First Nations Reserve lands. The Act of 1876 explicitly forbade the selling, alienation
or leasing of any reserve land unless it was first surrendered or leased to the Crown. By a 1889
amendment, the government assumed greater control over land. This amendment was drafted
specifically to permit the federal government to override any Aboriginal group’s reluctance to
have its land leased.
In 1880, an amendment to the Indian Act provided for automatic enfranchisement (loss of status)
of any Indian who earned a university degree or any Indian woman who married a non-Indian or
an unregistered Indian. Status Indians who voluntarily gave up their Indian status were considered
“of good character” and were given individual ownership of a plot of land on a reserve, the right
to buy and consume alcohol, and also the right to vote. However, the policy and associated
incentives did not work since very few Aboriginal people gave up their status.
Among the controversial aspects of the Indian Act, one major flashpoint was women’s rights.
Under the Indian Act, if an Aboriginal woman married a non-Status Indian or non-Aboriginal man,
she lost her Indian status. Her children also had no right to status. This limitation, however, did
not apply to Aboriginal men and they were able to keep their status no matter whom they
married. This discriminatory provision was not officially changed until 1985 when Bill C-31
was introduced.
2.40
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
In order to achieve total assimilation of Indians into the mainstream, including abandonment of
their traditional beliefs and adoption of Christian values, the federal government, in 1884, made
another amendment to the Indian Act. This amendment instituted prison sentences for anyone
participating in potlatch, tawanawa dance and other traditional Aboriginal ceremonies. The ban
on practising traditional ceremonies was not lifted until 1951.
Another long-term devastating impact of the Indian Act was the creation of residential schools.
For the federal government, the schools were another instrument in attaining its policy of
assimilation. Consequently, Aboriginal children were removed from their homes and lived in
these residential schools. Officials believed that the best way to assimilate children was to
separate them from their families, communities and culture.
The main goal of the missionaries who taught at the schools was to convert the children to
Christianity. Children were often severely punished for practising traditional spiritual beliefs. For
the most part, students received a poor education at residential schools as they were often poorly
fed and ill-treated. As a result, many children suffered all their lives from the effects of physical,
sometimes sexual and psychological abuse. The schools were not phased out until the 1960s.
The Indian Act is something of a total institutional tool created by the government to achieve its
“Indian” agenda. Along with the treaties, it touches on almost all aspects of the lives of Status
Indians. From the Aboriginal point of view, however, the two are at cross purposes: the Act is
designed to restrict and control, whereas the treaties aim at accommodation through mutual
agreement.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.41
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The Indian Act
Our history as a democratic country has been one where Canadian citizens have continued to remain
indifferent to Aboriginal issues while allowing a legacy of suffering, pain, and abuse of the Aboriginal
Peoples stemming out of the Indian Act. In other words, the Indian Act legislation entrenches
discrimination and social control of the Aboriginal population by the people in power. It gives the
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and other government officials, a degree of discretion that
is not only intrusive but frequently offensive. It was stated in the Act that the rights of Indians to
control the actions of the Department would not be recognized under any circumstances. The Act
has also been criticized because it prohibits the First Nations to be able to make their own decisions
as self-governing polities and they see the Act as inhibiting that freedom. Even within its provisions,
others see unfair treatment as between, for example, Aboriginal Peoples who live on reserve and
those who reside elsewhere.
The original Indian Act was written in the last century at a time when European settlers found the
Indigenous Peoples’ presence and claim on the lands and resources of the new world to be a problem.
That attitude is clearly present, especially in the earliest versions of the Act. It has subjected First
Nations Peoples to government regulations which determined their legal status, their rights and it
also imposed certain restrictions on them.
The Indian Act of 1876 provided the most stark and formidable definition of First Nations
membership for the very first time, by including the distinction between “Status” and “non-Status
Indians.” This first version of the Act also incorporated the long-contested clauses that denied
membership to women who married non-Natives and to their children and that, conversely, conferred
status on non-Aboriginal women who married First Nations men. The question of membership and
legal status has had other important manifestations, including a lengthy debate in the 1930s about
whether Inuit Peoples qualified as “Indians” for the purposes of government responsibilities. Even
more long-standing has been the continued debate about the legal standing of the Métis or
individuals with both Indigenous and non-First Nations parents.
Status soon came to have other implications. Status Indians were denied the right to vote, they did
not sit on juries, and they were exempt from conscription in time of war (although the percentage of
volunteers was higher among Aboriginal Peoples than any other group). The attitude that others
were the better judges of Aboriginal interests turned the Statute into a grab-bag of social engineering
over the years. When the Potlatch and Sun Dance were seen as uncivilized, the Indian Act was used to
ban them. Possession of liquor, on or off the reserve, was punished more harshly under the Act than
by general laws. Loitering in pool rooms was forbidden. Indian children were removed from their
homes, under the Minister’s authority to educate them, and sent to residential schools. Children who
were habitually absent from school were “deemed” to be juvenile delinquents. Most telling in relation
to this attitude was the definition of “person” which was in the Statute until 1951: “an individual
other than an Indian.” Indians could become persons by voluntarily enfranchising – renouncing
Indian Status – and, in many circumstances, were involuntarily enfranchised by the Act.
A famous statement in 1920 by Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian
Affairs, encapsulates the prevailing attitude of his day:
2.42
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
“Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian
in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic,
and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department.”
Historically, the Act evolved to protect the small share of Canada’s land base which remained to our
original peoples. Statutes created the concept of “status” to separate those who were entitled to reside on
Indian lands and use their resources from those who were forbidden to do so. In this respect, the early
legislation was an expression of the concepts set forth in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The exemption
of reserve lands from municipal taxation and seizure under legal process were other measures intended
to secure those lands for the intended occupants – the Aboriginal Peoples themselves.
The tax-exempt status of Aboriginal Peoples has its roots in agreements between the European
settlers and the original inhabitants of what is now Canada. Land was made available to the newcomers
in exchange for a guarantee that Indigenous Peoples would never have to submit to the Crown’s
taxation. In most cases, the Aboriginal leaders of the time saw themselves to be representing separate
nations; they were allies, not subjects, of the Crown. Somehow, through the course of westward
expansion and settlement, the settlers assumed political control over all the lands and people. That
control was frequently obtained by force.
The Indian Act of 1876 and later, the amendment to the Act in 1889, extended government control
to First Nations Reserve lands. The Act of 1876 explicitly forbade the selling, alienation or leasing
of any reserve land unless it was first surrendered or leased to the Crown. By a 1889 amendment,
the government assumed greater control over land. This amendment was drafted specifically to
permit the federal government to override any Aboriginal group’s reluctance to have its land leased.
Consequently, over time, the measures originally intended to protect the land base were slowly
weakened and relaxed to open up reserve lands for farming, settlement and other purposes. Treaty
provisions which permitted the federal government to take up reserve lands for public works of
Canada were, in the Act, modified to enable any organization with expropriation powers to exercise
them on reserve land. When Aboriginal Peoples complained of administrative abuses and, in the
non-treaty areas, to press their claims of Aboriginal title, the Act was amended to make it an offense
to retain a lawyer for the purpose of advancing a claim. Not surprisingly the land base was reduced,
often in return for nominal consideration or no consideration.
The Indian Act of 1876 also made provision for the election of First Nations Chiefs, giving them
limited authority over matters such as the allocation of land within reserves and the maintenance
of roads. Essentially, these Chiefs functioned as agents of the federal government, exercising limited
power under federal supervision. Nor did this uniform system take into account the great diversity
of First Nations and their cultures, particularly those accustomed to hereditary Chieftainship.
The concept of enfranchisement was a key provision of the Act to fulfill the government’s ultimate
aim of total assimilation of the First Nations population in Canada. Since very few opted to become
enfranchised, an 1880 amendment declared that any First Nations person obtaining a university
degree would be automatically enfranchised. A 1933 amendment took enforced enfranchisement
even further. By that amendment, the government was empowered to order the enfranchisement of
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.43
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
First Nations members meeting the qualifications set out in the Act, even without the request of the
individuals concerned.
The tax exemption was first provided for in 1850 in an Act for the protection of the Indians in Upper
Canada from imposition of taxes and also the protection of the property occupied or enjoyed by
them from trespass and injury. Today, Section 87 of the Indian Act provides tax exemption to onreserve personal property of an Indian or band and the interest of an Indian or a band in reserve or
surrendered lands with respect to the ownership, occupation, possession, use, succession or
inheritance of any such property.
The Indian Act of 1951 and Onwards
The Indian Act was last given a major overhaul in the 1950s. The Act was modernized to reflect a
slightly more benevolent approach than the one of “Great White Father” paternalism. Yet the aim of
the legislators in the 1950s still appeared to be condescendingly geared toward ending all cultural,
legal and political distinctions between themselves and Aboriginal Peoples. If one reads between the
lines, it is very easy to see that the Indian Act was passed and amended by the Parliament of Canada
to serve as an interim law that would deal with the “Indian problem” for the time it took the government
and its bureaucracy to find a permanent solution to that problem – total assimilation. Assimilation
has always been on the table. Traditional peoples say that band councils were established to let
Aboriginal Peoples preside over their own destruction.
The Act, however, did introduce some changes. Laws banning the Potlatch and other ceremonies
were rescinded and First Nations members were given the freedom to enter public bars to consume
alcohol. On the whole, however, government powers over First Nations life remained formidable.
Moreover, Parliament did not act on the joint committee’s recommendation that a claims
commission be established to hear problems arising from the fulfillment of the treaties.
Although the Indian Act continued to block First Nations’ desire for self-determination, by 1960
some definite improvements had been made in their social and economic conditions. It was in
1960 that the right to vote in federal elections was at long last extended to First Nations members.
Aboriginal veterans played a big role in this change. They pointed out that they had fought for
Canada in two world wars, yet were unfairly deprived of the right to vote.
With the provision of better health services in the mid-1950s, the Status Indian population increased
rapidly. In addition, many more First Nations children had access to schooling, including secondary
and post-secondary education. In general, however, the living conditions of Aboriginal Peoples still
fell far short of the standards other Canadians had come to expect as the norm.
The Act was again under study in the mid-1960s. The Hawthorne Report vividly portrayed the
“Indian” fact in Canada and, after a national consultation with Chiefs, the government came up with
the 1969 White Paper Policy which would abolish Indian Status, Indian Reserves, Indian treaties, the
Indian Department and the Indian Act. The Aboriginal Peoples’ resistance to this initiative, coupled
with favourable court decisions, forced government to re-think its policies. In 1973, the White Paper
was formally withdrawn and government began to deal, somewhat intermittently, with land claims.
2.44
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Recognition of “existing Indian and treaty rights” in the Constitution Act, 1982 and proclamation
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms led to important changes. Government had long
promised to remove involuntary enfranchisement from the Act, especially the clause that deprived
Indian women of their status and band membership when they married non-Indian men; whereas,
non-Indian women who married Indian men gained status and membership. This provision was
challenged in Lovelace v. Canada in 1983 and the United Nations Human Rights Committee found
that the Act discriminated on the basis of sex, and other ongoing violations of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. In response to these criticisms, Bill C-31 was enacted to remove the
discriminatory provisions. In fact, Bill C-31 went much further, reinstating those who had previously
lost status and their children. This move greatly increased the Status Indian population, creating
increased demands upon community and government resources which have yet to be resolved. In the
current Act, there is no voluntary or involuntary enfranchisement and marriage is a neutral act: no
one gains or loses status. In 1985, there were approximately 300,000 Status Indians. In 1996, the
number is more like 600,000. Finally, in 1988, the “Kamloops” amendments created “designated
lands” on reserves and gave band councils regulatory and taxing jurisdiction over their leased lands.
As can be seen from the above discussion, the Indian Act is something of a total institutional tool
created by the government to achieve its “Indian” agenda. Along with the treaties, it touches on
almost all aspects of the lives of Status Indians. From the Aboriginal point of view, however, the two
are at cross purposes: the Act is designed to restrict and control, whereas the treaties aim at
accommodation through mutual agreement.
The Liberal “Red Book” promised changes in the Indian Act and in the federal election of 1994,
the Liberal Party of Canada pledged to support the inherent right of Aboriginal Peoples to govern
themselves. It looked like a huge stride forward. However, the self government plan put forward by
the federal government did not recognize the power to govern was inherent for Aboriginal Peoples.
The plan delegated power from Ottawa to the First Nations and it was a very subordinate power,
certainly not a recognition of sovereign First Nation governments and it demonstrated that the
federal government had no intention of sharing any of the real power that it possesses.
But the continued growth of the Aboriginal community and its unwavering determination to
preserve its culture and traditions, no matter what, suggests that a major change has to occur in
Canadian government’s attitude, views and dealings of Aboriginal issues. That change can only take
one of two forms: a mutually acceptable replacement for the Indian Act that includes a reasonable
settlement of land claims; or Canada will have to finally give up all pretense of trying to deal fairly
with Indigenous Peoples.
Definition of “Indian” in the Indian Act in a Nutshell
Legal Status
In Canada, the Indian Act is responsible for the legal definition of who may be considered an
“Indian.” The bureaucratic categorization of Aboriginal Peoples cannot be ignored if one is to have a
sense of the reality of contemporary Aboriginal society.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.45
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Status Indians
“Status Indian” is applied to those individuals who have legal status under the Indian Act and whose
names are recorded in the federal register provided by the Act.
The Inuit are excluded from the application of the Act, although they are “Indians” under the
definition of the term in the Constitution Act of 1982. However, for communities in Quebec, “Status”
is provided for those Inuit who are registered under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
Non-Status Indians
The term “non-Status Indian” is applied to people who may be considered as “Indians” according to
ethnic criteria, but who, for various reasons, are not entitled to registration under the Indian Act.
PHOTO: NATIVE CANADIAN CENTRE OF TORONTO
(In the past, Native Peoples lost their status when they obtained a university degree, or when women
married non-Natives, or simply because they were in the woods on a hunting expedition when the federal
registrar made a visit to their community. There is a long history behind the title “non-Status Indian.”)
2.46
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Indian Act: A Chronology Of Its Development
1876
The Indian Act was established in 1876. It dealt with three main areas: land; membership;
and, local government. It consolidated all previous Indian legislation, defined Indian Status,
and gave the Superintendent General administrative powers of Indian Affairs.
1884
In 1884 the Indian Act was amended to outlaw cultural and religious ceremonies such as
the Potlatch, which is the major social, economic and political institution of the coastal
Aboriginal Peoples.
1927
In 1927, the Canadian Parliament once again amends the Indian Act to make it illegal to
“receive, obtain, solicit or request from any Indian any payment for the purpose of raising
a fund or providing money for the pursuing of any claim” without the consent of the
Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
1951
Laws banning the Potlatch and other ceremonies were revoked and restraints were lifted
from First Nations members in entering public bars to consume alcohol.
1960s At long last, First Nations members were granted the right to vote in federal elections.
1985
On June 28, 1985 the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-31, an Act to Amend the Indian Act.
It brought the Indian Act into line with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Three major principles that guided the amendments were: removal of
discrimination; restoring status and membership rights; and, increasing control on Indian
Bands over their own affairs.
1988
In 1988, the federal government amended the Indian Act enabling First Nations to pass
by-laws to levy property taxes on reserve lands designated for leasing purposes. Before
the Act was amended, reserve lands set aside for leasing were defined as “conditionally
surrendered lands.” Under the new Kamloops amendment, these lands are now known
as “designated lands.” This was also an important symbolic change. First Nations had
long objected to the term “surrendered” because it conveyed the idea they were a
conquered peoples.
1996
In April 1995, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, issued a letter
to over 600 First Nations’ Chiefs, as well as 200 Tribal Councils and organizations, proposing
67 changes to the Indian Act.
On December 12, 1996, the Minister of Indian and Northern Development introduced in the
House of Commons, Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act. This Bill would allow
First Nations communities to accept the April 1995 modifications to the Indian Act or opt to
stay under the current Indian Act.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.47
Self-Government:
A Fundamental Human Right
Overview
This segment elaborates on the meaning of the
phrase “the inherent right to Aboriginal selfgovernment”;
It also provides a sense of the progress so far made
in the establishment of self-government;
A brief summary has been presented of various
ways to make self-government a reality; and
The segment also includes the possible
characteristics of Aboriginal self-government.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.49
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Points to Remember
Aboriginal Peoples say that the right to self-government is an existing Aboriginal right. Canadian
courts and most federal and provincial governments have been reluctant to recognize that right.
Although all attempts to secure the constitutional recognition of the right to self-government have
failed, the 1992 Charlottetown Accord went furthest toward constitutional recognition of the
inherent right to self-government.
The notion of Aboriginal self-government emerges from the fact that Aboriginal societies were
originally independent nations. Aboriginal Peoples’ right to self-governments existed because
their societies historically had been organized and self-ruling. Therefore, today Aboriginal leaders
insist that the Canadian Constitution should be changed to include the inherent right of Aboriginal
Peoples to govern themselves. Long before the first European settlers crossed the Atlantic, in
North America there were a number of great political and trade confederacies that existed at
this time. These included those of the Anishnabai of the Great Lakes; the Haudonosonee of the
Southern and Eastern Great Lakes; the Mississippian Peoples of the Mississippi River Basin; the
Mandan of the Great Plains; the Peoples of the Southwest; and many others. These Confederacies
were the central political bodies of these Peoples, who were mostly united by language and
geopolitical interests. Trade between the various Peoples was extensive.
Aboriginal self-government is a contested concept that is expressed in contrasting ways. If First
Nations’ self-government is viewed from the perspective of a Canadian nation state that asserts
undivided paramountcy, then the matter is simply one of defining quite limited, if significant,
decision-making powers that reflect this supremacy. From a different viewpoint, if self-government
must reflect the sovereign powers of First Nations and, if their relationship with Canada is to
continue, these sovereign powers must be recognized as equal to those of Canada.
The leaders of First Nations governments talk about self-government in the light of sovereignty
and self-determination. They are eager to negotiate and reach accommodations based upon
mutual recognition. Canadian officials are also ready to negotiate and reach agreements, but
theirs is the language of extinguishment rather than recognition, and for them, self-government
is the exercise of clearly circumscribed powers, circumscribed by their governments and in
terms of their sovereignty. A dialogue between these two perspectives is not always present or
possible, but, somehow or another, the debate goes on, and the road to self-determination
remains as a promise, if not a well-marked thoroughfare.
Different Aboriginal Peoples see self-government taking different forms. For many First Nations,
self-government means the ability to make laws. For others, it means the ability to provide
services to their members. For others, it means the ability to live according to their heritage. First
Nations government can work through the sharing of power. In this sense, self-government can
emerge in a variety of ways. Land claims may be one route, the courts are another, as is
legislation under existing federal and provincial powers.
Therefore, currently self-government means that Aboriginal Peoples will control such matters as
social services, health care, education, resource development, culture, language and justice. The
2.50
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
First Nations bands will decide who can join the band and how band government will be
organized. In some cases, these aspects of self-government have already been achieved. Many
First Nations in the North gained control over resource development in the 1980s and 1990s
through comprehensive land claims agreements. Bands have had the option of controlling band
membership since 1985. About one-quarter of Canadian bands had taken such control as of
1995. Then, in 1999, the final agreement was reached in the Nisga’a Treaty and the Nisga’a
First Nation got the power for self-government.
PHOTO: NATIVE CANADIAN CENTRE OF TORONTO
The concerns about self-government include: the power of chiefs and councils; the rights of
women; the situation of those Aboriginal people who are not living on Aboriginal owned land;
the situation of non-Aboriginal people living on land that becomes part of an Aboriginal nation
through land claims settlements; the Aboriginal governments as employers and implementation
of labour codes and labour laws. In many communities that are moving toward self-government,
the chief and band council have total control of finances and administration. The challenge will
be to create a government with checks and balances to guard against misuse of power. The
challenge is also to create an inclusive government where women will have an equal voice and
their rights will be protected.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.51
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Self-Government: Its Origin and Various Interpretations
“We all believe... that as First Nations we should have our
own governments with jurisdiction over our own lands and
people.... In effect, then, we would be participants in a
bilateral agreement with the federal government. Provinces
would no longer have authority over us in our own lands,
and whenever federal-provincial agreements were negotiated,
we would be included, accorded a role similar to that of
provinces today....We would be regarded as a third
participant, a separate founding nation, exercising control
over its own territories.”
George Erasmus, past Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
and Co-chair of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples quoted
in Boyce Richardson, ed., Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian
Country, page 2-3.
It is widely recognized that the right of self-determination through self-government is a fundamental
human right of all peoples. As individuals we are not confined to the assertion and exercise of
individual rights but can act publicly and collectively. Under this view, the “Aboriginal Peoples of
Canada” would have the right to choose their political structure, to determine the economic and
social regimes under which they live, and to enjoy, regain and enrich their special cultural heritage.
The right of self-government is essential to their human dignity and, ultimately, to their survival as
Aboriginal Peoples. But the right need not mean independent statehood – the manifestations of the
right may be accommodated within the present political system and within the context of the
Canadian federation.
Many Aboriginal communities argue that their sovereignty has never been given up. Aboriginal
explanations of sovereignty have not been recognized as legitimate. Aboriginal voices have not been
able to convince the Canadian courts that their forcible inclusion in the Canadian state has been
unjust. The injustice has arisen because the Euro-Canadian way of looking at the formation of the
Canadian state rejects the idea that Aboriginal communities can belong to a state while retaining
their distinct political identity.
Aboriginal Peoples have been burdened with the task, since the time of first contact, of being forced
to explain and justify their own conceptions of sovereignty in a language that is not their own.
Aboriginal Peoples can preserve the integrity of their unique cultures, as national minorities, but
their political status ultimately falls under the authority of the Canadian state. Post-Confederation
conceptions of Aboriginal sovereignty are captured in the language of the state that grants Aboriginal
Peoples “special” rights. Aboriginal Peoples argue that these rights are not “granted” by anyone;
Aboriginal sovereignty was already in place at the time of contact, and for many communities is
still in place.
2.52
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
For example, both pre and post-Confederation treaties recognize Aboriginal sovereignty. A treaty is
a formal recognition between sovereign entities guided by the principle of consent. But consent is
given under specific conditions. Consent arises between parties involved in a relationship based on
equality and mutual respect.
The problems associated with attaching meaning to the treaties involve a complex set of overlapping
philosophical, sociological, anthropological, legal, and historical issues. That is because most Aboriginal
cultures are politically and morally guided by an oral tradition – the problems inherent in interpreting
the meaning of the treaties cannot be resolved by the unilateral imposition of one interpretation.
The Canadian governments have been able to impose their interpretations of the treaties on
Aboriginal Peoples at least since the time of Confederation. In addition to treaties, there are numerous
legislations by British and Canadian governments and various rulings by the Canadian and British
courts that can be interpreted to mean that Aboriginal sovereignty has not been extinguished. Hence,
the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Rupert’s Land Transfer Act of
the same year are further evidences that the Crown explicitly recognized Aboriginal Peoples as
sovereign nations.
Indian governments traditionally exercised the powers of sovereign Nations and the most fundamental
right of a sovereign Nation is the right to govern its peoples and territory under its own law and
customs. “Inherent” means that the right of self-government was not granted by Parliament or any
other branch of any foreign government. Aboriginal Peoples have always had the right and the
treaties re-enforce this position.
Broadly speaking, then, Aboriginal rights are inherent, collective rights based on Aboriginal Peoples’
pre-contact social order and their original occupation of the land. Most Aboriginal groups agree that
their rights extend beyond the right to own and occupy land or maintain a traditional lifestyle.
Ultimately, they embrace the concept of independence through self-determination. Most of them
would also agree that the supreme source of Aboriginal rights is the Creator. In this they are little
different from the democracies of the Western world.
Today, the issue remains as unclear as it was a century ago. No statute, court decision or political
statement has been provided by which the issue might be resolved. Until the late 1970s, the federal and
provincial governments’ response to demands for Aboriginal self-government was an adamant “no.”
They took the position that they could not recognize Aboriginal self-government based on Aboriginal
sovereignty because the only sovereignty that existed in Canada was vested in the Crown. However, since
mid 80s, the government’s approach to the demand of Aboriginal self-government started to change.
Aboriginal Perspective
Aboriginal groups, on the other hand, base their perspective on self-government on four factors:
• Greater self-determination and social justice;
• Economic development to end dependency, poverty and unemployment;
• Protection and retention of Aboriginal culture; and
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.53
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
• Social vitality and development that will overcome existing problems of poor health, housing
crisis, irrelevant education, isolation and alienation, etc.
In order to achieve these aspirations, Aboriginal self-government would need: 1) political institutions
accountable to Aboriginal communities; 2) a territorial land base; 3) control over group membership;
and 4) continuing financial support. In summary, this would mean control over a number of areas
such as citizenship, land, water, education, health, cultural development and law enforcement.
Accordingly, the Aboriginal Bands are qualified to exercise powers of self-government because they
are independent political groups. Among the inherent powers of Indian government is the power to:
a) determine the form of government;
b) define conditions for membership in the Nation;
c) regulate the domestic relations for its members;
d) levy and collect taxes; and
e) administer and enforce laws.
In August 1995, the Minister of Indian Affairs announced the federal government’s new policy on
the inherent right of self-government, entitled “Federal Policy Guide: Aboriginal Self-Government –
The Government of Canada’s Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation
of Aboriginal Self-Government.” Under this policy, the federal government expressly recognizes the
inherent right of self-government as an existing right within Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
It acknowledges that the inherent right of self-government may be enforceable through the courts,
and that there are different views about the nature, scope and the content of the inherent right.
However, the federal government’s stated objective under the policy is to reach negotiated selfgovernment agreements, rather than focus on developing legal definitions of the right.
The federal government outlined three categories of subject matter for negotiations. The first
category includes those that the government views as internal to Aboriginal groups, integral to its
distinctive culture and essential to its operation as a government, such as education, health, natural
resources management, and so on.
The second category deals with those matters that the federal government believes go beyond matters
that are integral to the Aboriginal culture or that are strictly internal to the groups (i.e., labour and
training.) It indicates that it is prepared to negotiate some measure of Aboriginal jurisdiction or
authority, but the primary authority in these matters will remain either with the federal or provincial
governments.
The third category includes those matters over which the federal government feels there is no
compelling reason for Aboriginal governments to exercise law-making power.
The federal government outlines a number of principles upon which the policy is based:
• the inherent right of self-government is an existing Aboriginal right recognized and affirmed
under S.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
2.54
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
• the inherent right of self-government will operate within the framework of the Canadian
Constitution;
• the inherent right of self-government does not include a right of sovereignty in the international
law sense and will not result in sovereign independent Aboriginal Nation states;
• the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply fully to Aboriginal governments as it
does to all other governments in Canada. Section 25, which requires the Charter to be interpreted
in a manner that respects Aboriginal and treaty rights, will apply;
• where all parties agree, rights in self-government agreements may be protected in treaties, such as
new treaties under Section 35, through additions to existing treaties, or as part of comprehensive
land claims agreements, legislation, contracts and non-binding memoranda of understanding;
• federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal laws must work in harmony. Certain laws of
overriding federal and provincial importance, such as the Criminal Code, will prevail;
• the interests of all Canadians will be taken into account as agreements are negotiated; and
• where Aboriginal groups wish the Crown to have certain ongoing fiduciary obligations, selfgovernment jurisdiction or authority will, correspondingly, be limited.
Then in January 1998, the federal government in its response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples Report, entitled “Gathering Strength: Canada’s Aboriginal Action Plan,” reaffirmed its
commitment to its policy on the inherent right of self-government and its willingness to enter into
treaty and self-government negotiations.
How will the implementation of First Nations government happen? If self-government is going to
reflect sovereignty and lead to greater self-determination, the sources of First Nations’ powers and the
sharing of powers between First Nations and Canadian governments must be expressed in practical
arrangements that grow out of nation-to-nation relationships.
The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) makes several
recommendations about the various forms Aboriginal self-government may and should take.
These include:
• Applying self-government to Aboriginal nations rather than to small communities. There are
about sixty to eighty historical Aboriginal nations in Canada, while the number of Aboriginal
communities is about a thousand. These Aboriginal governments may vary in structure, reflecting
the different traditions of separate nations;
• Establishing a House of First Peoples as an Aboriginal parliament, representing Aboriginal
governments as an order equal to the federal and provincial governments;
• Establishing dual citizenship for Aboriginal Peoples as the citizens of Canada and of an Aboriginal
nation;
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.55
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
• Getting funding for self-government by taxing Aboriginal citizens rather than by transferring
money from land claims payments; and
• Establishing the laws of Aboriginal nations by way of referendums in which Aboriginal citizens
vote on their nation’s constitution.
The RCAP Report also outlined three models for Aboriginal self-government:
One is nation government operating on a land base, which could apply throughout the country
wherever land claims have been settled. The 1998 Nisga’a treaty resulted in a land-base Aboriginal
self-government.
The second is a community-of-interest government, which would apply to Aboriginal people in
urban centres without a land base.
The third is public government, which is the model followed by the new territory of Nunavut.
The Nisga’a Treaty
In this context, it is important to review the Nisga’a agreement on self-government and briefly
discuss the structure of the self-government. On October 21, 1999, The Honourable Robert Nault,
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, introduced a Bill in Parliament, entitled The
Nisga’a Final Agreement Act negotiated between the Nisga’a people, the Government of Canada and
the Government of British Columbia. This has been the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia.
The Nisga’a Final Agreement sets out all the rights the Nisga’a will have under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, including in the areas of lands, resources and self-government. The Nisga’a
will receive a settlement package which includes $253 million paid over 15 years, 2,019 square
kilometres of land in the Nass Area and other treaty benefits.The land and resource components of
the Agreement, have been combined with enhanced local decision-making powers by the Nisga’a.
The Nisga’a will be governed by the Nisga’a Lisims Government (central government) and four
Nisga’a Village Governments. The Nisga’a will adopt a Constitution which will set out the terms of
governance and recognize the rights and freedoms of Nisga’a citizens. The Constitution must be
passed by at least 70 percent of the voters who participate in the vote to ratify the Final Agreement.
The Nisga’a Government will be required to consult with other residents of Nisga’a Lands about
decisions that significantly and directly affect them. Likewise, residents who are not Nisga’a will be
able to participate in elected bodies that directly and significantly affect them. Some local laws, such
as traffic and transportation will apply to other residents of Nisga’a Lands, but in the majority of
cases Nisga’a laws will only pertain to Nisga’a citizens.
The Nisga’a Government will have the power to make laws required to carry out its responsibilities
and exercise its authority under this agreement. In addition, the Nisga’a Government may make laws
governing such things as Nisga’a citizenship; Nisga’a language and culture; Nisga’a property in Nisga’a
2.56
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Lands; public order, peace and safety; employment; traffic and transportation; the solemnization
of marriages; child and family, social and health services; child custody, adoption, and education.
The Nisga’a Government may provide policing, correctional, and court services on Nisga’a Lands in
accordance with the terms of the treaty. It will be responsible for ensuring the provision of programs
and services at levels reasonably comparable to those generally available in northwest British Columbia.
Every five years, the treaty requires the parties to negotiate a fiscal financing agreement through which
funding will be provided to the Nisga’a Government to enable the delivery of programs and services
including health, education, social services, local services, capital asset maintenance and replacement,
housing, and resource management.
The Nisga’a Government will have the power to tax Nisga’a citizens on Nisga’a Lands. The Nisga’a
Government, Canada and British Columbia may negotiate tax delegation agreements for other taxes
and the parties may make agreements to coordinate their respective tax systems on Nisga’a Lands.
Pursuant to a taxation agreement, the Nisga’a Government and Nisga’a Village Governments will
be treated in the same way as municipalities for tax purposes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an Aboriginal order of government can coexist with the federal and provincial order
of government. Many Canadians, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal are interested to know the
distinguishing features and dimensions of the Aboriginal order of government, and how it will be
given practical expression. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples believed that the exercise of
Aboriginal self-government is likely to assume a number of forms according to Peoples’ differing
aspirations, circumstances, and capacities for change. However, whatever form is being adopted, the
final outcomes will be as richly diverse as are the traditions, ambitions and experiences of Aboriginal
Peoples in Canada.
In 1974, George Manuel, former President of the National Indian Brotherhood and founder of the
World Council of Indigenous Peoples remarked that:
“...the fastest way to bring about change among an oppressed
people is to put the decision-making authority and the
economic resources that go with it, into their own hands.”
This requires not only the federal government’s cooperation, but also provincial governments’
acknowledgement of the existence of Aboriginal Nations and their inherent right to selfdetermination and self-government.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.57
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
History: A Chronology
1492
Voyage of Christopher Columbus, following which the coasts of North America and
Newfoundland are visited by Basque, Breton, Norman, Spanish, Portuguese, English and
Irish seamen fishing for cod, hunting seals, and bartering with the Native Peoples.
1500-1875 The first contacts are made with the Inuit in the far north of Canada. Frobisher,
Mackenzie, Ross, Parry, Franklin, Richardson, Back, Beechey, Simpson and Rae search
for the Northwest Passage to Asia.
2.58
1502
Cortereal’s Expedition in to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Members of the Beothuk Nation are
captured and brought to Europe.
1534
First visit by Jacques Cartier, who is welcomed by the Micmac in the Maritimes and the
Iroquois (probably the Huron-Wendat) in Gaspé. He meets the Montagnais at Tadoussac
and goes as far as Stadacona and Hochelaga. Members of the First Nations are captured
and brought to France. Cartier’s last voyage takes place in 1542.
1542
Jacques Cartier claims Gaspé region for France.
1570
Foundation of the League of the Five Iroquois Nations by Deganewidah and Hiawatha.
The Tuscarora join in about 1720.
1581
The fur trade delivers its first shipments to markets in the capitals of Europe.
1600
Settlement by Chauvin in Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay River, the longestablished center for exchanges between the Hurons-Wendat, Montagnais, Micmacs
and other Native Peoples.
1603
Champlain sails up the St. Lawrence and meets the Montagnais, Algonquins and
Malecites. First treaty, sealing a military and commercial alliance, signed at Pointe-auxAlouettes. General authorization to settle the country in return for military assistance
against the Iroquois.
1608
Champlain establishes a colony in what will become Quebec City.
1609
Champlain concludes a military alliance with the Hurons-Wendat against the Iroquois.
They allow Champlain to push further into their territory. He attacks the lands of the
Iroquois.
1615
Arrival of the Recollect missionaries to “convert the Indians.”
1624
Champlain concludes a general alliance of peace and trade with the Iroquois, the
Hurons-Wendat and other allies.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
1625
Arrival of the Jesuits in New France.
1626
Purchase of Manhattan Island from the Manhattan Nation by the West India Company
(Holland) for 60 florins, the equivalent value of ten beaver pelts. This is the first
agreement recognizing the territorial rights of Native Peoples in North America.
1627
Establishment by Richelieu of the Compagnie des Cent Associés, to which the French
monarch grants commercial rights for New France and Acadia. It operates until 1645.
1629
The Kirke brothers (English) occupy Quebec City.
1635
A Jesuit mission in Sillery creates the first Indian reserve in Canada, based on a model
used by the Jesuits in Paraguay, where they have tried for more than forty years
“to confine and reduce” the Aboriginal populations (quoted from the writings of Father
Le Jeune). Until 1649, 167 Native people lived there, when it was deserted because of
a famine.
1640
Epidemics wipe out more than half of the Huron-Wendat Nation.
1645
Conclusion of a peace treaty at Trois-Rivières between the French, the Iroquois, the
Hurons-Wendat, the Atikameks and the Montagnais.
1647
Beginning of the Iroquois Wars.
1649
The Iroquois destroy Wendake (Huronia, located in present-day Ontario) and decimate
the Petun tribe (1650), the Neutral tribe (1651), and the Erie tribe (1656).
1650
A group of 300 Hurons-Wendat settle in Quebec City.
1651-1655 The Iroquois wage war in Atikamek territory (1651-55) and in the lands of the
Montagnais (1655-66).
1660
The Iroquois are undisputed masters of northeastern America.
Charles II of Great Britain grants Rupert’s Land to the Hudson Bay Company.
Beginning of the Huron-Wendat reserve in Ancienne-Lorette.
1666-1667 Temporary peace treaty between the French and the Iroquois.
1666
The West Indian Company begins fur trading activities in New France.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.59
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
History: A Chronology
1670
Smallpox causes thousands of deaths among Native Peoples in Canada.
The representatives of the British colonies receive an order from London to sign
“treaties of peace and friendship with the Indians” of North America.
1675-1684 Continuation of the Iroquois Wars.
2.60
1677
Treaties of the “silver chain” at Albany, on the Hudson River, between the Dutch, the
British and the Iroquois of the League of Five Nations. The first treaty is between the
Iroquois and the colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts, the second between the
Iroquois and the Delaware and representatives of Maryland and Virginia. These treaties
create peace for the Iroquois in the British colonies from 1677 to 1755.
1680
The French Crown grants land to the Jesuits for the benefit of the Iroquois (Mohawks) in
the Seigneurie of Sault-Saint-Louis (today’s Kahnawake).
1684
Another peace treaty between the French and the Iroquois.
1689
The Iroquois attack Lachine, and the Wars continue.
1700
Establishment of the Abenaki village of Odanac, at the mouth of the St. Francis River,
with the creation of a Jesuit mission.
1701
The Treaty of Great Peace is signed in Montreal by the Wabanaki, the Iroquois and the
French. End of the Iroquois Wars.
1713
Treaty of Utrecht (the peninsula of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Hudson Bay) are
ceded to the British by the French.
1718
Settlement of Mohawks at Oka. Lands reserved for the community and administered in
trust by the Sulpician Order.
1722
A treaty with the Six Nations establishes borders on the basis of which the Iroquois must
confine themselves to the area west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and north of the
Potomac River.
1725
A treaty of “peace and friendship” signed in Boston between the British Crown and the
Micmacs of the Penobscott, Naridgwack, St. John’s and Cape Sable tribes.
1728
More treaties between the British and the Micmacs of Nova Scotia, designed to
neutralize and obtain assistance from Native Peoples in the colonial wars between
Britain and France. These treaties outline relations concerning trade, lands, and
“traditional hunting and fishing practices.”
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
1726
Treaties of “peace and friendship” between the Micmacs, the Abenaki of New England,
and the British.
1748
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
1752
A treaty between the Micmacs and the British Crown recognizing and confirming the
Micmacs’ hunting and fishing rights (enshrines the treaty of 1725).
1754
Conference at Albany between the British and the Iroquois. An alliance results in return
for a promise that Native Peoples’ lands will be protected.
Creation by London of the “Department of British Indian Affairs,” reporting to military
authorities.
1759
The British take Quebec City.
1760
First Nations in the Maritimes renew the terms of treaties with the British.
Before the Act of Capitulation of Montreal, Sir William Johnson, the official representative
of the British army and government, signs the Treaty of Swegatchy (a native village
located half-way between Lake Ontario and Montreal) with representatives of several
nations. This agreement calls for First Nations’ allies of the French to withdraw from the
War of Conquest, and guarantee their neutrality, in return for British recognition and
compliance with all treaties previously concluded with the French. This confirmation
that the British will respect all treaty issues of freedom of movement, of territory, and
of traditional and religious practices, through the transfer of treaty obligations, has an
important impact on the conclusion of the War of Conquest.
General Murray signs the same kind of treaty with the Huron-Wendat (Sioux decision).
1763
Treaty of Paris, by which France surrenders all its possessions in North America to Great
Britain. Articles protecting property, religion, and treaty rights of “the French and others”
are included.
Royal Proclamation by King George III of Great Britain. In Canada, this proclamation lays
the ground rules for the “future colonization of Indian and Crown lands.” It establishes
the right of Native Peoples to use and occupy “Crown” lands. It presents the First
Nations in terms of allies, rather than as British subjects. It requires the colonies to clear
by law the “Indian title” to any land required for colonization. It does not allow for
settlement on these lands as long as Native Peoples have not conveyed their rights in
negotiations with the Crown.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.61
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
History: A Chronology
1763
Twenty-four treaties are signed with various Native groups, most relating to the fertile
northern shore of Lake Ontario. The Native Peoples in question do not initiate these
treaties and play no role in their wording. The purpose is to free the lands from “Indian
title” to ownership, the existence of which is presumed in the Royal Proclamation of
1763. At first, these conveyances are paid for in final “cash” payments. Later, the Crown
sets up reserves, and pays annuities and other benefits to Native Peoples who convey
their title to the land.
1766
Treaty of Oswego enshrines the defeat of the coalition of Pontiac.
1774
Adoption of the Quebec Act, in which, amongst other details, the territory of Quebec is
extended as far north as Labrador and as far south as the Ohio River.
1779
The Micmacs, from Cap Tourmentin to the Baie des Chaleurs, adopt all previously
signed treaties.
1781
The Chippewa (Ojibway) Nation signs a treaty with the colonial government, by which
they cede all rights to the Michillimakinac Island.
1775-1783 During the American Revolution, Native Peoples in Quebec support the British.
Montgomery and Arnold invade Quebec. The Loyalists emigrate to Quebec.
1783
The Treaty of Versailles recognizes the independence of the United States. The border
between Canada and the United States is defined from the Atlantic to Lake of the
Woods.
The United States government proclaims that no “Indian lands” may be colonized
without congressional approval.
1784-1850 Continuous negotiations between governments and Native groups resulting in Acts
transferring “Indian lands.”
2.62
1786
Joseph Brant presents Mohawk claims in England.
1791
With the Constitutional Act, creation of Upper and Lower Canada.
1794
Signature of Jay’s Treaty, sealing the terms of peace between British North America
and the United States. It is not promulgated until 1796. It removes British traders and
troops from American territory and from southwest of the Great Lakes. Troops had
remained there despite the border drawn by the Treaty of Versailles in 1783. Some
Iroquois remain in the Ohio Valley to trade furs with the Americans under the protection
of Jay’s Treaty.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
1794
Concession by the Jesuits of land which will later become part of the Lorette (HuronWendat) reserve.
1809
Labrador Act – the coast of Labrador and Anticosti Island are allocated to the
Newfoundland government.
1812
War breaks out between the United States and Britain. The Mohawks and the Abenakis
fight for the British, while the Iroquois fight with the Americans.
The modern system of administering “Indian Affairs” is introduced. The military
administration becomes a civilian administration. The new administration favors a policy
of assimilation and confinement to reserves. After the War of 1812, the British no longer
fear an American invasion.
1816
Cuthbert Grant expels Selkirk Settlers after the Battle of Seven Oaks.
1817
The Saulteux and the Cree negotiate a treaty with the Earl of Selkirk to extinguish
“Indian property rights” for the entire region of the Red River Colony.
1818
An agreement between Canada and the United States confirms the 49th Parallel as the
border between the two countries, as far west as the Rocky Mountains.
1820-40
In the United States, Native Peoples are “deported” to the west of the Mississippi River,
to live on newly created “Indian reserves.”
1821
The Hudson Bay Company is given the exclusive right to trade with Native Peoples
throughout the “uninhabited areas of North America”(sic).
1825
The Labrador Act transfers Anticosti Island and the Lower North Shore back to Quebec.
1840
The Act of Union, joining Upper and Lower Canada into a unified province.
1850
Signature of the Robinson Treaties, concerning the conveyance of land north of Lakes
Huron and Superior in order to permit mining development, and by which the Saulteux
tribes were displaced onto 20 small reserves.
Adoption of the Act for the Better Protection of the Lands and Property of the Savages in
Lower Canada. The Act recognizes two kinds of “Indian lands”: Indian hunting lands and
lands granted to Native Peoples directly or through missionaries. It also provides the first
legal (and “white”) definition of “Indian.” The Act requires compensation of 1,000 pounds
annually to be distributed among the First Nations whose lands have been taken by
Canadians or ruined by their development.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.63
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
History: A Chronology
1851
In Upper Canada, a Land Commissioner is appointed and 93,150 hectares are set aside
for future “Indian reserves.” Another law is passed banning trade with Native Peoples,
entry onto reserve lands, and the taking or settling on such lands “for any reason
whatsoever.”
During the 1850’s, eleven new reserves are created in Lower Canada: Timiskaming and
Maniwaki for the Algonquins; Corelaine (Bécancour) for the Abenakis; Doncaster for the
Mohawks of Kanawake and Oka; Coucoucache and Weymontachie for the Atikameks;
Roquemont for the Huron of Loretteville (sold in 1904 and recently disputed); Viger for
the Malecite of Rivière Verte (abandoned in 1869 and sold); Restigouche for the Micmac;
Pointe-Bleue (1856) for the Montagnais of Lac-St-Jean (Péribonca and Métabetchouan,
in 1851); and, Bersimis for the Montagnais of the Manicouagan Region in 1851
(Betsiamites in 1861).
1857
Adoption of the Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Tribes of Savages in the
Province of Canada and to amend the law relating to Savages. Beginning of the principle
of legal emancipation.
1860
Transfer of legislative responsibility for Indian Affairs from London to the government of
the Province of Canada.
The Management of Indian Lands and Property Act outlines the procedures by which
Indian lands could be surrendered to the Crown for settlement purposes.
1867
Adoption of the British North America Act. In Section 91, jurisdiction over “Indians and
lands reserved for Indians” is conferred to the federal government.
1868
A treaty between the American government and the Navajos allows for the recovery of
part of their ancestral lands, and creates the largest Indian reserve in the USA, including
64,745 kms straddling the three states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.
Adoption of the Act to Provide for the Organization of the Department of the Secretary of
State of Canada and for the Administration of the Affairs of the Indians and of the
Ordinance, consolidates all earlier laws and treaties concerning Native Peoples.
1869
The Métis of Manitoba, led by Louis Riel, expel a team of surveyors sent by the Canadian
government to survey land routes for incoming settlers, then declare a provisional
government and draft the terms by which Manitoba will enter Confederation. Troops
a0re sent to Fort Garry and Louis Riel is exiled to the United States.
Adoption of Enfranchisement Act which outlines a process for legal assimilation and
gradual emancipation of the Indians, distinguishes between Status and non-Status
Indians and gives more power to the Superintendent of Indian Affairs.
2.64
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
1870
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
Adoption of the Manitoba Act – 600,000 hectares of land are to be reserved for the
Métis.
Purchase of Rupert’s Land by the Dominion of Canada from the Hudson Bay Company.
A clause in the ministerial order integrating this land provides that Canada must satisfy
Native Peoples’ claims in respect of colonization.
1871
Beginning of a major series of Canadian treaties with the First Nations which includes
setting aside of reserve land, payment of compensation, grants for clothing, annual
payments for ammunition and rope, allowances for education, medical assistance and
food aid in case of famine.
American Congress puts through an order to stop the signing of treaties with Native
Peoples in the United States.
1872
Residential schools are set up.
1873
Treaty No. 3 is signed with the Saulteux, in order to open the way for immigrants
traveling from Ontario to Manitoba. It opens the door to the west for the transcontinental
railway.
1875
Signature of Treaty No. 5, called the “Lake Winnipeg Treaty,” concerning the lands of the
Muskegan Cree and the Saulteux. Title to 260,000 kms of land around Lakes Winnipeg
and Manitoba is transferred. This opens the way toward the Saskatchewan River.
1876
Signature of Treaty No. 6 with the Woods Cree and the Assiniboine (Stoney). Title to
310,000 kms of land in central Alberta is transferred. The Saulteux Chief Big Bear
refuses to sign.
Passage of the Indian Act or “Acte des Sauvages” by the Canadian Parliament. Includes
compulsory “emancipation” of Native women who marry non-Indians, and trusteeship
over “Indians and their lands.”
Battle of Little Big Horn in the USA, where the Cheyenne and Sitting Bull’s Sioux wipe
out Colonel Custer’s 7th cavalry regiment. The Sioux later escape to Canada. This ends
the nomadic existence of the Plains Indians in the USA, who henceforth live on reserves.
1877
Signature of Treaty No. 7 with the Blackfoot, Blood, Peigan, Sarcee and Assiniboine
Nations, which covers the remaining lands in southern Alberta.
1879
The bison practically disappear from the Canadian plains.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.65
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
History: A Chronology
1880
The Indian Act is amended to “allow for the automatic enfranchisement” of any Indian
obtaining a university degree and of any Indian woman who marries a non-Indian or a
non-Registered Indian.
1884
The Indian Act is amended to ban Potlatches and other dance rituals, which was in
effect until 1951. Several people are imprisoned.
1885
Northwest Rebellion, Louis Riel and eight other Native people are hanged.
1887
Nisga’a Chiefs travel to Victoria to demand that the government recognize land titles,
treaties and their right to self-government.
1888
The St. Catherines Milling Company case in Ontario finds that surrendered Indian lands
are held in right of the provincial Crown.
1889
The Indian Act is amended to enable the federal government to disregard the opposition
of Indian bands to leases of their lands and to impose more control over Indian
education, morality and local government.
1898-1912 Adoption of Acts to extend the borders of Quebec and Ontario. Annexation of the James
Bay and Hudson Bay watersheds.
2.66
1899
Signature of Treaty No. 8 with the Athapaskans and certain tribes in British Columbia
following the discovery of gold in the Klondike, Yukon Territory. Title to 812,000 kms in
northern Alberta, the southern part of the Mackenzie District, northwestern
Saskatchewan and northeastern British Columbia is transferred.
1905
Signature of Treaty No. 9 with the Saulteux and the Marshy Cree. Title to 500,000 kms
in Northern Ontario is transferred.
1906
Signature of Treaty No. 10 with the Chippewayan and the Marshy Cree relating to
northern Saskatchewan.
1916
Signature of the Convention on Migratory Birds by Canada and the United States.
The Canadian Act of 1917 implements this agreement.
1921
Signature of Treaty No. 11 with the Dene (Athapaskan) in the Northwest Territories
(Slavey, Dogrib, Hare and Loucheux). In 1920, oil is discovered at Fort Norman. Title to
930,000 kms of land is transferred. Objective – to free title to land where there are
potential oil discoveries.
1923
Treaty with the Chippewyan and Mississauga Indians in central and southern Ontario.
The result of disputes concerning pre-Confederation transfers of land.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
1927
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The Indian Act is amended to ban Indians from raising funds for claim purposes without
the written consent of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs.
1929-1930 Agreements on the transfer of natural resources between Canada, Manitoba, Alberta and
Saskatchewan introduces the application of provincial game laws on Native territories,
however, Native Peoples are entitled to hunt, fish and trap in any season for their
livelihood on any “unoccupied Crown lands” and on private land to which they are
granted access. The provinces will convey the federal reserve lands referred to in the
treaties.
1929
Adhesion of Native groups to Treaty No. 9 in northern Ontario.
1931
The Statute of Westminster makes Canada fully sovereign, except for issues of
constitutional amendment.
1933
The Indian Act is amended to make mandatory the “emancipation” of any Native person
who obtains a university degree.
1939
A decision of the Supreme Court of Canada rules that an Inuit is an “Indian within the
definition in the Act.” The federal government did not actually began to apply Indian Act
programs to the Inuit, such as social assistance, until 1950.
1944
The North American Indian Brotherhood is formed to unite Indians in Canada.
1951
The Indian Act is amended to remove the ban on Potlatches and other traditional
ceremonies, and to allow Native people to legally to enter bars and other drinking
establishments. A Joint Senate-House of Commons Committee recommends the
creation of a commission to consider claims in connection with the application of
treaties.
1960
Legislation that prohibits Indians who live on-reserves from becoming Canadian citizens
is repealed. It is now possible to be an Indian under the definition of the Indian Act and a
fully enfranchised Canadian citizen.
On July 1, Indian people win the right to vote in federal elections. Their right to vote in
provincial and territorial elections was granted in various years, Quebec being the last
one to grant this right to Indians in 1969.
1968
Mary Two-Axes Early, a Mohawk, begins her fight to combat discrimination against
women under the Indian Act (which she will win in 1985).
Métis people, non-Status Indians and their organizations are excluded from Status
Indian organizations.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.67
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
History: A Chronology
1968
Creation of the American Indian Movement in Minneapolis by three Chippewa tribes.
1969
A federal government White Paper (presented by Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien)
proposes the repeal of the Indian Act, suppression of “special status” for Native Peoples
and the abolition of all treaties. Indian Affairs officials are withdrawn from reserves.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development starts closing down
residential schools.
1970
The federal government authorizes the funding of Native organizations for research into
treaty and ancestral rights.
1971
The Alaska Agreement in the USA , concerning the Inuit and the Dene and Aleut Nations,
creates village and regional corporations. The Agreement provides compensation and
recognition of clear “Indian title” to 18 million acres of territory (cat 12.a), and allows for
the practice of traditional activities in another area of over 4 million acres (cat 12.b). The
agreement eliminates reserves and accords royalties for Native Peoples from mining and
forestry operations. Regional corporations are granted 16 million acres of land.
1972
The National Indian Brotherhood, later to become the Assembly of First Nations, initiates
demands for communities to have the right to administer education with the creation of
their own school boards. They win this right in 1973.
1973
Creation of a federal government policy for comprehensive land claims (based on
ancestral rights) and specific claims (based on treaty rights and also concerning the
administration of “Indian moneys and lands”). Comprehensive claims must be based on
traditional occupation and use of lands, and title must not have been subject to a treaty
or legal deed of assignment or extinction. The lands in question are located in Quebec,
the Yukon, British Columbia, Labrador and the Northwest Territories.
The Supreme Court of Canada hears the Calder case and rules that the concept of
Aboriginal title is part of Canadian law.
2.68
1974
Creation of the federal Office of Native Land Claims in the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development.
1975
The Cree, the Inuit, and the Quebec and Canadian governments sign the James Bay and
Northern Quebec Agreement (a modern treaty). It was initiated by projects for hydroelectric developments in the territory. The Cree and Inuit transfer rights and title to
981,610 kms in return for $225 million in compensation, ownership of category 1 lands,
hunting, fishing and trapping rights in category 2 lands, and regional administrations in
education, social and health services, social and economic development, etc.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
1976
The Quebec and Canadian governments sign the James Bay and Northern Quebec
Agreements.
1978
Métis and non-Status Indian organizations receive funding to research potential claims
and they submit the results of their research in 1980.
The Northeastern Quebec Agreement is signed.
1981
Federal government introduces change to its claims policy, broadening in scope the
requirements for the acceptance to hear claims, and increasing funds available to
groups initiating claims.
1982
Adoption of the Constitution Act by the Canadian Parliament. Section 35 recognizes
ancestral and treaty rights of the First Nations, Inuit and Métis of both sexes and
includes Indian, Inuit and Métis Peoples in the definition of “Aboriginal Peoples of
Canada.
1983
The report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government is published
(the Penner Commission). This Committee met with more than 567 witnesses, making
215 presentations, and held 60 public meetings. Its first recommendation was that the
federal government should establish a new kind of relationship with the First Nations,
with Native self-government as an essential component of this relationship. The report
recommends the constitutional recognition of Native autonomy, with a transfer of
powers to bands and tribal councils.
First Constitutional Conference on Indian Autonomy is held. There is agreement on four
additions to the Constitution: constitutional recognition of rights acquired under
agreements to settle land claims; a guarantee of equal recognition for men and women
of rights arising from the treaties; an undertaking to consult the Natives on any future
constitutional amendment relating to them; and, an undertaking to hold three further
conferences.
1985
Third Constitutional Conference on Native Rights is held. The Report of the Task Force
on the Comprehensive Land Claims policy (Coolican) is published which considered the
history of the treaties and claims and suggests a framework for a new policy on
comprehensive claims.
In June 1985, the Indian Act is amended where it concerns the status of Native women.
An end to discrimination and recovery of status by certain Indian women and Bill C-31
is passed.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.69
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
History: A Chronology
1986
Federal land claims policy is changed. A review is made of the negotiation process and
there is no longer a comprehensive extinction of ancestral rights but only a transfer of
land. Self-government agreements are possible, without constitutional entrenchment and
agreements on property rights, pre-property rights and natural resources.
1987
Fourth and last Conference of First Ministers on Constitutional Autonomy for Aboriginal
Peoples is held and it becomes clear that First Nations and the federal and provincial
governments want very different things entrenched in the Constitution and consequently
it ends in a stalemate.
1988
Bill C-115, to amend the Indian Act is passed. It enables First Nations to pass by-laws
to levy property taxes on reserve lands designated for leasing purposes.
1990
Signature of an agreement in principle with the Inuit of the Nunavut region covering the
northern part of Hudson Bay.
Kanesatake Mohawks confront the Quebec Provincial Police and later, the Canadian
Armed Forces, which is known as the “Oka Crisis.” As in most conflicts between
Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginals, unresolved land-claims issues have been at the
source of the crisis. The Mohawks erect barricades to protest expansion of a golf course
in to Mohawk land and the federal government, as a result of a request by the Quebec
government, and they send in the army. The crisis results in the death of one man, a
corporal in the Sûreté du Québec, and the situation becomes one of the worst episodes
in the history of relations between Aboriginal Peoples and the three levels of
government: federal, provincial and municipal.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs file 51 employment discrimination claims against
federal departments and various national corporations.
The Métis Settlement Act provides a structure for a local government on Alberta Métis
Settlements.
1991
The Tuungavik Federation of Nunavut, the Government of the Northwest Territories and
the Government of Canada sign a final agreement.
1992
A Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is created.
The British Columbia Treaty Commission is created to oversee treaty negotiations.
A treaty land entitlement agreement is reached with First Nations in Saskatchewan.
1993
2.70
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is signed.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
The Dene Nation and Métis Peoples of the Northwest Territories finalize their land claims
agreement with the federal government.
1994
A framework agreement is signed between the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the
federal government to phase out the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development operations in Manitoba.
1995
The Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right to self-government of
Aboriginal Peoples and launches an implementation initiative.
Ipperwash Stand-Off happens after the Chippewas of Kettle and Stoney Point First
Nations occupy their burial ground site to protest land expropriation. The Ontario
Provincial Police intervenes and an unarmed Aboriginal protester is shot and killed.
Following the incident, the federal government signs a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Stoney Point First Nation to return the land.
At Gustafsen Lake Ranch in British Columbia, the Aboriginals erect a fence to protect
sacred land which is viewed as a threat to the local ranchers and subsequently
Gustafsen Lake Siege occurs and the RCMP and the military get involved to break a
30-day stand-off between the Aboriginals and the ranchers.
1996
The Nisga’a Tribal Council, the Government of Canada and the Government of British
Columbia sign an agreement-in-principle to negotiate the first modern treaty in British
Columbia.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is released. It outlines a
series of recommendations to address the needs of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada.
1997
The Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Delgamuukw case rules that Aboriginal
title equals communal ownership of land (excluding individual ownership).
1998
Gathering Strength: Canada’s Aboriginal Action Plan is published by the federal
government as a response to the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
1999
Nunavut becomes a territory on April 1st, with its own public government.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.71
Native People and Environmental
Crusaders: Racism, Re-Colonization
and Do-Gooders
An Interview with Rodney Bobiwash
Rodney Bobiwash (deceased) was the Director of the
Forum for Global Exchange, at the Centre for World
Indigenous Studies, in Toronto. This interview was based
on a presentation he made in April 2000 at the Native
Canadian Centre, also in Toronto.
The text of this interview is published in the book “Sacred
Earth, Sacred Community: Jubilee, Ecology, and Aboriginal
Peoples”
Book available from:
Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative
Box 772, Station F, Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2N6
Tel: (416) 927-0234
Fax: (416) 921-3843
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.web.net/~jubilee
(This interview was recorded by Paula Butler)
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.73
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
What does the Forum do?
We do a number of things – we work in international fora which has an impact on the lives, culture
and sovereignty of Indigenous people. These include those dealing with biodiversity, sustainable
development, protection of Indigenous knowledge and culture, trade, as well as being involved in
conflict resolution and mediation between Indigenous Nations who are in a state of war, either with
each other or with the states that they live within. We also have an initiative called “The Indigenous
Leaders Forum” which facilitates the involvement of Indigenous Leaders in a number of issues and
processes at the international level. For example, a number of those leaders will be meeting with
other Indigenous scholars, activists, and community people at the end of June 2000 to begin drafting
a treaty on Indigenous cultural property rights. The Indigenous Leaders Forum last met prior to this
during the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle in December 1999. The Center for World
Indigenous Studies also has a Center for Traditional Medicine in Mexico, that operates as a health
clinic around issues of Aboriginal people’s health. We are currently also very involved with the
Healing Spirit V: Fifth World Aboriginal Health Conference which will be held in the Southwestern
United States in the year 2002. We are responsible to work with the Chair of the Conference in the
capacity of Technical Advisor and International Liaison, on research and documentation, and on
translation. We also maintain an online library (The George Manuel Library), the Fourth World
documentation project, and we publish a peer reviewed academic journal, called The Fourth World
Journal, which promotes Indigenous knowledge and scholarship. These can all be found at our
website: www.cwis.org.
Do you have any church connections yourself or any perspective on the churches in Canada?
I don’t have any church connections now. I used to. I was raised a Catholic, and I’ve had different
periods in my life when I’ve adhered to different kinds of belief systems, including evangelism, but I
don’t have a connection with any churches now.
I think the churches in Canada have an important role to play in terms of social justice including
Indigenous issues – which is in my thinking the central and fundamental moral question for all of
Canadian society – historically and currently. That role is as moral conscience and in that capacity
keeping the civil society movement “on the right side,” if you like. Civil Society, as a movement, has
a tendency to be open to co-option by state governments and by corporations. Keep in mind that
civil society itself, as defined by the United Nations and in other international fora, includes as one
it’s constituent stakeholders, business. The most recent example of this was the Malmo Declaration
produced from the Global Environment Ministerial Forum in May 2000 which devotes one-third
of its text to the interests and responsibilities of corporations. The founding of the Global Business
Humanitarian Forum, at which Kofi Annan provided the keynote address, the United Nations
Millennium Forum, the World Trade Organization, the meeting of the Organization of American
States, the Commission on Sustainable Development, have all defined Civil Society in a very different
way than the bottom-up process of the local transforming the state envisioned by social theorists like
Gramsci. The other problem with the Civil Society rubric for Native people is that its modalities are
based upon stakeholders defining a place within states whereas Native Peoples continue to assert
their sovereignty premised upon exclusion from the state – self-imposed and otherwise. To get back
to the role of the church, or churches, the most valuable role that they have in terms of society is to
act as the conscience of civil society. The most valuable perspective they can bring to this in regards
2.74
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
to Native Peoples is the recognition that we must alone define our place in relation to other sectors –
society (nation) to society (nation).
Where the churches have shown themselves weak – and it’s not true of all of them, but it’s true of
some of them – has been in two areas: one, the intransigence of the churches to deal in a reflexive
manner with their own histories. There is some evidence that this may be changing now, but it has
left a legacy of mistrust which has been difficult for Native people to overcome, and concomitantly
a sense of guilt that has been equally difficult for the churches to overcome. The second has been
the reluctance of some churches to back up their moral positions in a material way. It’s easy to say
we’re sorry for what we did, we acknowledge our guilt, but now that we’ve acknowledged our role,
we’re just going to allow you to get through it yourself. There’s a strong case, I think, for reparations
coming from the churches. Everyone’s aware of the financial constraints that churches have. The
Anglican church is currently even thinking about shutting down some dioceses. But on the other
hand, they pale in comparison to the financial constraints that Aboriginal communities have been
under for the last hundred years, and the real economic cost of the human misfortune directly
attributable to experiences in the residential school system. In the Aboriginal view of justice there
was no provision for incarceration and there was no concept of the punitive. Rather justice was
restorative in nature and the injury to the victim was redressed through some form of reparation
in which the loss to the victim was recognized and compensated by the offender. To some extent
this is especially relevant this year, which is the Year of Jubilee for the Catholic church, as many of
the concepts celebrated during the Jubilee harken back to the Old Testament in which this concept
was explicitly understood.
I found your title deliberately provocative: “Native People and Environmental Crusaders: Racism,
Recolonization and Do-Gooders.” Could you summarize what the main ideas were that you wanted
to get across in that presentation?
First off, the title wasn’t really my title, someone else put the title on it. But I don’t disagree with it.
What I wanted to get across first is that it’s an incorrect assumption to think that environmentalists
and Native Peoples automatically share the same platform, or automatically share the same sympathies.
There is often a great divide between the actions, mindsets and cultures of environmentalists and
Aboriginal people. The conflict that is created as a result of that and a reluctance to deal with that
conflict on the part of the environmental movement creates even greater conflict. Native people for
the most part have not been able to ignore the conflict because when we are on the ground defending
our territories (where all of this plays out) whether it’s been at Lyell Island or Temagami, or at Barrier
Lake, we’ve had to deal with environmentalists whose tactics and agenda are often not one we endorse.
Whether we like it or not, we have to deal with them because they’re out there. So we haven’t been
able to ignore them. They have some capacity to ignore us because of the nature of their position
which is that they “speak for the earth” and in so doing assume a moral summit, at which the voices
of Aboriginal people who actually use the land to sustain their traditional ways of living, are lost
in the wind.
The second think I wanted to get across is that the agenda of environmentalism has to be understood
in a much larger cultural context. That cultural context is one that goes right back to very early
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.75
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
understandings of what human beings are and what their relationship to nature is. Those go right
back into Genesis, into human beings having dominion over the earth. I wanted to do a bit of tracing
through history about where that philosophy comes from. Environmentalists can’t claim to be above
culture. Like all of us, they have the capacity to change culture, to transform it but are also limited by
specific parameters because they are also products of the culture that they come from. Everyone who
lives in this country, even Indian people, are products of that culture to a greater or lesser extent.
That was the second point that I wanted to get across.
The third point is that there are forums that environmentalists are playing in, which have very real
consequences for Indigenous people. As stated before, there is a certain arrogance on the part of
environmentalists because they claim to speak for the whole world, they claim to speak for the
earth, they elevate themselves in a moral or superior way, and this allows them to take positions
in international fora, like the Commission on Sustainable Development, or the Convention on
Biological Diversity, in which Indigenous people are excluded, even though what they are talking
about are our lands, our resources and our territories. A prime example of this is the Convention
on Biological Diversity which came out of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. At that Summit a group
of environment ministers, heads of governments, NGOs, academics and business representatives
decided in Article 8 (j) of the Convention “...that Indigenous lands and resources and traditional
knowledge were there to benefit mankind and open for exploitation.”
The only right Indigenous people would have was not to refuse the exploitation of their lands,
resources and knowledge, but to share in the benefits of that exploitation. Indigenous people have
repeatedly made the point that taking without prior informed consent is not sharing but is theft!
You say it is important to understand the philosophical underpinnings of Western-European
understandings of land and nature, and the role the Bible has played in that. Could you elaborate?
The Bible is really the seminal document for all Western civilization. There’s not a more profoundly
influential document in Western civilization than the Bible. So, if you go back and do a re-reading of
scripture, starting in Genesis, right in the beginning, where Adam and Eve are cursed and thrown out
of the Garden, part of the curse is that they would make their bread by the sweat of their labour. So
what it immediately sets up is an opposition between themselves and the earth. Not only would they
have to be at odds with the earth in terms of sustenance but there was an ideal created in terms of
where they had been – they had been in the Garden of Eden where everything was easy, where
sustenance was not an issue. That also set up a kind of opposition within the thinking.
The story of Cain and Abel is about an essential conflict between pastoralists and hunter-gatherers.
The gift that is acceptable to God is the gift of the pastoralist, not the gift of the hunter-gatherer.
When you look at the punishment that’s visited upon Cain for killing his brother, it’s that he’s turned
into the wilderness. He’s banished to a lifetime of wandering in desert lands. When you try to link
that to Indigenous people, well, where are Indigenous people? We are metaphorically, and in many
cases actually in the desert lands, in the barren places of the world where no one else will live –
because we’ve been pushed there. Within Puritan philosophy, and within the Church of England
philosophy that developed at the time of the settling of New England, this was evidence of our
sinfulness, of our disfavour with God, that we had been banished to these lands.
2.76
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
We see it again and again, not only in the Mosaic books of the Bible but in the New Testament.
We see St. Paul setting up the same kind of dynamic – in terms of separation of body and soul – that
goes back not just to Genesis and the Judaic tradition, it also goes back to their philosophies like
Manicheanism which set up binary oppositions between good and evil, between the physical and the
spiritual. We see in the Gospels and in the books of St. Paul, “don’t worry about today, don’t worry
about accumulating wealth, you’ll get your reward in heaven.” As you read through you see that the
focus is on the afterlife, so you don’t need to worry about the earth or what you’re doing on the earth.
What do you see as the primary differences between mainstream and Native conceptions of
land/environment?
I think the main difference between Aboriginal people and non-Native people with regard to
conceptions of land is positioning. Indian people really see themselves as part of the eco-system,
they have an ecological approach to the world. They see themselves not only as directing what goes
on in the physical world, the natural world, but also being directed by it, so it becomes a kind of
synergy. I think in the Western world, there’s a sense that you can direct and you can control and
you can affect what happens in the world, and somehow be above it. That’s the part of the main
difference with Native understandings.
In the non-Native world, natural resources are very much seen as things which you exploit, things
which you use to sustain not just human need, but in the world we live in, an economy that exceeds
human need. You cut down rainforest in the Amazon, not because it’s going to feed people, but
because it’s going to provide people with luxury cars, houses and Big Macs, and all the other things
we’ve become addicted to in the society we live in. Aboriginal people don’t really see natural resources
in that fashion. You take only what you need and what you truly need. There are strictures and
taboos on taking more that you need. If you waste food, if you waste other sorts of resources, then
you are not thought of as a good person. There are many, many stories that are taught to us about
not wasting.
I think the whole principle of voluntary limits on consumption is a very important one. People need
to learn that they don’t need to consume as much as they do. We are all guilty of over-consumption
in the society we live in, there are none of us who are not. But we can start to limit our consumption
progressively. There’s a certain balance in the world, and the balance, quite frankly, is that the more
we consume, the less someone else has to consume. Not only that, but the more we consume, the
more waste we produce, which will in fact limit our sustainability on the planet. We are in the midst
of an environmental and ecological crises. Some people are seeing it but they’re not doing much.
Either they’re looking for technological fixes, which have very limited utility, and which fall down in
that they don’t really address the problems that people have. It’s a bit like creating a diet pill. Somebody
can consume vast amounts of fat and become fit again by taking a pill. They never have to question
their eating habits, they never have to question their lack of exercise, they never have to deal with
the problems that lead to their accumulating too much fat to begin with. It’s a fix. It’s the same thing
with our society. As a society, we’ve become a great obese mass and we’re looking for the diet pill.
We want the speed, but we don’t want to deal with the problem we actually have. But we have to
change our lifestyle, we have to change our behaviour.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.77
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
What are specific examples of some of the situations where Native approaches to land have come
into conflict with mainstream environmentalists?
One is Temagami, where there was very much a different view, in terms of the environmentalists who
view the old growth Temagami forest as a place to be preserved. They’re preservationists, whereas
Indian people saw it as place where they had lived, a place that had sustained them for thousands of
years and would continue to sustain them. There would be different kinds of economic activities that
would take place, including cutting trees, including some limited kinds of logging and controlled
logging. In that case, there was a very clear conflict with the Temagami Wilderness Society.
Another example is the Makah whale hunt in Washington. In this case the Makah chose to hunt a
whale for the first time in a hundred years. (The Makah are the only Indian people in the U.S. who
actually have a treaty right to hunt whales.) But when they chose to exercise that right, they came
immediately into conflict with a whole array of environmental groups – Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd
Society, etc. – to the point that the environmental groups ended up making alliances with some very,
very, strong anti-Indian groups, white supremacist groups, racist people. So in that case – the Makah
understood their relation to the whale was such that the whale was giving itself to the Makah people,
so they could continue in their tradition, they would feast it, do all the necessary things to sacrifice
to the animal according to their culture, to maintain their culture. Whereas the environmentalists
understood it as a whale issue, you’re killing a whale. We all know that whales have become a real
icon of the environmental movement. They’ve also become one of the big cash-generating icons of
the environmental movement. I think I described Greenpeace as a green-machine. They generate
money, that’s what they do. And I don’t think that’s a secret to anybody.
What are the prospects of common ground between Native groups and mainstream
environmentalists?
I don’t know what those are yet, but I think that the place where they are going to be defined is
within the discourse of civil society. We’ll work at trying to define our relationship with
environmentalists, our relationships with state governments, our relationships with labour unions
and a whole bunch of other people across this country who are involved in the civil society rubric.
We’re involved in framing that discourse right now with several NGOs, but I don’t know what the
appropriate relationship will be. I think we have positions that we understand from our point of
view. For instance, that Indigenous people have to represent themselves. Nobody else can take our
voice or have our voice. That we know what’s best for us and nobody else can define that. That we
need resourcing if we’re going to participate in those forums because we remain the poorest sector
of society. We don’t have resources to participate, whereas many of those groups do have significant
resources – even though most of them cry poor all the time, they certainly have more resources than
we do. And that we need to have them recognize that, even though we want a relationship with civil
society groups and civil society constituents, we ourselves are not going to be part of civil society
because the civil society rubric assumes constituent parts of existing states. We don’t see ourselves as
parts of the state. So we need to have a separate forum, a separate way of relating to all these civil
society groups. They have to understand that we have our rights from a different place than they
come at their rights. Not to say that their place is a bad place or a wrong place, because obviously
they have a role to speak up for the constituent parts of society that can’t speak up for themselves.
2.78
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
That’s not our place though. Their rights are based on a different rubric than ours, a different
platform. So as long as they understand those things and we can define what the most appropriate
relationship is, what the most effective line of communications between us is.
What are some of the ways in which non-Native people can be in genuine solidarity with
Native people?
I think that there needs to be education so that non-Native people know who they’re dealing with.
Beyond that though, non-Native people in this country need to stop looking at it as a Native issue
and a Native/White issue and just try to live their lives in a good way and a proper way, to include
compassion for everyone who is dispossessed – that includes helping anyone who’s in any kind of
need, doesn’t have to be Native, if they’re Black or if they’re poor, homeless, landless, whatever.
They need to come to see these things as matters of justice that they do for their own motivation and
their own reasons – then we would naturally form a kind of organic relationship across a variety of
issues rather than seeing it as a Native/White issue – something that White people do for Native
people, or that Native people do to educate White people. Because currently I think that rubric is a
bit of a false construct.
The second thing is for non-Native people to truly understand where they’re coming from. Stop
trying to understand us and start trying to understand themselves – what’s their own history, what’s
their own philosophy, and not to have people feel bad about their histories because wherever we
come from, we all have things to feel bad about in our own histories, we all have things to feel good
about too, but I think in figuring out where our feet are planted in the ground and the earth in
terms of our histories, in terms of our nations, then we start to come from a basis of equality for
our sharing. It’s easier for me to share with someone who’s got a strong identity, for instance, not as
a Spanish person but as a Basque person, who understands himself as a Basque, with a Basque
language, Basque history, Basque culture, Basque tradition. I say “hey, you’re an Indian like I am” –
the Basques are from the Basque region in France and in Spain. I think getting back to where we’re
originally from is important, because long before Italy or Spain or France or England existed, there
were small nations all over Europe. To come to that common understanding that we all come from
these different nations originally will put us into a position of equality. I wouldn’t doubt that it
actually wipes out 400 years of artificially-imposed and artificially-constructed social divisioning
and class divisioning.
What’s your view of eco-tourism?
Eco-tourism is a false paradigm, it’s an oxymoron. There is no way to be ecologically in balance as a
tourist. On the other hand, I’m not going to insist that all tourism is bad – but let’s stop calling it
eco-tourism, let’s just call it tourism. Secondly, if it is tourism, how then do we redefine the relationship
between the tourists and the local people, so that we don’t end up with environmental degradation,
we don’t end up with class division, we don’t end up with exploitation of people’s labour, exploitation
of their bodies in the case of sex-tourism. We end up supporting the local culture, the Indigenous
cultures. There are ways of re-defining that relationship. There are some good examples around the
world where there are successful tourist operations with Indigenous people. The main point is that
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
2.79
SECTION TWO
THE HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA
if tourism is seen, not as a primary economic engine of a community but as part of an economy that
supports traditional activities, then tourism works for Indigenous people. So, if you buy a boat to
transport tourists but in your off-hours you’re using your boat for fishing or you’re using the cash
you generate working as a guide to help you gather fish or other ocean produce, and if you’re seen as
a primary part of the tourist experience, so it’s not that you become a thing that people come to
watch, but you become a source of information and a valued part of the experience and this is the
place that relationships which are equal begin to develop. (tape ends)
2.80
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Demographic and Socio-Economic
Profile of Aboriginal Peoples
Overview
The main purpose of this section is to present the
current profile of Aboriginal Peoples by providing
statistical information about the overall quality of life
experienced by them in Canada. In the process, relevant
data regarding the following three main categories have
been included in this section: Demographics; Socioeconomic status; Living conditions.
Statistical information on a number of important factors
(variables) under each of the three main categories, has also
been incorporated in order to provide a more complete
picture of the current status of Aboriginal Peoples in Canadian
society. To that end, this section enables the users of the
Tool Kit to receive information on significant economic and
social attributes of Aboriginal population such as population
growth trends and age, income, employment/unemployment,
poverty, housing and health and so on. In addition, statistical
comparisons have been made between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal population.
In order to put forward an overall picture of the situation of
both Aboriginal men and women as well as of different ethnic
groups (Métis, Inuits) and categories (Registered or nonRegistered) of Aboriginal Peoples, whenever available, specific
data on women and various ethnic-groups of Aboriginal
Peoples have been included as well.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.1
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Points to Remember
The struggles and challenges of Aboriginal Peoples evolved since their first contact with the
Europeans. The long history of colonialism, domination and policy of assimilation pursued by
the Canadian government and its predecessors resulted in a dismal situation for the Aboriginal
population.
The issues that affect Aboriginal Peoples today all have roots that reach long into the past.
The reserve system, the residential schools and oppressive legislations such as the Indian Act,
all undermined and diminished Aboriginal cultures. Over two centuries of systemic discrimination
have taken their toll in Aboriginal communities which is evident in high unemployment rate,
widespread poverty and poor health.
According to the United Nations’ Human Development Index, while the majority society in
Canada enjoys one of the highest quality-of-life in the world, the social conditions facing
Aboriginal people in Canada, would place that population in sixty-third (63rd) place among the
nations of the world.
High Unemployment is a chronic feature for Aboriginal communities. The 20 percent unemployment
rate for all Aboriginal groups and 27 percent for Registered Indians, continue to be more than
double the rate of the non-Aboriginal population, which is at 10 percent.
The gap between Aboriginal and Canadian labour force participation has decreased over the past
decade, 63 percent for Aboriginals and 66 percent for all Canadians. However, over 52 percent
of Aboriginals are in part-time/part-year work with very little job security and mostly working in
tertiary or service-related sector with low income reflecting both the seasonal nature of their
jobs and discrimination.
The socio-economic status of Aboriginal Peoples mostly reflects two general characteristics: low
income and high poverty. The average income income per Aboriginal individual is $15,699 and
for all Canadians, it is $26,254. More than 40 percent of Aboriginal population has an income of
$10,000, which is much below the poverty line even for rural areas ($13,026).
Low Education Attainment is another barrier for Aboriginal Peoples’ economic advancement. The
Canadian educational system and the curriculum has been developed and refined by and for a
white, urban, middle-class culture. Hence, this system and the values that they convey becomes
alien and meaningless in the context of life on a reserve, bearing little relation to local Aboriginal
concerns. In the 1996 census, 61 percent of Aboriginal people over 15 years of age had no high
school diploma, as compared to 35 percent for Canada as a whole.
The socio-economic status of Aboriginal women is even worse than that of Aboriginal men. While
discrimination and prejudices with respect to both race and sex prevailed in employment, many
Aboriginal women, however consider that being a ‘Native’ is a huge barrier to employment than
being female.
3.2
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Aboriginal women have more education and lower unemployment rates, yet their average annual
income of $11,900 is lower than that of Aboriginal men which is $15,699. The labour force
participation rate of 24 percent for registered Aboriginal women is much lower than the 60 percent
participation rate for both non-Aboriginal women as well as for registered Aboriginal men.
Aboriginal youth and urban Aboriginals are two of the most important demographic and social
attributes for the development of any meaningful future policies and programs. Aboriginal
demographics reflect a fast growing population. In some areas of Canada, particularly in the
western provinces, Aboriginal Peoples will make up a significant proportion of the total population.
As a result, these two emerging demographic factors related to Aboriginal population will have a
great impact on the future labour-scene and the future consumer base in Canada.
The Aboriginal population is young and growing at a rate almost twice that of the Canadian
population. Although the median age for the Aboriginals is expected to increase from 24.6 years
to 26.6 in 2008, it is still far below the median age of 35.9 for all Canadians. Aboriginal people,
with over 51 per cent under 25 years of age, are the fastest growing population within Canada
and will be an important part of solving the issue of a dwindling amount of trained labour.
More Aboriginal people live in urban areas of Canada than live on reserves and a significant
portion live in large cities. Compared to the non-Aboriginal population, the urban Aboriginals are
much younger. For example, 41 percent of Aboriginal population in both Saskatchewan and
Regina is under 15, compared to only 20 percent for non-Aboriginal population. Also, whereas
about 10 percent of non-Aboriginal population in each city is over 65, only 3 percent of
Aboriginal population is in this age group.
This new reality is significant for future public policy development, particularly for future
economic and labour policy formulation. As we more and more experience skilled labour shortages,
the urban Aboriginal population offers the promise of a young and growing labour force that
could alleviate some of these shortages.
While the population growth rate of Aboriginal Peoples is now higher than that of non-Aboriginal
population, their state of living conditions and quality of life are often much worse. On average,
Aboriginal Peoples have shorter life expectancy for both men and women, higher infant mortality,
higher rates of suicides and higher incidences of diseases such as diabetes and tuberculosis.
Many of these health patterns can be traced to racism and discrimination which result in high
unemployment and low income, higher poverty rate, poor housing, water and sewage systems.
While the recent data shows improvements, there can be little doubt that housing situation for
Aboriginal Peoples is far worse than that for the non-Aboriginal population. Since 1996, the
demographic figures show that the Aboriginal population is increasing and at the same time, the
Aboriginal housing crisis has deepened, as the Grand Council of the Crees reported in February
2000 that 33 percent of the James Bay Cree population is homeless and in need of shelter.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.3
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Points to Remember
Overall, Aboriginal Peoples have the least favourable housing conditions of any ethnic group in
Canada. A more recent evaluation of the on-reserve housing program estimated that close to half
of all existing housing was inadequate in that it failed to meet some of the basic standards of
safe and decent living.
Overcrowding is another major Aboriginal housing as well as a health concern. The percentage
of dwellings having more than one person per room is much higher for Aboriginal households
than for non-Aboriginal households. Almost 19 percent of on-reserve dwellings have more than
one person per room, as compared to only 1.7 percent of non-Aboriginal households having the
same situation.
Consequently, the current state of inadequacies of Aboriginal housing, in terms of overcrowding,
fire protection, water supply, sanitation and other amenities, poses threats to health of the
occupants. In 2000-2001, 44 percent of on-reserve dwellings were inadequate. Furthermore,
according to the Health Canada, in 2001, 12 percent of Aboriginal communities across Canada
have water systems that pose a potential health threat.
Illnesses resulting from poverty, overcrowding, and poor housing have led to chronic and acute
respiratory diseases, which take a heavy toll on Aboriginal Peoples. Rates of tuberculosis, a
disease mainly caused by overcrowding in First Nations and Inuit communities on-reserve, is at
least 8 times higher than that of Canada. Unknown among Aboriginal Peoples before 1940,
diabetes is now widely prevalent with rates 3 times the national average. While the overall rate
of HIV / AIDS in Canada has dropped dramatically, there is a rising epidemic of HIV / AIDS among
Aboriginal population.
The average life expectancy of Registered Indians is more than 6 years less than Canadians
overall. The Canadian infant mortality rate is 6 deaths per 1,000 live births. The rate for
Registered Indians is about 12 deaths per 1,000 live births, double the rate of the Canadian
average. The rate of suicide among Aboriginal youth is at least 5 to 6 times higher than among
non-Aboriginal youth and it is 3 times higher for all groups than in Canada overall.
The level of incarceration for Aboriginal population is 6 times higher than the national average.
Aboriginal Peoples account for 3.6 percent of the Canadian population, yet in 1999, 21 percent
of women and 17 percent of men incarcerated in federal prisons were of Aboriginal origin.
Although the Aboriginal Peoples are diverse in terms of cultural and linguistic origin, legal
distinctions, geographical boundaries and residential patterns, however, they all share one
common feature: across Canada, Aboriginal Peoples lead marginal lives characterized by poverty
and poor quality of life.
3.4
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Profile of Aboriginal Peoples
The demographic and social attributes of any people
must be known if meaningful policies and programs are
to be established. Aboriginal demographics reflect a fast
growing population. In some areas of Canada, particularly
in the western provinces, Aboriginal Peoples will make
up a significant proportion of the total population. As a
result, this population will increasingly constitute a large
part of the future labour force and the future consumer
base. Moreover, Aboriginal students are staying in schools
longer than before and developing skills and competencies
appropriate for the current job market.
On the other hand, as the baby boomer population works its
way towards retirement, Canada will have to come up with new
and inventive ways to insure a growing workforce. It has been
estimated that by 2010, we will face a labour shortage of 950,000
workers in Canada. This shortage will have major impact on
Canada’s economic performance. In order to alleviate this
situation, we have to look at the growing and young Aboriginal
population as an untapped source of employees that will become
a valuable asset to Canada as the labour crunch gets critical. It is,
therefore, absolutely necessary for Canada’s economic growth
and progress that the public and the private sectors, as well as the
governments at all levels, making a concerted effort to utilize this
large pool of the future workforce to its full potential.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.5
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
The demographic facts and figures presented in this Section will also present a convincing argument
that Aboriginal population and their issues of concerns cannot be ignored any longer.
Every five years, the federal government undertakes a national survey in order to collect information
about Canadians. Every ten years a census is undertaken that collects data from every Canadian. This
systematic collection of data allows government (federal, provincial and municipal) to assess its
current programs and policies, as well as project into the future what will be required. It is for those
reasons that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) also collects
information on Aboriginal Peoples.
Statistical information about Aboriginal Peoples is collected by both Statistics Canada and the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Unfortunately, these two departments differ
widely in their terms of reference and in their method of enumeration. As a result, statistics coming
from one agency are not strictly comparable with statistics from the others. At present, no attempt
has been made to reconcile the statistics produced by these major sources. Needless to say, the lack
of standardized data severely limits the accuracy of short-term trend analyses and makes future
projections difficult. Moreover, because the definition of an Indian has changed over time, statistics
reported by different agencies show wide discrepancies. In some cases, revised definitions of Indian
status have meant that statistics related to a certain group are no longer appropriate. Our sociodemographic profile of Aboriginals in Canada will begin with a discussion of population growth,
including births, deaths and migration.
Demographics
According to the 1996 Census:
■ The total Aboriginal population, including Métis and Inuits, is 1,101,955, which is 3.6 percent of
all Canadian population (29,959,500);
■ Of the total Aboriginal population, 20 percent is of Métis origin and 5 percent of Inuit origin; and
■ The male-female ratio in Aboriginal population reflects the trend in the total Canadian
population: 49:51.
As it has already been mentioned in the preceding chapters that the federal government defines
Aboriginal population as consisting of Registered (Status) and non-Registered (non-Status) Indians.
A Registered Indian is a person registered or entitled to be registered as an Indian according to the
Indian Act. In June 1985, amendments to the Indian Act, known as Bill C-31, restored Indian status
and membership rights to individuals and their children who had been enfranchised because of
clauses contained in the Act. As a result, there was high growth rates between 1985 and 1991 in the
number of Registered Indians, particularly those living off-reserve. However, this growth rate has
slowed down over the years from 48 percent in 1988 to 2 percent in 2000.
The majority of Registered Indians live on-reserves, which refers to land in Canada set apart by the
federal government for the common use and benefit of an Indian Band.
3.6
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
As of December 31, 1996:
■ Approximately 610,874 or 55.4 percent of Aboriginals were Registered Indians. This represents
2 percent of the Canadian population;
■ Of the total Registered Indian population, 354,369 (58%) were living on-reserve at the end of 1996;
and
■ Males represent a larger portion of those living on-reserve while majority of female population
live off-reserve.
The absolute and relative size of the registered Indian population over the past century has increased.
In 1961, the registered Status-Indian population was 191,709, which increased to 323,782 in 1981 and
by the end of 2001, the population was 622,901. During the same time period, however, although the
Aboriginal population constitutes only 3.6 percent of the total Canadian population, the overall
Aboriginal population (Indian, Métis and Inuit) is growing very fast. In fact, Aboriginals will continue
to have higher growth rates than the non-Aboriginal population for several decades. It has been
estimated that between 1996 to 2011, the Aboriginal population will increase 28 percent, while the
non-Aboriginal population is expected to grow by only 6 percent.
The growth of the Aboriginal population will not be the same in every region: Manitoba and
Saskatchewan are projected to have the largest increase over the next twenty years and the most
increase, almost 44 percent, will occur on reserves.
Age
The Aboriginal population is young and growing at a rate almost twice that of the Canadian population.
The data reveals:
■ Over 34 percent of the Aboriginal population is younger than 15 and about 52 percent are
younger than 25 years of age;
■ Whereas, of the total Canadian population, only about 20 percent, or one-fifth of the population,
is under 15 and about 33 percent, or one-third, are under 25 years of age;
■ Although the median age for Aboriginals is expected to increase from 24.6 years to 26.6 in 2008,
it is still far below the median age of 35.9 for all Canadians;
■ The Registered, or Status Indian population, has a median age of 25, compared to a median age
of 35 years for all Canadians;
■ About 53 percent of Registered Indians living on-reserves are under 25 years old;
■ By 2008, young people under the age of 19 are expected to make up approximately 39 percent of
the total Registered Indian population;
■ The aging patterns of the Métis and the Inuit mirror that of Status Indians; and
■ The median age of Aboriginal women is 24, whereas the median age for non-Aboriginal women is 34.
A prime example of this growing and youthful Aboriginal demography is Saskatchewan. The total
15-24 year old population of the province is projected to decrease 6 percent by the year 2011,
whereas the Aboriginal population in the same age range will increase 71 percent. Overall, the
Aboriginal population in the 0-24 age group will form 38 percent of the total Saskatchewan
population by 2011.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.7
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
The number of dependent children and dependent adults can also be used to examine future supply
of prime working-age people between 15 to 40:
■ Among Aboriginal Peoples, children accounted for the majority of dependents. In contrast, there
was a greater percentage of elderly dependents in non-Aboriginal population. For example, there
were 60 children (15) and 6 elderly (+65) dependents for every 100 of working age Registered
Indian population. Whereas, 17 out of 47 dependents in non-Aboriginal population were in the
65+ age group. In 1996, the average number of children for the Registered Indian population
living on-reserve, was 2.1 per family, compared to 1.2 for the entire Canadian population.
Once again, the significance of the above data is very clear from looking at the statistics from
Saskatchewan – in 2001, one third or 33 percent of all new school entrants have been Aboriginal
children, with the vast majority being Registered Indians.
It is clear from the data that as both the Aboriginal and Canadian populations continue to age, the
end result is different. In the case of the general population – they are aging into retirement, while
Aboriginals are aging from youth to the working age group.
The above figures carry a number of implications. Clearly, there is a stable Aboriginal populationgrowth rate, meaning continued high growth, as well as a decreasing death rate. Unless birth rates
also decrease, more and more Aboriginals will belong to the prime employment category of 15 to 40,
and the demand for jobs will increase.
Residential Patterns
Aboriginals reside in all parts of Canada, although they are not evenly distributed:
■ The data shows that while the overall Aboriginal population has increased all over Canada,
the provinces with the largest proportion of Aboriginal Peoples are Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
where Aboriginal Peoples represent 14 percent of the population;
■ In the territories, Aboriginal Peoples represent 67 percent in the Northwest Territories and
29 percent of the population in Yukon;
■ In terms of absolute numbers, Ontario has the most number of Aboriginal Peoples (246,065),
followed by British Columbia (184,445) and Alberta (155,650);
■ Of the total Métis population of 220,735, 22 percent (48,345) are concentrated in Manitoba,
particularly in Winnipeg (26,285), followed by Alberta (21% or 45,745); and
■ Approximately 49 percent of all Inuits (49,845) live in the Northwest Territories, a significant
number also live in Quebec and Newfoundland.
The total Registered Indian population has doubled in nearly all regions over the last 20 years:
3.8
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
■ In 2000, about 23 percent of the total Registered Indian population (153,946) were located in
Ontario, the largest proportion of all regions, followed by British Columbia (16.4% or 110,529)
and Manitoba (15.9% or 107,146).
Bands
A band is a group of First Nations Peoples for whom lands have been set apart and for whom money
is held in trust by the Crown. Each band has its own governing band council, usually consisting of
one or more chiefs, and several councillors who are either elected or chosen through traditional
custom. The members of a band generally share common values, traditions and practices rooted in
their ancestral heritage.
However, it is important to point out that the term “Band” is also a political term. It is often
arbitrarily imposed on Aboriginal groups, regardless of cultural differences, for the government’s
administrative purposes. The Ministry of Indian Affairs can create and do away with band
designations, so that the number of bands often varies from year to year. When the federal
government first divided various Indian Tribes into bands, tribes were arbitrarily thrown together.
This produced serious social disorganization and a wide-ranging disruption of tribal culture.
■ At present, over 42 percent of Aboriginals belong to a band;
■ As of 2001, there were 612 bands in the country. British Columbia has the largest number of
bands with a total of 198 bands in the province. Ontario has 126 bands, followed by Manitoba
with 62 bands; and
■ In 1996, Registered Indians made up 2 percent of the total Canadian population. They were
generally affiliated with one of the 612 bands.
The size of Indian Bands range from less than 25 people to just over 21,000. Only 20 bands are very
large, with over 4,000 members, and most of these are located in Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta. The
two largest are located in Ontario – the Six Nations of the Grand River Band with a population of
21,379 and the Mohawks of Akwesasne with a population of 9,695.
Reserves
Canada has currently 2,695 reserves, occupying only about 3,083,492 hectares of land surface.
Reserves can vary in size. Some reserves cover less than a hectare, while the largest reserve (which is
in Saskatchewan) occupies over 67 thousand hectares. In eastern Canada each band is generally
limited to one reserve. In the west, one band may hold several reserves.
The total area of reserve lands per capita has decreased over the past 20 years. This per capita
decrease has resulted despite the total increase in reserve lands over the past few years. However,
because of the high population growth, per capita allocations are less today than they were
previously. In 1959, across Canada, there were 13 hectares per capita, but by 1991, there were only
11.9 hectares per capita. Currently, it is only about 5 hectares per capita per Registered Indian.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.9
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Reserves are situated in a variety of geographical contexts that have significant implications for
development potential, population mobility, and transportation routes. The federal government has
characterized the reserves in four ways: urban, rural, remote, and special access. Reserves within
50 kilometres of a service centre with a year-round road access are considered urban. Rural is a zone
where the reserve is located between 50 and 350 kilometres from the nearest service centre with a
year-round road access. A remote reserve is located over 350 kilometres from the nearest service
centre, but accessible by a year-round road. The special access designation is for any reserve that
has no year-round road access to a service centre and, therefore, incurs a higher transportation cost.
While a majority of Aboriginals live on-reserves in urban zones, except for Quebec, Ontario and
Alberta, an increasing and considerable higher number live in rural areas. Between 1982 to 2000,
the proportion of on-reserve Registered Indian population living in rural zones has increased from
39 percent to 45 percent.
On and Off-Reserve Population
■ Of the total Aboriginal population, approximately 67 percent live off-reserve and about 32 percent
are living on-reserve;
■ An overwhelming majority (98 and 99% respectively) of the Métis and Inuits live off-reserve as well;
■ The proportion of the Registered Indian population living on-reserve has decreased from 71 percent
in 1980 to 58 percent in 2000; and
■ Of that 58 percent, more males live on-reserve while more females live off-reserve.
Regionally, within the provinces, in 2000, Ontario has the highest number of Registered Indian Peoples
(78,346) living on-reserve. The largest on-reserve regional gains between 1980 and 2000 were in
Manitoba, Alberta and Atlantic provinces respectively.
However, when we look at the proportion of Registered Indian population living on-reserve, we find
that in the Northwest Territories, 72.4 percent of all Registered Indians live on-reserve, followed by
Quebec (69.9%) and Alberta (66.2%).
When we focus on the off-reserve Registered population, we see that all regions have experienced
increases between 1980 and 2000, with Ontario showing the largest gain, while British Columbia
showing the lowest rate of increase over the same period.
Urban Migration
When Canadians think about Aboriginal Peoples, their primary focus is on First Nation communities
living on-reserves. However, more Aboriginal Peoples live in urban areas of Canada than live on
reserves and a significant portion are living in large cities.
The past trend in the residential patterns of Aboriginal Peoples indicated that an increasing number
of them were moving to urban areas. Of these, over half are relocating in large metropolitan areas of
more than 100,000 people.
3.10
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
According to Statistics Canada:
■ Close to 60 percent of all Aboriginals live in urban areas which have minimum population
concentrations of 1,000 per, at least, 400 per square kilometres; and
■ In 2000, more than one-third of Registered Indians (35%) lived in urban areas and the highest
percentage (55%) of the Registered Indians in Alberta lived in the urban areas.
One of most important aspects of urban Aboriginal population is that, compared to the nonAboriginal population, it is much younger. For example, 41 percent of Aboriginal population in both
Saskatoon and Regina is under 15, compared to only 20 percent for non-Aboriginal population. Also,
whereas about 10 percent of non-Aboriginal population in each city is over 65, only 3 percent of the
Aboriginal population is in this age group.
This new reality is significant for future public policy development, particularly for future economic
and labour policy formulation. The flow of Aboriginal population into urban areas will place
additional stress on the abilities of cities to absorb them. However, at the same time, they will solve
the problem of the labour crunch and be regarded as valued additions to the workforce. As we more
and more experience skilled labour shortages, the urban Aboriginal population offers the promise of
a young and growing labour force that could alleviate some of these shortages. By 2016, the western
cities, such as Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon, will have 15 percent of their total workforce from
Aboriginal population.
It is, therefore, imperative that immediate attention be directed to develop such policies and
programs, so that the urban Aboriginal population can equally have access to and capitalize on
services and amenities available to non-Aboriginal population. It is even more important for the
economic future of the Prairies, particularly for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that a concerted plan
should be developed for the advancement of Aboriginal human resources.
Language Use and Retention
The language of any group moulds the ideas and thoughts of that population and creates a strong
cultural bonding. Language is the core of a population’s identity. Thus, it is important to know the
extent to which Aboriginal Peoples use and retain their Aboriginal languages which has significant
implications in terms of Aboriginal culture and identity. While Aboriginals still maintain a relatively
high degree of adherence to their mother tongue, this is slowly diminishing. In 1941, fewer than
10 percent of Aboriginals claimed English as their mother tongue. The figure reached 15 percent in
1951 and over 25 percent in 1961; another 2 percent claimed French as their mother tongue. By 1996,
68 percent claimed English as their mother tongue while 23 percent had one of the Aboriginal
languages as their mother tongue.
Of those claiming to speak an Aboriginal language, we find that the average age is well in excess of 40.
This suggests that it is the older segment of the population that still retains the language and not the
younger generation.
A similar trend can be found in Aboriginal female population as well. There is a greater percentage of
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.11
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
women in the older age-group who spoke an Aboriginal language as their mother tongue. Between 0
to 14 years of age categories, more than 78 percent mentioned English as their mother tongue,
while only 41 percent of women 65+ had a similar response. Similarly, in the same two age categories,
9 percent and 31 percent stated the Amerindian language as their mother tongue. Overall, womenspecific data on home language unfortunately revealed a similar trend of a declining use of Aboriginal
languages: 77 percent claiming English as the home language, while only 19 percent of all Aboriginals
and 11 percent of Aboriginal females spoke an Aboriginal language at home.
The diminishing rate of Aboriginal language use is somewhat mediated by the same experience as
other ethnic minorities. Aboriginals have learned that to integrate into the larger society they must
learn to speak English or French. Thus, to a certain extent, the decreasing number of Aboriginal
language speakers reflects an increasing move away from the reserves and an increasing contact with
non-Aboriginals. For example, 22 percent of on-reserve and 78 percent of off-reserve Indians have
English as their home language. For mother tongue, even greater differences are evident: a little more
than 20 percent of on-reserve Indians compared to 79 percent of off-reserve Indians had English as
their mother tongue.
Family
When examining the census variables in the family structure, a fair degree of similarity exists
between both male and female Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population:
■ About 80 percent of Aboriginal families are dual-parent families. This compares to 86 percent
for non-Aboriginal families;
■ For both groups, the percentage of female lone parent families are greater than the male loneparent families. According to the 1996 Census, 17 percent of all Aboriginal families and 12 percent
of all non-Aboriginal families are headed by a female lone-parent. In contrast, the percentages of
male lone-parent families are 4 percent and 3 percent respectively for the Aboriginal and nonAboriginal population; and
■ The percentage of female lone-parent families are even greater among Registered Indian population.
According to the 1996 Census, the prevalence of Registered Indian lone-parent families (23%) is
about twice the rate of female lone-parent families in the Canadian population (12.1%).
3.12
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Socio-Economic Status
The statistics on Aboriginal Peoples reveals a dismal
picture of their situation. In Canada, Aboriginal Peoples
are the poorest – their living conditions are the worst,
their life expectancy is the lowest. According to the
United Nations’ Human Development Index, while the
majority of society in Canada benefits from the highest
quality-of-life measures in the world, the social conditions
facing Aboriginal Peoples in Canada would place that
population in sixty-third (63rd) place among the nations
of the world, as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples clearly found that:
“...on the whole gross disparities persist between the quality
of life of Aboriginal people and that of most Canadians....
Most Canadians enjoy adequate food and shelter, clean
water, public safety, protection from abject poverty, access to
responsive medical and social services, and the good health
that results from these things. Aboriginal people are more
likely to face inadequate nutrition, substandard housing and
sanitation, unemployment and poverty.... The gap separating
Aboriginal from non-Aboriginal people in terms of quality
of life as defined by the World Health Organization remains
stubbornly wide.”
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.13
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
The quality of life experienced by Canadians is a function of their position in our stratified social
system. Those who rank high are able to enjoy the benefits of a modern industrial society. On the
other hand, colonization and resulting oppression has placed the Aboriginal population low in our
hierarchical system and they have been unable to benefit from the increased technological
innovations to enhance their quality of life.
In our social system, four factors influence one’s ability to participate in the modern industrial
society: income, labour force participation and education. Although we are all well aware of the
shameful statistics in this regard for the Aboriginal population, we need to revisit them in order to
remind the majority of Canada and the government that a fundamental shift in Aboriginal policy
is urgently needed for changing the status quo.
Income
The disparity in average income between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal individuals are a major concern:
■ In 1966, the per capita income per year for Aboriginals was about $300, and for other Canadians
about $1,400. On a yearly earnings basis, Aboriginal workers received $1,361 while Canadian
workers received $4,000.
■ By 1990, the average individual income for Registered Indians had increased to over $11,941.
While these figures represent a substantial increase in income, the overall average Canadian
income had also increased to $22,393, representing nearly twice the income received by
Aboriginal Peoples.
Five years later, in 1996, we find that:
■ The average income for the general population is just over $26,000 per year, about $12,000 more
than Registered Indians ($14,883);
■ For Aboriginal population as a whole, the average income is only $15,699;
■ The 1996 Census also revealed the shocking fact that 45.8 percent of the Aboriginal population
15 years and over, with total income the previous year below $10,000, (which is much below the
poverty line even for rural areas [$13,026]);
■ More Aboriginals living on-reserve (54.1%) earn less than ten thousand dollars and live in poverty
than Aboriginals living off-reserve (42.6%); and
■ Among Aboriginal children under the age of six, 60 percent live below the poverty line.
The disparity between non-Aboriginal Canadian and Aboriginal individual income remained the
same during the 1991-1996 Census. In 1991, the average individual income for Registered Indians
was 53 percent of that for all Canadians, and by 1996, this had increased to little over 56 percent.
Aboriginal women earn even less than Aboriginal men:
■ The average individual income for Aboriginal women is $14,640, whereas the average income for
non-Aboriginal women is 19,372;
■ However, an improvement toward narrowing the earnings gap between Aboriginal men and women
has been realized between the 1991 and 1996 Census period. Within the Registered Indian population,
3.14
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
women’s employment earnings (as a percentage of men’s) rose from 82.4 percent to 89.4 percent;
■ At least two-thirds of women living on-reserve reported earning a total individual income less
than $20,000 per year;
■ Income for women aged 15-24 is the lowest with an average of $6,823 only; and
■ Income rises with an age increase, up to a peak of $18,000 to $20,000 in the range of 35-54 years
old, and then descending again as women move into retirement.
Household incomes also show a similar pattern. Like individual incomes, family income disparity has
increased, and recent information suggests the increase continues. In 1991, the median household
income of Registered Indian population was 21,586, which was 59 percent of the median family
income of all Canadians. Similarly in 1996, the gap increased even more and the median household
income of Registered Indians was 61 percent of all Canadians.
In summary, the disparity of income between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals has continued to
exist, and in addition, the data suggests that the gap between the two groups is getting larger. This
startling fact emerges despite the large and complex structure we have put in place to help Aboriginal
Peoples find a niche in our society.
Employment and Non-Employment Income
Income can be generated from a number of sources. The most general categories are those of wage
(earned or employment income) and non-wage (unearned or government transfer payments which
includes social assistance).
■ The 1996 data shows that earned income was the major source of income for 70 percent of
Aboriginal population of 15 years and over. At the same time, 26 percent of the same population
indicated that government transfer payments were their major source of income.
While the overall Aboriginal population has a similar profile to the general Canadian population in
this regard, the profile is quite different for Registered Indians. Particularly, the Registered Indians
living on-reserve, have a much higher proportion of dependency on the government transfer
payments as the main source of income:
■ For Registered Indian men, the government transfers make up almost one quarter (24.5%) of their
total income. For non-Aboriginal men, the proportion of transfer income is about 17 percent;
■ In 1996, close to 45 percent of on-reserve Registered Indians as against 24 percent of total Canadian
population, said that they depend on government transfer payments as their primary income,
which is up from 40 percent for Registered Indians and 16 percent for all Canadians in 1991; and
■ The average number of social assistance on-reserve beneficiaries increased by 20 percent between
1990-91 and 2000-01.
The degree of dependency on government transfer payments is also related to educational
attainment, to age and to gender as well. Dependency on government transfers decreases as
educational attainment increases. Those with the highest dependency are those with less than
grade 9 educational attainment:
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.15
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
■ For example, as a percentage of total income for all Registered Indian men with less than grade 9
education is 47.8 percent, whereas, it is only 23.8 percent for the same population with secondary
school as the highest level of education and the dependency goes down even further to 15.7 percent
for those with post-secondary education.
However, for all educational levels, Registered Indian men still have a much higher transfer
dependency than non-Aboriginal men.
For both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population, dependency on transfer payments is also related
to age:
■ Men over 65 and men under 25 have relatively higher dependency than men between the ages of
25 and 64. Nevertheless, if we compare the level of dependency of the same age group among
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men, we find that it is much lower in the latter case.
Generally the same pattern of government transfer ratios is found among Aboriginal women as
among Aboriginal men. However, the rates are much higher among women compared to the men:
■ For instance, government transfers comprise of 34.2 percent of the total income among Registered
Indian women, whereas for it is 24.5 for Registered Indian men.
■ Similar to Aboriginal men, Aboriginal women’s transfer incomes are also related to educational
attainment. However, the effect of education is even greater among women than men, that is, the
dependency on transfer income is much higher for women (68.4%) than men (47.8%) with less
than grade 9 education, but decrease more rapidly than men with higher levels of education.
Therefore, for those women with post-secondary education, government transfers make up
19.4 percent of their total income which is only slightly higher than 15.7 percent of that of men’s.
From the figures above, we see that the dependency on government transfer payments or social
assistance is greater among Aboriginal Peoples than among non-Aboriginals. Historical factors
mentioned previously have produced this dependency. Yet, many non-Aboriginals have this
misconception that Aboriginals themselves are the cause of their need for social assistance. This type
of misconception draws the attention away from the structural and systemic oppression of the
Aboriginal Peoples and thereby, failing to solve the underlying conditions that created the situation.
Labour Force Participation
As Aboriginal population with a younger age structure grow in number, attain higher levels of
education and become more skilled, they will be entering in a large number into the labour force.
Given their existing lower labour force participation rate, more employment opportunities will have
to be created in order to tap into the huge potential of this labour force and realizing the benefit
from it. However, due to structural racism and other forms of systemic discrimination, finding
economic opportunities matching their skills will still be quite rare for many Aboriginals.
Before we discuss the statistics on different aspects of Aboriginal labour force, it is important to know
the definitions and meanings of the following terms which will be often used in this Section to
provide a glimpse of labour force activity of Aboriginal Peoples:
3.16
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Total Labour Force – refers to those aged 15 or more who are participating in the labour force.
An individual may be either employed or unemployed.
Labour Force Participation Rate – determines the percentage of people who are currently in the labour
force. It is derived from the total labour force as a percentage of the population 15 years and over.
Labour force rates, such as participation, employment and unemployment may be affected by the
size of the population. Rates based on a small population may be inflated. For example, the Métis
participation rate for Nunavut is 100 percent, but it is based on a population of maybe only 15 people.
Since the labour force section of the Census takes into account involvement of population only in
the wage economy, non-wage activities such as fishing or hunting for non-commercial sustenance
purposes, bartering goods and services, and the unpaid household work, are missing from the census
calculation of the labour force. This sphere of life is, however, particularly relevant for Aboriginal
Peoples historically, and is still today to varying degrees.
Data which examine participation rates by gender, reveal that the percentage of men 15 and over
participating in the labour force is consistently higher than that of women. Current figures related
to the labour force illustrate the degree of exclusion of Aboriginal communities from the Canadian
economy. For example, in 1996, there were 389,700 employed Aboriginals out of a total of 771,010
aged 15 and over, which represented 3.4 percent of the total Canadian labour force. One might argue
that since many Aboriginal communities are small and isolated it would be inappropriate to compare
them to the overall Canadian statistics. However, as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
points out, even when Aboriginals are compared to similar rural isolated non-Aboriginal
communities, their economic performance falls short.
■ The data demonstrates that the gap between Aboriginal and Canadian labour force participation
has decreased over the past decade: 63 percent and 66 percent respectively for Aboriginals and
all Canadians. However, this is not the case for Registered Indians with a rate of 54 percent only.
The gap in the participation rates of Registered Indians and other Canadians is the greatest in
the 15 to 24 age range with a difference of 30 percentage points (51% : 81%).
■ Since most of the non-resource industrial, manufacturing and knowledge enterprises are primarily
urban based, access to jobs is even more difficult for on-reserve Aboriginals. As a result, they have
a very low labour force participation rate of only 52 percent.
■ The participation rates of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population follow a similar age-related
pattern. That is, they are relatively lower among the 15 to 24 age group, highest among the 25 to
44 age group, lower again among the 45 to 64 age group, and much lower among the 65 and older
age group.
The participation rate varies by regions as well:
■ Although all Aboriginals have increased their participation rate since 1971, in the Maritime
provinces and in Quebec, Aboriginal Peoples have a higher labour force participation rate than
non-Aboriginal population. In Prince Edward Island, the Aboriginal participation rate is 8 percentage
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.17
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
points higher than the Canadian average. On the other hand, Aboriginal Peoples in the western
provinces and in the territories have a much lower labour force participation rate than nonAboriginals. Saskatchewan has the lowest Aboriginal participation rate among the provinces:
53 percent for Aboriginal Peoples and 69 percent for non-Aboriginal population.
■ Data reveals that there is always an increase in labour force participation rates of all groups of
population as educational attainment increases. In addition, the gap between groups, for example,
between Registered Indians and other Canadians, become smaller as educational attainment
increases. For example, across all age groups of Registered Indians with higher levels of education
have labour force participation rates which are very similar to those of other Canadians.
Variations in labour force participation rate depend on gender as well as on residency (on-reserve or
off-reserve).Similar to the pattern in non-Aboriginal population (male 73% and female 59%), male
participation rate is consistently higher than female participation rate in all categories of Aboriginal
population:
■ The rate for Aboriginal men is 70 percent and for Aboriginal women, it is 57 percent;
■ 58 percent of Registered Indian men living on-reserve are in the labour force, whereas, merely
45 percent of women belonging to the same category participate in the labour force;
■ Registered Indian men living off-reserve participate in the labour force at the rate of 66 percent
and women in that category experience a much lower participation rate of only 50 percent; and
■ A similar trend can be found if we compare the Inuit and the Métis male/female labour force
participation rate. For the Inuits, it is 64:56 and for the Métis, it is 73:59.
Based on the future growth forecast of Aboriginal population, it has been estimated that an
additional 160,000 jobs will be needed in order to sustain just their existing labour force
participation and employment rate.
Employment — Unemployment Rates and the Economic Gap
In order to get a better sense of the economic and social conditions of Aboriginal Peoples and the
impact of the changing demographics of this population, one must pay attention to employment and
unemployment rates of both Aboriginal population and non-Aboriginal population. This will enable
us to measure the economic “gap” which exists between these two groups and critically assess the
effectiveness of various government policies. For example, in the case of Saskatchewan, it has been
projected that without serious attention today, the Aboriginal employment rate will not keep pace
with the population and, hence, the Aboriginal economic gap will grow in future, as will the
dependence on social assistance.
The national overall Aboriginal employment and unemployment characteristics also reveal a similar
problematic picture of their economic conditions. For instance, Registered Indians comprise of
35 percent of the Aboriginal labour force and account for 32 percent of employment and almost
48 percent of the unemployed.
Employed – refers to persons 15 years of age and over, who worked for pay or were self-employed, or
who were absent from their regular work during the week (Sunday to Saturday) prior to Census Day.
3.18
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Employment Rate Or Employment/Population Ratio – Labour force participation rate treats both
those who are employed and those who are looking for work as participants. The employment rate,
on the other hand, is the number of people employed in the week (Sunday to Saturday) prior to
Census Day, divided by the total population aged 15 and over, which is then expressed as a percentage
of the total population. This is sometimes referred to as the employment/population ratio. In short,
this ratio reflects the degree to which a labour pool is effectively utilized.
Unemployed – This category includes persons 15 years of age and over, who during the week prior to
Census Day, were without paid work and were available for work and had looked for work during the
past four weeks, were temporarily laid-off but expected to return to work or had firm plans to start a
new job in four weeks or less.
Unemployment Rate – calculates the percentage of people who are actively seeking work but are
unable to secure employment. It is obtained by taking the total unemployed population as a
percentage of the total labour force.
The general pattern which exists in labour force participation rate is also found for employment rate:
• employment rate for Aboriginal population is 51 percent which is 8 percent lower than the nonAboriginal population (59%);
• employment rate of Aboriginal women are lower than Aboriginal men as well as non-Aboriginal
women. Although 57 percent of Aboriginal women age 15 and over participate in the labour force,
their employment rate is only 47 percent, as compared to the employment rate of 55 percent for
Aboriginal men and 53 percent for non-Aboriginal women;
• Registered Indians have even a lower employment rate of 40 percent;
• Registered Indians living on-reserve have the lowest employment rate of merely 37 percent, which is
more than 20 percent lower than that of 59 percent employment rate for non-Aboriginal population;
• for Inuits and Métis, the employment rates are consistent with total Aboriginal population:
47 percent and 53 percent respectively;
• for all population groups, the highest employment rate belongs to the 25 to 44 age group; and
• for all groups, the employment rate increases with educational attainment. For example,
employment rate for Registered Indians with secondary school education is 39 percent, with
trades and other non-university education is 61 percent and it increases to 73 percent with
university education.
The unemployment rate for Aboriginal population continues to be at least double the rate of the nonAboriginal population. In many Aboriginal communities, the unemployment rate is actually as high as
85 percent. However, the Aboriginal unemployment figures are generally understated due to the
economic definition of “unemployment.” Unemployment is defined as those persons without a job who
are actively searching for work. At the same time, there are Aboriginal men and women who are not
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.19
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
actively seeking work but are available to work if employment opportunities arise. This is particularly
true of Aboriginal women and this is one of the explanations why even with lower employment rate than
that of Aboriginal men, Aboriginal women also have a lower unemployment rate:
• unemployment rate for Aboriginal population is 20 percent compared to 10 percent for nonAboriginal population;
• Registered Indians have the highest unemployment rate of any Aboriginal group, at 27 percent;
• for every Aboriginal group, men experienced a higher unemployment rate than women. Overall,
the unemployment rate for Aboriginal women is 18 percent, 22 percent for Aboriginal men; and
• The difference is particularly noticeable between on-reserve Aboriginal women and men, where
Registered Indian males experienced a 12 percentage points higher unemployment rate than their
female counterparts.
Aboriginal Labour Force by Occupation and by Industry
Occupation provides a useful perspective of labour force, since it is largely determined by education,
experience and job market supply and demand trends. The extent to which Aboriginals have been
over or under-represented in various occupational categories has been well established:
■ The data shows that there has been a significant over-representation of Aboriginals in the sales and
service occupation (29.8) as well as in trade, transportation and equipment occupations (18.3)
and that over time, there has been an increase in primary and unskilled jobs.
■ Also, in social science, education, government services and religion category and in art, culture,
recreation and sport category, Aboriginal Peoples are in slightly greater percentage than the nonAboriginal population.
■ However, when we look at the upper scale of the occupational list, that is, when it comes to
management (6.1% for Aboriginals and 9.1 for non-Aboriginals), the Aboriginal population falls
behind non-Aboriginal population.
Focussing first on males, the data shows that over half of the jobs held by Aboriginals were made up
of skilled, semi-skilled, and other manual occupations:
■ Aboriginal men work most often in trade, transportation, equipment operation (32.10%). It is
then followed by sales and service (20.91) and then by occupations unique to primary industry
(10.92), such as forestry, logging, agriculture, mining, fishing and trapping.
However, when we look at women in the labour force, we find a different distribution than evidenced
by the male population:
3.20
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
■ Except for sales and service, Aboriginal women are represented in far less numbers in the two
occupational categories where Aboriginal men are in a overwhelming number: only 2.85 percent
for trade, transportation, equipment operation and 2.08 percent for occupations unique to
primary industry.
■ For all women, Aboriginal as well as non-Aboriginal, the greatest percentage of women are
employed in sales and service occupations. The second largest occupational group is business,
finance and administration (25.3%).
Overall, compared to the total population there are fewer Aboriginal Peoples in upper status
occupations and more Aboriginal Peoples in lower status occupations.
■ The vast majority of Aboriginal workers find employment in the tertiary or service sector (82.8%).
Both the manufacturing (which is also called the secondary sector) and the primary sector,
comprised of agriculture, forestry, logging, fishing, trapping and mining, provide employment
only for a small proportion of the Aboriginal workforce (9.8% and 7.3% respectively).
■ Only about 34 percent of the Aboriginal population is involved in full-time, full-year jobs, while
for non-Aboriginals, the average is almost 51 percent. More than half of the Aboriginal workforce
are involved in part-time and part-year jobs (52%).
■ Overall, 58 percent of Aboriginal women have worked 40 weeks or more in 1995, as compared to
70 percent of non-Aboriginal women. At the same time, more Aboriginal women have been
employed in jobs which are seasonal in nature than the non-Aboriginal women. Only 3 percent of
non-Aboriginal women have worked 1 to 5 weeks in 1995, which is much lower than 7 percent for
Registered Indian women and 10 percent for Inuit women.
In summary, Aboriginal Peoples are participating more in the labour force over time. However, the
unemployment rate for Aboriginal population is still double the rate of non-Aboriginal population.
Also, their participation continues to be at the margin and is not representative of the jobs that
characterize a modern industrial society. Moreover, because more Aboriginals usually work in parttime jobs, they have little job security. Thus, this reflects in the low average employment income and
higher dependency on social assistance for the Aboriginal population.
In an attempt to further integrate Aboriginal Peoples into the labour force, the federal government
has introduced a number of programs to help Aboriginals find jobs and relocate if necessary. These
federal programs are attempting to raise Aboriginals to the average Canadian standard of living.
Unfortunately, the programs offer too little to be more than band-aid measures. They also operate
only for short periods of time as pilot projects, which ensures that there is no commitment of funds
beyond a one or two-year period.
Education
Education is generally seen as essential to economic success and yet, for a variety of reasons, not all
Canadians are able to access and use the educational system as effectively as possible. There are many
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.21
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
historical reasons for lower than average education levels in the Aboriginal community: years of
colonialism, domination and policy of assimilation resulted in the loss of Aboriginal lands and resources,
criminalization of Aboriginal cultural practices, cultural genocide, racist education policies and
compulsory attendance in residential schools.
In fact, the education system has been a site of oppression of Aboriginal Peoples. For instance, many
Aboriginal Peoples attended residential schools set up by the Canadian government and churches to
provide schooling and vocational training to Aboriginal children. However, these schools were part of
the Canadian government’s systemic attack on Aboriginal languages, traditional practices and family
structures. Many who attended these schools suffered physical, emotional and mental abuse and, as a
result, have been unable to lead a healthy life and finding a job. Further, many of the children who
attended these schools received a substandard education and thus, were unable to attend university
and develop professional careers.
Also, historical policies linking education requirements with labour force needs, determined that for
Aboriginal Peoples receiving only a rudimentary education was necessary because they would be
utilized mostly for domestic and farm labour. If an Aboriginal chose to pursue a proper education,
they had to do so at the expense of giving up their Aboriginal and treaty rights. The result was to
establish a reserve pool of support labour for incoming settlers.
Hence, one must examine the historical developments in Aboriginal education to understand better
the current status of Aboriginal education attainment and success.
History of Aboriginal Education
For many years, after Britain took control of Canada, Aboriginal education was controlled by the
military acting for the Crown. Then legislation was passed in 1830 transferring the responsibility to
the provincial or local governments. In general, European settlers were indifferent to Aboriginal
education and a public fund was not established for this purpose until 1848.
With the passage of the British North America Act, Canada’s Parliament was given the power to
administer Aboriginal affairs, including education. In 1876, the Indian Act was passed, providing the
legal basis for federal administration of Aboriginal education. Until 1945, government policy on
Aboriginal education was very much paternalistic. Native schooling was “education in isolation.”
During this period, schools and hostels for Indian children were established, but scant attention was
paid to developing a curriculum geared to either their language difficulties or their sociological
needs. A few Indian Bands established schools for their children on the reserves, but the majority of
them had neither the financial resources nor the leadership to establish and operate their own
schools. Provincial governments were too preoccupied with their own priorities to become involved
in Indian education. Missionaries provided a modicum of services, but their “noble savage”
philosophy effectively insulated the Indians from the mainstream of society.
The second phase, from 1945 to the present, has been called the “democratic ideology.” The second
phase simply refers to the “open door policy” that enabled Aboriginals to attend school off-reserve.
The paternalistic policy, whereby Aboriginals were considered backward children, was adopted and
3.22
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
perpetuated by various religious orders in Canada. After Confederation, the first schools for
Aboriginals were quasi-educational institutions set up by religious orders. Under the Indian Act the
federal government could legally arrange for provincial governments and religious organizations to
provide Aboriginal education. Four churches – Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, and Presbyterian
– began to educate Aboriginals in denominational or residential schools.
Education has traditionally been viewed by churches as the best way to acculturate Aboriginal
Peoples. The religious missionaries, who up until recently controlled Aboriginal education, were far
more concerned with teaching useful, practical knowledge and skills. Because they felt that Aboriginals
would always live in isolation, the missionaries made no attempt to prepare them for successful careers
in modern Canadian society. Instead, they concentrated on eradicating all traces of Aboriginal
languages, traditions, and beliefs.
Churches that operated schools were given land, per capita grants, and other material rewards for
their efforts. Often these grants resulted in the material exploitation of Aboriginals as churches pursued
property and profits. These schools, which were residential schools, were highly regimented and
insisted on strict conformity. There were few adults and most of these were non-Aboriginal; as a
result, normal adult-child relations could not develop. Few of the teachers were well qualified; they
neither stimulated the children nor acted as positive role models.
In 1945 the “open door policy” was introduced, which allowed students to travel off-reserve to receive
an education. This was a radical departure from the earlier policy of isolation, and residential schools
began to decline in enrollment. Particularly since the early 1960s, the number of Aboriginal children
attending residential schools has been drastically reduced. The unpopularity of these schools should
come as a surprise to no one.
In 1972, the National Indian Brotherhood drafted a policy paper Indian Control of Indian
Education. The policy argued for parental involvement and local control Aboriginal education. This
led to the establishment of local band schools, local education agreements negotiated between bands
and school districts for better Aboriginal language and culturally relevant curriculums and programs.
Current Situation
As such, the education system for Aboriginal Peoples has changed in many respects since residential
schools were in operation and major gains in education have been made, the current educational
programming for Aboriginals is still inadequate in terms of retaining students and providing them
with an adequate education that will prepare them for the work force. Moreover, the education system
imposes Western values and Western approaches to education, rendering the education system a very
undesirable and hostile place for Aboriginal students.
The rate of Aboriginals attending school has shown a general increase over the past two decades.
While the various indicators of post-secondary success improved among Aboriginal population,
particularly among Registered Indians between 1991 and 1996, so did the success rates of nonAboriginals. Therefore, at the end, the relative success of Aboriginals including the Registered
Indians compared to others remained about the same over this period.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.23
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Educational Attainment
Since 1986, the proportion of the Registered Indian population with some post-secondary attainment
has increased dramatically, from 23% to 37% of the population. This was a much smaller proportion
than non-Aboriginal population (51%).
This increase is especially strong for those with a post-secondary degree, certificate or diploma,
which has increased from 11% of the Registered Indian population in 1986 to 20% in 1996.
While a similar proportion of Registered Indians and non-Aboriginals have some post-secondary
education (without a certificate or diploma), non-Aboriginals are much more likely than Registered
Indians to earn a post-secondary degree, certificate or diploma.
Indicators of Educational Success
■ In 1996, the secondary school completion rate among Registered Indians was 63% compared to
79% among non-Aboriginals; and
■ A total of 53 percent of Registered Indians continued past secondary school to post-secondary
studies, compared to 62% of non-Aboriginals.
The majority of Registered Indians who continue their education after the secondary school level, are
more likely to have attended non-university post-secondary programs than university programs, and
more likely to have earned non-university certificates or diplomas than university certificates or degrees:
■ A total of 72 percent of Registered Indians and 80 percent of non-Aboriginals have completed
non-university post-secondary programs; and
■ University completion rate among Registered Indians is more than 20 percentage points lower
than among other Canadians. Only 36% of Registered Indian university students have completed
a university degree, compared to 64% of non-Aboriginal university students.
There are differences between Registered Indians and others in the relationship between
age/residential pattern and various indicators of educational success:
• Typically, Registered Indians under the age of 25 are relatively less successful than others, but are
relatively more successful as they get older;
• The gap in secondary school completion rates between Registered Indians and non-Aboriginal
population is greatest for the 15-24 age group, where more than 30 percentage points separate
these two population groups. The gap diminishes among older age groups, amounting to about
10 percentage points by the age of 45;
• Also, younger Registered Indians have much lower post-secondary continuation rates than nonAboriginals of the same age, but among those over the age of 45, their continuation rates are
similar to those of other Canadians;
• The gap in university completion rates between Registered Indians and non-Aboriginals is greatest
among the 15-24 age group with a difference of about 40 percent. By the age of 35, this gap
decreases to about 25 percent; and
• Among Registered Indians, most indicators of educational success are higher among those living
off-reserve than among on-reserve residents. This is particularly true for secondary completion
rates and university completion rates. On the other hand, non-university completion rates are
higher on-reserve than off-reserve.
3.24
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
An examination of the data on Aboriginal women reveals that the rate of their educational
attainment and success are increasing as well:
■ More Aboriginal women (29%) have completed the secondary school education than Aboriginal
men (27%). Although, for non-Aboriginal women, the rate is much higher (45%);
■ Completion rates for Registered Indian women living on-reserve and Inuit women are very
similar. Only 17 percent of on-reserve Registered Indian women and 18 percent of Inuit women
possess a secondary school graduation certificate. Whereas at the same time, 23 percent of offreserve Registered Indian women and 29 percent of Métis women possess a secondary school
graduation certificate;
■ The fields of study of post-secondary students are strongly influenced by gender as well as by
type of post-secondary program (university/non-university);
■ Among the non-university students, 59% of Registered Indian men are found in engineering
technologies and trades, while 32% of Registered Indian women are found in commerce,
management and administration; and
■ Among university students, about 55% of Registered Indian men and 70% of Registered Indian
women are found in social sciences, education, recreation and counselling.
In summary, although there has been clear educational progress among Aboriginals over the past
decade, particularly in terms of high school completion and post-secondary participation, it is still
quite low educational attainment rate which is posing ongoing challenges to the economic
advancement of Aboriginal Peoples.
The importance of education is clearly shown by the nearly linear relationship between education
and labour force participation, education and employment and also between education and
employment income.
In today’s context, education is important for employment in Canada:
■ Data (Saskatchewan and Aboriginal Peoples in the 21st Century: Social, Economic and Political
Changes and Challenges. Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, 1997) show that between
1990 and 1996, employment of people who do not complete high school has fallen by 3.9 percent
per year. The primary reason for this change has been the increasing skill, knowledge and training
requirements demanded in the labour force. Consequently, employment of the people with
education beyond high school has increased by 4.1 percent per year over the same time period.
In addition, data also reveal that the gap between groups, for example, between Registered Indians
and other Canadians, become smaller as educational attainment increases. For example, across all
age groups of Registered Indians with higher levels of education have labour force participation rates
which are very similar to those of other Canadians.
The employment rate also increases with higher educational attainment:
■ This trend is quite obvious from the employment rates of Registered Indians age 15 and older
and who are not currently attending school full-time – the employment rate is 38.9 percent with
secondary level of education, 60.8 with trades and other non-university education and 73.1 percent
with university level of education.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.25
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
However, unlike the rate of labour force participation, the percentage of Registered Indians actually
employed is much lower than non-Aboriginals with a similar level of educational attainment.
Upon examining the data on individual income, it has been found that education enhances an
individual’s income and, thereby, the economic status. Data shows that there is a positive correlation
in that the higher the level of education, the higher the income:
■ For instance, Aboriginal women with a university degree have an average income of $22,572, which
is at least $11,000 more than the Aboriginal women with high school education alone ($11,326).
However, the impact of education is more significant on non-Aboriginal women’s average
individual income which is higher at each level of schooling than their Aboriginal counterpart.
It is, therefore, quite clear that education that one’s ability to access and attain is of central
importance to obtain jobs and participate in the formal economy. At the same time, it is also quite
obvious that success will be limited and incomplete, if government policies and strategies to improve
the current situation, do not take into account the historical, social and economic context within
which education takes place for Aboriginal Peoples.
3.26
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Living Conditions and
Quality of Life
“In particular, the Committee is deeply concerned at
the shortage of adequate housing, the endemic mass
unemployment and the high rate of suicide, especially
among youth in the Aboriginal communities on reserves....
almost a quarter of Aboriginal household dwellings require
major repairs for lack of basic amenities.”
(United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Concluding Observations on Canada, December 1998)
“Living conditions” refers to specific objective factors
that affect Aboriginal Peoples’ ability to maintain a quality
of life commensurate with that of other Canadians.
This includes such considerations as the housing situation,
status of their health, the suicide and the incarceration
rates in the community, and so on.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.27
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Housing
While the recent data shows improvements, there can be little doubt that housing for Aboriginal
Peoples is inferior to that for the non-Aboriginal population. Between 1991 and 2001, an average of
2,992 new dwelling units per year have been built for First Nation Peoples on-reserve. In 2000-2001
alone, 2,152 new dwelling units have been constructed on reserve. Since 1990-1991, an yearly average
of 3,436 dwelling units have been renovated. In 2000-2001, a total of 3,245 dwellings have been
renovated on reserve.
Overall, however, Aboriginal Peoples have the least favourable housing conditions of any ethnic
group in Canada. A more recent evaluation of the on-reserve housing program estimated that close
to half of all existing housing was inadequate in that it failed to meet some of the basic standards of
safe and decent living.
Dwellings are unsafe and there is lack of fire protection services:
■ According to the government figures, 200 on-reserve houses are lost each year because of fire.
Based on the information gathered from the 1991 Aboriginal Peoples Survey, the percentage of
reserves with adequate fire protection equipment has increased since 1970, but is still only about
35 percent. In Manitoba, less that 10 percent of reserves have sufficient equipment, but in the
Yukon and the Atlantic provinces nearly 70 percent have adequate fire protection.
Since 1996, the demographic figures show that the Aboriginal population is increasing and at the
same time, the Aboriginal housing crisis has deepened, as the Grand Council of the Crees reported in
February 2000 that 33 percent of the James Bay Cree population is homeless and in need of shelter.
Overcrowding is another major Aboriginal housing as well as a health concern:
■ First Nations dwellings are over six times more likely to be overcrowded than other households in
Canada;
■ The percentage of dwellings having more than one person per room is much higher for Aboriginal
households than for non-Aboriginal households. Almost 19 percent of on-reserve dwellings have
more than one person per room, as compared to only 1.7 percent of non-Aboriginal households
having the same situation; and
■ Based on the information by the Grand Council of the Crees, James Bay Cree housing is
disproportionately overcrowded with double the average number of occupants per house
compared to Canadians in general.
Most Canadians take access to potable water, adequate sanitation and waste disposal services for
granted, whereas, for Aboriginal Peoples these are not always guaranteed:
■ In 1996, 91.5 percent of on-reserve dwellings had sewage disposal facilities and 96.1 percent of
on-reserve dwellings had water supply. However, in both cases, 100 percent of non-Aboriginal
dwellings were equipped with both amenities.
Based on information collected from the 1991 Aboriginal Peoples Survey, less than three-quarters of
Aboriginal homes have central heating, in contrast to over 90 percent of non-Aboriginal homes.
3.28
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Consequently, the current state of inadequacies of Aboriginal housing, in terms of overcrowding, fire
protection, water supply, sanitation and other amenities, poses threats to health of the occupants.
Diseases spread by these inadequacies are more common among Aboriginal population than among
the non-Aboriginals:
■ In 2000-2001, 44 percent of on-reserve dwellings were inadequate; and
■ in 2001, the Health Canada reported that 12 percent of Aboriginal communities across Canada
have water systems that pose a potential health threat.
Over the past 25 years, the number of dwellings on-reserves has increased. However, the Aboriginal
housing units usually have a life span of 15 to 20 years – less than half the national average life span.
Thus, even though there has been an increased number of housing units built on-reserves, the poor
quality of the houses and the increase in the number of people living on-reserve, through Bill C-31,
intensifies the housing crisis. A recent study carried out by Indian and Northern Affairs shows that
nearly $1 billion would be needed to bring the housing of Aboriginals up to average Canadian standards.
This situation has been exacerbated by the elimination of off-reserve housing programs in 1988.
Health
The federal government believes that, with certain exceptions, they do not have any legal or fiduciary
obligations with regard to health care for Aboriginal Peoples. Aboriginal Peoples disagree and claim the
right to special treatment. Disputes between the Aboriginal Peoples and the federal government revolve
around three issues. First is the conflict in definitions of health. Second is how health policy is implemented
for Aboriginal Peoples. Third is the funding of First Nations health services, including the statutory,
constitutional, or fiduciary obligations of the federal government regarding the provision of health
services to Aboriginal Peoples.
Nevertheless, the federal government has accepted some responsibility for Aboriginal health. In 1986,
Health and Welfare (Medical Services Branch) announced a new policy initiative – The Indian Health
Transfer Policy. This new policy, which was centered on the concept of self-determination, was to facilitate
a developmental approach to transferring health care and services to Aboriginal communities. It was
hoped that it would lead to First Nations autonomy and community control of health care services.
The Transfer Policy in health care is a continuation of the “devolution policy” developed by Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada a decade earlier, in that it proposes that a larger share of the responsibility now
allocated to the federal government be taken on by First Nations.
There is considerable conflict between the two parties with regard to this transfer. Since First Nations are
denied real self-determination which, in turn, denies them the opportunity to create conditions whereby
Aboriginal health could be improved. For example, the federal government continues to administer health
services as an isolated “thing” that is separate from the political, social, and economic dimensions of life –
a fact that Aboriginal Peoples and others have consistently identified as one of the major problems in
health care for Aboriginal Peoples.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.29
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Current Health Conditions of Aboriginal Peoples
Many of the statistics about disease and illness among Aboriginal Peoples have been published and
are well known. Illnesses resulting from poverty, overcrowding, and poor housing have led to chronic
and acute respiratory diseases, which take a heavy toll among Aboriginal Peoples.
Rates of tuberculosis, which is quite rare among non-Aboriginal population in Canada – a disease
mainly caused by overcrowding in First Nations and Inuit communities, is at least 8 times higher
than that of Canada. And among the Registered Indian population living on-reserve, the rate of
tuberculosis incidence is 6 times higher per 100,000 than the total population of Canada.
Unknown among Aboriginal Peoples before 1940, diabetes is now widely prevalent with rates 3 times
the national average. This is a result of the encroachment and destruction of the traditional lands.
Consequently, a once active lifestyle required daily physical activities for hunting, trapping, etc., has
diminished.
While the overall rate of HIV/AIDS in Canada has dropped dramatically, there is a rising epidemic
of HIV/AIDS among Aboriginal population. According to the Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention
and Control, the number of Aboriginals living with HIV has steadily increased from 1,430 in 1996
to 2,740 in 1999. Therefore, over a short period time, there has been a 91 percent increase in the
number of Aboriginals living with HIV/AIDS. In short, although Aboriginals comprise only 3.6 percent
of the overall Canadian population, they account for 5.5 percent of all prevalent HIV/AIDS and
8.8 percent of all new cases of the disease in Canada.
The average life expectancy of Registered Indians is more than 6 years less than Canadians overall.
For Registered Indian men, the gap is 7 years and for Registered Indian women, it is about 6 years. It
is also projected that the situation will not improve and the gap in life expectancy between Registered
Indian men and other Canadian men will exist until 2016. For Registered Indian women, however,
the gap will decrease to about 4 years in 2016.
The Canadian infant mortality rate is 6 deaths per 1,000 live births. The rate for Registered Indians
is about 12 deaths per 1,000 live births, double the rate of the Canadian average.
An epidemic rate of suicide, especially among Aboriginal youth, is one of the gravest concerns for
Canada. The rate of suicide among Aboriginal youth is at least 5 to 6 times higher than among nonAboriginal youth and it is 3 times higher for all groups than in Canada overall. Suicide attempts by
Aboriginal youth are much more frequent than attempts by non-Aboriginal youth.
Underlying the problem of suicide are hopeless conditions:
• in aboriginal communities across Canada, social environments and family structure, which are
necessary to support healthy child development have been weakened by years of oppression,
colonialist policies and cultural genocide;
• poverty and economic marginalization which surface in high unemployment rates, substance
abuse, and gambling have enormous impact on the overall wellness of communities;
3.30
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
• cultural and emotional stress related to loss of land, loss of traditional living areas and restricted
economic opportunities, result in desperation among Aboriginal youth;
• failure of public institutions to reflect, to Aboriginal children and youth, positive images of
themselves and their cultures, resulted in a feeling of inadequacy and anger in this population; and
• extended family, teacher-learner relations, traditional parenting and other customs could help
strengthen our children, families and communities. However, these support systems have been
weakened by the historical implications of community relocations, loss of traditional economies,
residential school experiences, child welfare systems, and life times of indoctrination into an EuroCentric way of life.
Aboriginal Peoples and the Justice System
“Aboriginal Peoples experience disproportionately high rates
of crime, victimization, are over-represented in the court and
the correctional system, and further, feel a deep alienation
from a justice system that is foreign to them and inaccessible,
and reflects both overt and systemic racism.”
(Canadian Criminal Justice Association, 2000)
In the Aboriginal community, there is a disproportionate level of incarceration:
■ This rate is 6 times higher than the national average. In the province of Saskatchewan, they are
25 times higher than the rate for non-Aboriginal population;
■ Aboriginal Peoples account for 3.6 percent of the Canadian population, yet in 1999, 21 percent
of women and 17 percent of men incarcerated in federal prisons were Aboriginals; and
■ The Aboriginal incarceration rate is 735 per 100,000 and they account for 16 percent of the total
federal offenders.
The Aboriginal Peoples face discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice system. They are
most likely to be denied bail and spend more time in pre-trial detention than the non-Aboriginal
people. Aboriginal Peoples are also more likely to be charged with multiple offenses and are more
than twice as likely as the non-Aboriginal people to be incarcerated. Further, they are more likely
not to have legal representation at the court proceedings and often plead guilty because they are
intimidated by the court and simply want the proceedings to be over.
The Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and Its Impact on the Indian and Métis People of
Alberta, in its submission, noted that “no correctional system in Canada... is presently situated or
equipped to deal with those underlying or causative factors which result in a disproportionate number
of Aboriginal Peoples entering the system.” In short, incarceration has not been a deterrent, nor has it
led to rehabilitation.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.31
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
The Alberta Task Force also pointed out, nearly 14 percent of charged persons were Aboriginal,
yet 30 percent of those in the provincial jails were Aboriginal. They conclude that the courts appear
to contribute to the over-representation of Aboriginal Peoples in prison in a direct and significant
manner. As a result, Aboriginal Peoples are less likely to receive a probation release than they are to
be admitted to a correctional center.
Conclusion
In summary, statistics show that the quality of life experienced by Aboriginal Peoples is far inferior
to that of non-Aboriginal people. How have they found themselves in this position? The position of
Aboriginal Peoples in today’s society is not the result of any single factor, but of complex historical
and contemporary events. The alienation of Aboriginal Canadians began with historical subjugation
and subsequent economic displacement. This was followed by a failure to recognize and guarantee
certain inalienable Aboriginal rights. The subjugation and control of Aboriginal Canadians has been
continued through a process of individual and institutional racism. The federal government has
neglected to consult with Aboriginal Peoples concerning their welfare, has failed to develop and
finance effective programs to assist Aboriginal Peoples, and, at times, has actively prevented Aboriginal
Peoples from becoming organized in pursuit of their rights. All these factors, and others, have led
to the marginality of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada.
First Nations have made huge progress in the last 25 years in taking control of their own communities
and shaping their own futures. Yet, all but a handful of First Nations are still constrained by a piece
of legislation, the Indian Act, which has changed little since the days when an Indian had to ask a
government official’s permission to leave the reserve. To put it simply, the Indian Act is an anachronism
blocking the path to progress.
The failure of self-government negotiations is also another detriment to the advancement of
Aboriginal communities, even when experience shows that self-government regimes established
under claims settlements such as the James Bay Agreement enable Aboriginal communities to
provide a better life for their citizens.
As a result, although money and effort have been invested in improving housing and infrastructure
in First Nations communities and more communities have now better housing, safe water, hygenic
waste disposal systems and improvements in health and life expectancy, but, as the data presented in
this Section has illustrated, the efforts have not been all that successful. Aboriginal Peoples, despite
achieving some absolute gains in income, education, and occupational level, continue to fall further
and further behind the non-Aboriginal population. They are, as a group, remain the most
disadvantaged of all Canadians.
What Canada needs is a blueprint for change that makes a new relationship with the Aboriginal
Peoples a national imperative of the first order. A piecemeal, sporadic or grudging approach will
simply not get the job done. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had earlier cautioned
against a piecemeal approach when it urged the Government to adopt a comprehensive 25-year
strategy for the political, social, and economic development of First Nations communities.
3.32
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
PHOTO: DAVID SMILEY
It would be equally ill-advised to water down efforts to change the situation because Canada
allegedly “cannot afford it”. The cost of doing nothing about the current economic and social
situation of Aboriginal Peoples is already too high and is increasing rapidly. The Royal Commission
on Aboriginal Peoples calculated that in 1996 alone, the costs associated with lost income and
production and attempts to remedy social problems totalled $7.5 billion. Without fundamental
changes, these costs will grow year after year as the Aboriginal population expands.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
3.33
Aboriginal Rights:
Discovering the Context
Theory and Practice at the
Juncture of Human Rights and
Aboriginal Rights in Canada
AHNEEN, BOOZHOO –
Means “welcome” in the Anishnabek (Ojibway)
language. One of the over 50 Indigenous languages
spoken by Native people in Canada and in the over
500 First Nations across the country. Indigenous
Peoples in Canada realize perhaps more than any
other people in this country that all rights are
preceded by responsibilities.
The Presentation Notes has been prepared for
the Canadian Labour Congress by:
The Indigenous Knowledge Project
P.O. Box 19001
360-A Bloor Street West
Toronto, ON M5S 1X1
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.1
Blackfoot People with Tipi
Historical photos in this presentation are used courtesy of National Archives of Canada.
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Presentation Notes
Ojibway (Anishnabe) Pictograph – Lake Superior
The first of these responsibilities is to the spirits of the Ancestors.
This pictograph, from the Lake Superior area of Northern Ontario,
was placed there in the distant past to mark a special relationship
between the Anishnabai (or Ojibway) Peoples and the natural
world which provided all that they needed to live. It also shows
the shamans in a canoe traversing the worlds of the here and
now with that of the spirit world. All that we have been given in
this world as Indigenous Peoples comes from the kindness of the
natural world and the spirit world.
The oldest of many stories in many cosmologies of Native Peoples
says that originally Aboriginal Peoples came from the Sky World
and that when they lived in that place they had all that we needed.
However, a time came when the peoples fell from that world to the
one we live in today – this earth. In this earth, life was difficult and
the peoples had to learn to live a new way. A way which
incorporated balance and harmony – a way which was sustainable
in which the peoples did not take from nature more than they
needed to live and always returned gratitude and care for the
earth in exchange for the good things they received – food,
shelter, medicine, etc.
It is said at that time that the Creator sent the Great Grandmother,
the Bear, who is called Mukwa in the Ojibway language, and that
she taught the peoples all that they needed to know to live a good
life. This is called in the Ojibway language, Bimaadzwiwin, and is
found in all Native cultures across the Americas.
B’maadzwiwin
Living our life in a
good way
Having enough to take
care of ourselves and
our family
Taking care of the earth
Taking care of our
communities
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
B’maadzwiwin is the central philosophical idea behind the
Aboriginal concepts of both rights and responsibilities. Native
Peoples always give priority to responsibilities over rights – rights
may be held by the individual but they are vested in the interests
of the collective and exercised as a result of a person’s role within
the tribe or family. B’maadzwiwin at it’s most basic level, means
living life in a good way. This is accomplished by working hard
enough to take care of oneself and one’s extended family; by
taking care of the earth; and by taking care of our communities.
4.3
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Presentation Notes
This is also expressed in the representation of the Medicine Wheel,
shown here as a turtle. In this depiction of the medicine wheel we
see the four families of humankind – red, black, white and yellow,
each within the circle of life but each one living separately and not
interfering with one another’s life-ways. The concept of strength in
unity and diversity is a central theme in the Aboriginal relationship
between tribes and between themselves and settler societies.
This was expressed by other Indian Nations in North America
differently. The Haudonosonee, or Iroquois Peoples, used the Two
Row Wampum. Wampum was a beaded belt made of purple and
white dentilium shells that was created to mark and remember
treaties or other significant events. The Two Row Wampum depicts
two boats sailing beside each other.
The Covenant Chain was another way of expressing the
relationship which Aboriginal Nations had with settler societies.
The chain was made of silver, which might tarnish but which
could be brought back to its original brightness by polishing,
signifying the need for effort to maintain a good relationship. It is
held at either end by each of the parties. If either party dropped
the chain the connection would be broken. The relationship as
understood by Aboriginal Peoples was one of equality and mutual
respect – in short “Nation to Nation.”
In Canada, this relationship was expressed legislatively in the
Royal Proclamation of 1763. This proclamation ended the Seven
Year War between the French and British for control of Canada.
It also set out a treaty process for the setting aside of Indian
lands, recognized the nationhood of Indian Peoples and protected
the economic rights of Indian Nations engaged in trade. The Royal
Proclamation is among the most important constitutional
documents in Canada recognizing Aboriginal rights.
Royal Proclamation of 1763.
4.4
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Six Nations Mohawk who defended Canada in the
War of 1812
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was carried to the Grand Chiefs
and Councils at the Council of Niagara in 1770 and ratified by the
more than 5,000 Chiefs and Headmen, assembled there with
their Warriors, at that time. In the 1800s, as settlement increased
in Canada and tensions between Indian Peoples and settlers
exacerbated by competition for land and resources, Indian
Peoples convened a number of Councils at York (now the City of
Toronto) to seek redress from the government for their grievances,
which included everything from harassment from settlers at their
fishing grounds, to illegal land appropriations, to looting of Indian
graves by settlers looking for artifacts and curios.
Prior to 1850, there were some land cession treaties signed in Canada in
the east, however, most of these early treaties are referred to as Peace
and Friendship Treaties as few land cessions were involved.
In 1849-50, the major treaty period began with the signing of the
Robinson-Superior and Huron-Robinson Treaties which covered most of
the lands occupied by the Anishnabek along the north shores of Lake
Huron and Lake Superior. These treaties were given added urgency by
the government due to the discovery of precious metals like copper,
large timber reserves and land for agricultural settlement.
Huron-Robinson Treaty
RS ROBINSON-SUPERIOR TREATY, 1850 – OJIBWAY
RH ROBINSON-HURON TREATY, 1850 – OJIBWAY
DT DOUGLAS TREATIES, 1850-54 – SONGISH, SANETCH, SOOKE
AND NANAIMO
MI MANITOULIN ISLAND TREATIES, 1862. – OTTAWA AND OJIBWAY
1 TREATY 1, 1871 – OJIBWAY AND CREE
2 TREATY 2, 1871 – OJIBWAY AND CREE
3 TREATY 3, 1873 – OJIBWAY
4 TREATY 4, 1873 – OJIBWAY, CREE AND ASSINIBOINE
5 TREATY 5, 1875 – OJIBWAY AND CREE
6 TREATY 6, 1876 – CREE, CHIPPEWYAN AND ASSINIBOINE
7 TREATY 7, 1877 – BLACKFOOT, BLOOD, PIEGAN, SARCEE,
CHIPPEWYAN AND ASSINIBOINE.
8 TREATY 8, 1899 – CREE, CHIPPEWYAN AND BEAVER
9 TREATY 9 , 1905 – OJIBWAY AND CREE
10 TREATY 10, 1906 – CHIPPEWYAN AND CREE
11 TREATY 11, 1921 – SLAVE, DOGRIB, LOUCHEUEX AND HARE
WT WILLIAMS TREATIES, 1923 – OJIBWA AND MISSISSAUGA
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Following the Robinson Treaties,
the federal government had a
vision of uniting Canada from
east to west with a railway line
– the Canadian Pacific Railroad.
This would not only tie the
country together but would also
open up the rich farm lands of
western Canada to immigration.
To deal with the Plains Indian
Peoples – the Blackfoot, the
Sioux, the Plains Cree, etc. –
they entered into a series of
treaties known as the Numbered
Treaties One to Eleven in the
period from 1870 to 1920.
4.5
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Presentation Notes
In 1761, the Canadian government consolidated a series of acts that had
begun in 1857 with the Act for the Gradual Civilization and Christianization
of the Indian People of Canada into a general act called the Indian Act.
The Confederation Act of 1867 had given the federal government jurisdiction
over Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians.
George Henry, an Anishnabek Chief, opposed the intrusion of
the Canadian Government into the everyday affairs of Indian
Peoples in Canada
There were only two areas of life that Indian communities retained control
over under the Indian Act:
1. The right to erect fences for weed control; and
2. The right to license and control stray dogs.
The Indian Act was an unique piece of legislation in the colonial world in that
it imposed control over the everyday lives of Indian Peoples in a manner
unseen anywhere else in the world. The only rights that communities
retained under the Indian Act were the right to erect fences for weed control
and the right to license dogs.
Informed by a racist ideology which
declared all Indians savage and in need
of civilization, the Indian Act abolished,
by force if necessary, the traditional
governments of Indian Nations.
It imposed a system of Pass Laws, similar to the Bantustan system in
South Africa, which denied peoples access to their fishing and hunting
grounds as promised them under treaty. Indians leaving the reserves
without a pass from the Indian agent could be arrested and jailed.
The Pass Laws destroyed the food security and communities lost
knowledge of traditional foods. And this broke the spiritual connection
we had with the land as the provider of our life. The long-term result
of the loss of control over traditional foodways has been that
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada today have one of the highest rates
of diabetes in the world.
The relationship Native Peoples had with nature was predicated upon
responsibility for the land. With no access to the land and no control
over traditional territories, Native Peoples saw their lands become
despoiled by pollution.
4.6
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Native religious traditions were also forbidden.
Ceremonies like the Potlatch, the Sun Dance, the Shaking
Tent and the White Dog Ceremonies were made illegal
and those who practiced them were jailed.
Plains Indian Pow Wow, 1901
For several generations, to ensure that Indian children
would be brought up in a civilized manner, they were
removed from their homes and communities and sent
to residential schools. They were punished there if they
spoke their language or exhibited other signs of
“being Indian.”
MikMaq Children at Shubenacadie Residential School
The residential school legacy has left deep and lasting scars upon Native
communities in Canada. Peoples with no cultural axis, no sense of who
they are, with no parenting skills. To address the residential school legacy,
often called the Residential School Syndrome, Canada’s federal
government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to help the
survivors with various kinds of programs designed to fill in the gaps that
they missed as a result of being yanked from their communities. What they
have not addressed is the fundamental question of the role of First Nations
Peoples in Canada. In many respects, Native Peoples are caught between
the legacy of the past and the uncertainty of the future.
This then is the context for understanding the
relationship which has established the milieu in which
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada are pressing for specific
kinds of rights. When the Constitution Act was signed in
1982, and patriated to Canada, Aboriginal Peoples fought
long and hard to be included as separate and recognized
nations within Canada. The Constitution Act was the first
act in Canada to recognize Aboriginal Peoples as
possessing pre-existing inherent Aboriginal rights based
on occupation of the land from time immemorial.
Constitution Act of 1982
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.7
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Presentation Notes
Coast Salish Bentwood Box
In the four Constitutional Conferences in the 1980s held between Aboriginal
Peoples and the Canadian government, there was a failure to define what
Aboriginal rights were. The argument centered around whether Aboriginal
rights were to be perceived as an empty box in which, as rights were
defined, as rights were defined, they would fill up the box or whether they
would be considered a full box of existing Aboriginal rights that could only
be removed by specific actions such as treaties.
In a number of Supreme Court decisions over the years, beginning with the
Sparrow Decision, the Supreme Court has generally erred on the side of
caution and determined that an Aboriginal rights continues to exist unless
it can be proven to have been specifically surrendered.
Chief George Manuel of the Shushwap Nation in British Columbia
organized the Constitutional Express in 1981-82 to demand recognition
of First Nations in Canada’s Constitution
The struggle of Indigenous Peoples in Canada to have Indigenous Rights
recognized has been of far greater importance than the struggle of
Indigenous Peoples in Canada for Human Rights. The paradigm of trade and
development resulting in greater rights for communities is being challenged
in Native communities in Canada and internationally.
The Human Rights discourse is viewed with a great deal of suspicion by many
Aboriginal Peoples who surmise, correctly, that the Universal Declaration is
strongly based on the notion of the rights of the individual and may be used to
subvert the rights of the collective (the band, the tribe, the nation).
It is further confused by the exemptions under the Federal Human Rights Code which explicitly exempt
the Indian Act and Indian residents on reserves from the purview of the Code.
The focus on rights as opposed to responsibilities is also at odds with cultural understandings about
the nature of life and the interconnectedness of all life – rights exercised without responsibility only
result in license. Humans do not have rights which allow them to destroy other forms of life in the
environment, except under very specific cultural protocols – when something is taken there is always
responsibility to give something back.
As many Indian Peoples still live on reserves in Canada, there is little application of Provincial Human
Rights Codes either. Areas, such as discrimination in housing, provision of services, employment,
education, etc., are all covered under Provincial Human Rights Codes and, therefore, of no relevance to
Indian Peoples resident on reserves.
4.8
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Political rights defined by negotiation with the Canadian state
or won through protest are seen as the vehicle for redressing
historical inequity rather than the application of human rights
or equity programs.
Indigenous Peoples around the globe have been moving in recent years
to define their rights within the states that have occupied their lands
and territories. From Borneo to Ecuador to Africa, the movement to
Indigenous rights has grown first under the auspices of the World
Council of Indigenous People and then with the cooperation and
exchange engendered under international processes like the United
Nations Human Rights Commission – Working Group on Indigenous
Peoples (UNHRC-WGIP).
In the international arena, Indigenous Peoples have tried to define their
rights primarily within states and have spoken consistently not just for
their own rights but for the sustainability of the planet as well. In
processes like Agenda 21 of the Commission on Sustainable
Development and Article 8 (j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Indigenous Peoples have remained true to a vision of a healthy
environment and a planet able to sustain life in a balanced way.
More than this, they bring a vision to the world of diversity, where unity
in difference is celebrated and societies don’t just strive for tolerance,
but rather recognize that healthy societies, like healthy eco-systems,
embrace a wide variety of human expressions, cultures and opinions.
It is not surprising that much of the discussion on Indigenous rights in
Canada and internationally has focussed on issues of food security or
food sovereignty as food is the place where we connect with the earth
itself which produces our food.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.9
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Presentation Notes
The denial of self-determination to Indigenous Peoples will leave the
most marginalized and excluded of all the world’s peoples without a
legal, peaceful weapon to press for genuine democracy within the
states they live.
Madame Erica Irene Daes,
Chair, UNHRC-WGIP
With the establishment of the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples
to be located under ECOSOC at the United Nations, there will be an office
at the U.N. charged with dealing with a number of issues involving
Indigenous Peoples, including violations of human rights.
The approach of Indigenous Peoples in Canada and around the globe is
the same – human rights can in no way be separated from Indigenous
rights. Indigenous rights are collective rights, they co-exist with the
rights of individuals, and they encompass economic, social and political
rights. They are also transformative – they will change as the life
circumstances that Native Peoples live with change.
Winds of Change Symbol
Chi Meegwetch means a “Big Thank You” in the Ojibway (Anishnabek) language.
4.10
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Aboriginal Rights
Overview
Aboriginal and Treaty Rights provide a context
essential to a full understanding of Aboriginal
matters.
It also gives an account of the differing perceptions
and definitions of Aboriginal rights held by the
Crown on the one hand and Aboriginal Peoples
on the other.
An analysis has been included as well of the changes
that have taken place over time in the way that
Aboriginal rights are regarded and approached.
Also incorporated are the important legal
jurisprudence and other significant political
actions confirming Aboriginal rights and claims.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.11
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Points to Remember
Aboriginal rights derive from the position of Aboriginal Peoples as self-governing nations who
occupied and used the land prior to the arrival of the European colonists.
Aboriginal rights, therefore, include everything necessary for their survival as a people, including
rights to land, language, economic and cultural practices and forms of law and government.
Aboriginal rights are also inherent rights based on the pre-contact social order of Aboriginal
Peoples and their original occupation of the land.
These rights are also collective rights, rather than individual, belonging to a community as a
whole, not just to individuals. This means that Aboriginal individuals may enjoy the benefit of
these rights, such as their right to the land, hunting or fishing, but the rights belong to the
community.
Aboriginal rights extend beyond the right to own and occupy land or maintain a traditional
lifestyle. Ultimately, they embrace the concept of independence through self-determination.
Aboriginal Peoples also have treaty rights, which are provided in the treaties made between the
Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown. The term “treaty rights” generally refers to the promises
which were made when the treaties were signed with Aboriginal Peoples.
Aboriginal rights and their title to the land were first formally recognized in the Royal
Proclamation of 1763. It asserted that since the Aboriginal nations were the original “landowners” of Canada and therefore, “all lands not purchased by the British Government from the
Indians belonged to the Indians” and further lands could be acquired from the Indians only by
the government, and only after a public meeting of the Indians called for the purpose in the
presence of an official.
Aboriginal and treaty rights are also protected under Canada’s Constitution. Section 35 (1) of the
Constitution Act of 1982 recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights.
These rights are guaranteed equally to Aboriginal men and women.
Furthermore, Section 25 of the Constitution makes sure that the treaty and other rights and
freedoms pertaining to the Aboriginal Peoples are not being superseded by individual rights
provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In this case also, there are fundamental differences between Aboriginal Peoples and federal and
provincial governments as to the spirit and intent of the treaties and the exact nature of treaty
rights, since the written text of the treaties does not match with the text transmitted through the
Aboriginal oral tradition.
4.12
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
However, over the years, the term "Aboriginal rights" has undergone a process of evolution and
partial legal definitions have been developed through some landmark court cases involving
Aboriginal rights. The exact nature and extent of these rights are still very much open questions.
So far, Aboriginal rights have only been recognized to a limited extent and the following aspects
of Aboriginal rights have been confirmed through important jurisprudence:
"Existing" rights protected by the Section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, consist of
those activities which were practices, customs or traditions integral to the distinctive culture
of the Aboriginal group claiming the right;
Oral evidence of traditions and oral histories can be used to establish Aboriginal rights since
often it is the only form of proof available to Aboriginal Peoples, especially with regard to their
practices and traditions prior to the arrival of Europeans; and
Practices, customs and traditions which constitute Aboriginal rights are those which have
their origin prior to contact with European society, but may be performed in a modern form.
Aboriginal rights cannot be extinguished, they can, however, be regulated for purposes associated
with the responsible use of the right, including conservation, agriculture, settlement, economic
development, prevention of harm to others, and the like, as long as Aboriginal Peoples are
involved in decisions taken with respect to their lands.
At the same time, the Crown has the legal or fiduciary responsibility of upholding and protecting
existing Aboriginal rights and their best interests.
Aboriginal rights are contextual in the sense that the extent of Aboriginal rights depends on a
particular Aboriginal group’s connection with the land. Therefore, some Aboriginal groups may be
unable to make out a claim to title of land. They may still have their land rights by proving the
existence of a variety of activities related to the Aboriginal society's habits and mode of life,
either across all of their traditional lands, or in specific sites such as fishing stations where
particular Aboriginal practices occurred.
In short, the current situation is that although Section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act of 1982
“recognized and affirmed” existing Aboriginal rights, the manner in which, and degree to which,
those rights extend has yet to be fully clarified by the courts or recognized by any level of
government. Thus, the amount of land and related natural resources that should fall under
Aboriginal control is disputed by federal and provincial governments, resource industry
representatives, and public interest groups alike.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.13
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Introduction
“Before the arrival of Europeans we had full rights as people,
as Aboriginal People. We had rights to lands and water.
These resources provided our homes, gave us wealth and
identity. We had rights to use land and its plants for
medicine. We had ownership collectively. We are the First
Nations people and this is our land. Our mothers’ mothers,
and fathers’ fathers have lived in this land, since time
immemorial. We are the caretakers of this land, and respect
the earth as our mother which gives us life.”
(Huntinghawk, Mervin, “Since Time Immemorial: Treaty Land
Entitlement in Manitoba”. In Sacred Lands Aboriginal World Views,
Claims, and Conflicts. Jill Oakes, Rick Riewe, Kathi Kinew and Elaine
Maloney, eds. Occasional Publication No. 43. Winnipeg: Canadian
Circumpolar Institute. 1998)
Occupation of Land at the Core of Aboriginal Rights
Broadly speaking, then, Aboriginal Peoples have Aboriginal rights, which are derived from their
presence in Canada and use of the land, long before the European colonization of Canada. These
rights are inherent, collective rights based on the pre-contact social order and their original
occupation of the land of Aboriginal Peoples. Aboriginal rights extend beyond the right to own and
occupy land or maintain a traditional lifestyle. Ultimately, they embrace the concept of independence
through self-determination. In short, Aboriginal rights are simply human and political rights, and
they have been self-evident from time immemorial.
Land is at the heart of social justice with Aboriginal Peoples. The unacceptable economic and social
conditions faced by Aboriginal Peoples in Canada are perpetuated by a longtime federal Aboriginal
policy that has continued to defy Canadian history and Canadian laws, and has sought to dispossess
Aboriginal Peoples of their lands, assimilate their cultures and terminate their rights. In Canada, as in
many other countries around the world, Aboriginal Peoples are struggling to retain or win back their
ancestral lands – lands lost to government appropriation and recently, to transnational corporations
who put resource exploitation ahead of the rights of Aboriginal Peoples.
When Aboriginal Peoples talk of possessing their ancestral or traditional lands, they are talking not
only of a legal concept, but of a world view and way of life as well. This is why Aboriginal Peoples
desire to maintain and develop their long-standing relationship to the land and its resources. Access
to an adequate land and resource base is key to Aboriginal Peoples being able to realize selfdetermination and self-sufficient economies.
4.14
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Hence, Aboriginal rights are unique. Justice Dickson in Guerin v. The Queen rightly describes
Aboriginal rights as sui generis, which means the right to use and take the fruits and products of
traditional lands, including the right to hunt, fish, and trap thereon.
Legal Recognition and Affirmation of Aboriginal Rights
The following legal documents did not create Aboriginal rights, the documents merely recognized and
affirmed the existence of Aboriginal rights. Aboriginal rights have their origin in the fact that the
Aboriginal Peoples were the original occupants of this land since time immemorial.
Royal Proclamation of 1763
Aboriginal rights, particularly their land rights, were first recognized and guaranteed in the Royal
Proclamation of 1763. The Crown, through this Proclamation, guaranteed Aboriginal Peoples that
their land would not be taken away from them either by force or by fraud. Hence, the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 has often been referred as the “Magna Carta of Indian Rights” and a historic
expression of the common law which entails Aboriginal legal rights.
However, even though the Royal Proclamation of 1763 has been held by the courts to have the force
of a statute which has never been repealed, it has been, very conveniently, ignored by successive
federal, provincial, state, and territorial governments.
At the same time, Native populations throughout Canada have regarded it very seriously, largely
because, regardless of its political efficacy, it contained extensive provisions regarding protection of
Indian lands. The Proclamation treated Indian nations as protected peoples under the Crown’s overall
sovereignty, and presupposed that they would retain rights to unceded lands in their possession. It
went on to lay down detailed provisions protecting Indian lands from encroachment and fraudulent
purchases. In particular, it forbade colonial Governors to grant away unsurrendered Indian lands and
prohibited settlement on them. Private purchase of Indian lands were outlawed, and a system of
public purchases was substituted.
Constitution Act of 1982
The Constitution Act of 1982 acknowledges Canada’s history. Aboriginal Peoples were here first and
so, due to this historical fact, as well as through contracts (treaties) signed with the Crown, they
retain certain rights that other Canadians do not share. This acknowledgment led to a renewed vision
of Aboriginal Inherent and Treaty Rights, which is enshrined in Section 35 of the Constitution Act
of 1982:
Section 35
(1) The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada
are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, “Aboriginal Peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis
Peoples of Canada.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.15
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
(3) For greater certainty, in Subsection (1), “treaty rights” includes rights that now
exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Aboriginal and treaty rights
referred to in Subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
It is important to note that the Constitution only recognizes the Aboriginal rights which continued
in “existence” on April 17, 1982. However, the Aboriginal rights which had been extinguished prior
to 1982 are not recognized in the Constitution. There are major differences in the opinions of the
Aboriginal Peoples and the governments regarding “extinguishment” of their rights. According to
Aboriginal Peoples, their rights can only be extinguished through treaties, in which case their consent
is required, and not by any other action of the Crown.
Section 35
(3) ensures that rights contained in land claims agreements, such as the James Bay
and Northern Quebec Agreement, are included in the term “treaty rights.”
Subsection 35 (4) makes it clear that Aboriginal and treaty rights are assured equally to men
and women.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was also added to the Constitution in 1982 to protect
individual rights against the actions of governments. Aboriginal and treaty rights are, however,
different from non-Aboriginal perception of “rights” in that the rights in Aboriginal society are
viewed as collective rights belonging to a community as a whole, not just to individuals. This means
that Aboriginal individuals may enjoy the benefits of these rights, such as hunting or fishing, but
these rights belong to the community.
In an attempt to avoid any future conflict between the notions of “individual” and “collective” rights
and to safeguard the Aboriginal and treaty rights from being superseded by individual rights, a
special provision has been added to the Canadian Constitution:
• Although Section 15 (1) of the Charter states every individual is equal before and under the law
without discrimination, it is followed immediately by Section 15 (2):
• Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the
amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are
disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability; and
• Section 25 makes sure that “The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not
be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms
that pertain to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada including:
(a)
any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of
October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may
be so acquired.”
4.16
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Leading Aboriginal Rights Cases and Development of
Legal Definitions of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights
Aboriginal Peoples have struggled throughout Canada’s history for recognition of their Aboriginal and
treaty rights. Despite the recognition of Aboriginal rights in the Royal Proclamation, fundamental
disagreements arose throughout the history of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relationship as to what
Aboriginal and treaty rights should or should not include and to what extent they should or should
not be restricted. Even when the term was written into the Constitution Act of 1982, the Act did not
define the nature, scope, or extent of Aboriginal rights; it merely recognized and protected their
existence. As a result, it has been left to the courts to interpret the Act. Canadian courts have often
been asked to define Aboriginal and treaty rights and the nature of the title arising out of it.
Consequently, the term “Aboriginal rights” has undergone a process of evolution and some legal
definitions. Nevertheless, the nature and extent of Aboriginal rights, and where they exist, are still
very much open questions. In fact, Canadian law has yet to define these two terms, Aboriginal rights
and treaty rights, with precision, let alone clarify the relationship between these two terms and the
resulting Aboriginal title.
Canadian courts, through various cases involving Aboriginal and treaty rights, tried to reconcile the
unique concept of Aboriginal rights with the rest of the Canadian law. The following is a preliminary
look at some of the leading cases which have been so far significant in interpreting the legal theory
upon which concepts of Aboriginal rights are based:
The St. Catherines Milling Case (St. Catherines Milling and the Lumber Co. V. The Queen, 1888) in the
late nineteenth century is important in understanding the nature of the title held by Aboriginal
Peoples in their traditional land. In 1883 the federal government, believing that it owned the lands
and resources in a particular area with respect to which it had entered a treaty, granted a timbercutting license to the milling company. The Province of Ontario, however, claimed that the British
North America Act gave it the land and negated any Indian interest there might have been on it. The
then-final arbiter, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, held that the British
Crown had title and sovereignty over the traditional territory of the Aboriginal Peoples even before
the actual treaty was signed. Aboriginal title was described not as a legal right of ownership, but as a
mere right to occupy and use the land dependent on the good will of the sovereign.
Following this hasty and superficial treatment of Aboriginal land rights, Canada entered into a period
when Aboriginal rights were overlooked since assimilation of Aboriginal Peoples into mainstream
society was the primary objective of Canadian Aboriginal policy. In fact, from 1927 to 1951 it was a
crime for anyone to be paid to assist Indians to advance their land claims.
During this same period, without a collective land base, which was promised in the Manitoba Act, the
Métis found themselves relegated to the margins of western Canada’s economic and social development.
The Inuits were also dealt the same way as the federal government ignored their economic and social
development and left the Inuit largely in the hands of the churches and missionaries until the
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.17
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Supreme Court ruling in 1939 which said that Inuits were a federal constitutional responsibility.
During this period Aboriginal Peoples, however, continued their attempts to uphold their rights.
In the early twentieth century organizations like the League of Indians of Canada were formed to
advance perspectives and rights of Aboriginal Peoples. In 1913, the Nisga’a of British Columbia
filed a petition with the Privy Council to recognize their land rights to their traditional territory.
Throughout the 1920s, a number of Aboriginal groups in the west coast and in Ontario made in
vain similar arguments to the Parliament and the Privy Council to recognize their title on the land.
Then in 1973, nearly a century later, during which the federal and other levels of government were
completely silent on the issue of Aboriginal rights and title, the Supreme Court decision on the
Calder Case (Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1973) established that Aboriginal title
existed at the time of European contact, regardless of whether Europeans recognized it. The Calder
case involved a claim by the Nisga’a Nation to Aboriginal title and control of the Nass River Valley of
northern British Columbia.Although this claim was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court of
Canada on a procedural technicality, the judgment did serve to negate the common assumption that
First Nations in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries were not socially or politically
advanced enough to have recognizable rights.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia is
the starting point for a review of the modern Canadian law on Aboriginal rights. If we look at the
history of Aboriginal rights and the history of case laws, it is interesting to note that the concept of
Aboriginal title existed in law as far back as the 1700s, but it was with the Calder Case in 1973 that the
principle of Aboriginal rights was established in Canadian law for the first time. It represents the first
instance in which our highest court attempted to articulate explicitly the nature of Aboriginal rights.
Although the Nisga’a had lost the Calder Case on a procedural technicality, in reality they had scored
a major victory. In Parliament, both the Conservatives and the New Democrats insisted that the
federal government must recognize its obligation to settle native claims. The all-party Standing
Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs passed a motion that approved the principle that a
settlement of Native claims should be made in regions where treaties had not already extinguished
Aboriginal title. On August 8, 1973, Jean Chrétien, then Minister of Indian Affairs, announced that
the federal government intended to settle the claims, beginning a process that continues to this day.
Also, further negotiations on land rights were initiated with the Nisga’a which culminated in the
signing of the Nisga’a Treaty in 2000.
In hindsight, the federal government had to address the title to Canadian lands and resources not
then covered by treaties since major projects were about to be undertaken:
• The Inuit and Cree of northern Quebec were beginning an action that threatened the James Bay
Hydro Project;
• The Inuit of Baker Lake were commencing an action because of proposed mineral activity in the
eastern Arctic; and
4.18
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
• The Inuvialuit and the Dene-Metis were expressing concerns over the proposed Polar Gas Project
and the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.
Economic development and related activities were being threatened. The use and management of
lands and resources were in a state of uncertainty.
Thus, Aboriginal rights were still a rather nebulous affair. After the Calder case, everyone agreed that
they existed, but no one could agree on the nature and origin of Aboriginal rights and title as well as
the extent of responsibility of the Crown in upholding and protecting Aboriginal rights and their
interests. It was not until the Guerin Case (Guerin v. The Queen, 1984) that the extent of federal
(Crown) government’s legal or fiduciary responsibility was established.
In the Guerin Case, the Supreme Court of Canada maintained that the Crown could be held
accountable for a failure to act in the best interests of the First Nation in a land transaction. The
Musqueam First Nation decided to surrender some of its land to the federal government to be leased
for income. Evidence in that case suggested that the Band Council’s instructions were not followed by
the officials of Indian Affairs and the land was leased to a golf club for less than its market value. The
federal government argued that it had no legal responsibility whatsoever for the poor job it had done
on behalf of the Musqueam Band. In a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled otherwise based on the promise of protection of Indian lands that the Crown assumed in the
Royal Proclamation of 1763. This formed the basis of a fiduciary duty of the federal government to
act in Musqueam First Nation’s best interests. That duty was breached on the facts of the case and
$10 million was granted to the First Nation as compensation.
Following the Guerin case, the nature of the relationship between the federal government and
Aboriginal Peoples, what Aboriginal rights are and what they include, were further defined by the
Supreme Court decision in the R.V. Sparrow Case (Sparrow v. The Queen, 1990).The issue of what
rights were “existing” in 1982 when (existing) Aboriginal and treaty rights were recognized and
affirmed in Canada’s Constitution, was answered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990 in this
Aboriginal fishing rights case from British Columbia.
The Court ruled that the rights protected by Section 35 were those which had not been extinguished
by statute or by consent of the Indians. This ruling overturned some previous decisions which
suggested that Aboriginal and treaty rights had been “frozen” in the form in which they had been
regulated prior to 1982. The Court ruled that regulation of a right does not extinguish it.
In this case, a member of the Musqueam First Nation, Ronald Sparrow, was fishing outside the
reserve in traditional waters with a net larger than what was allowed under the federal Fisheries Act.
Sparrow argued that the Musqueam Band’s practice of fishing for salmon was an integral part of
their distinctive culture and consequently, he had an existing right to fish under Section 35 of the
Constitution Act of 1982. Therefore, the regulations on the length of the net did not apply to him.
The Supreme Court agreed with this explanation and ruled that Section 35 imposes limits on
government power to make laws that limit or infringe Aboriginal rights. The Court further stated
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.19
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
that there was insufficient justification for a law which required that fish for food be caught with nets
of a particular length. Therefore, there was no valid reason, such as conservation, for the government
to pass such a law.
The Sparrow Case is important because the Court set out a test for proving Aboriginal rights.
Activities protected by the Section 35, such as hunting or fishing, must be integral to the culture of
the Aboriginal group claiming the right and be grounded in practices that were performed by the
group prior to European contact. Once it is proven, it does not matter what kind of tools or means
are being used in these activities.
The Court used the Sparrow test in Van der Peet (Van der Peet v. The Queen, 1996) when it took up
the question of whether Aboriginal rights included selling of fish for sustenance purposes. Ms. Dorothy
Marie Van der Peet, a Coast Salish woman, was charged with selling 10 salmon caught under the
authority of an Indian food fish license of the British Columbia Fishery Regulations, which prohibited
the sale or barter of fish caught under such a license. The restrictions imposed by this regulation
were alleged to infringe the appellant’s Aboriginal right to sell fish and violated Section 35 (1) of
the Constitution Act of 1982.
The first task before the Court was to determine whether selling of fish for sustenance purposes
constituted an Aboriginal right using the test laid out in R.V. Sparrow. In order to do that, the Court
had to decide whether this activity was a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture
of the Aboriginal group claiming the right. In other words, did this practice, tradition, or custom make
the society what it was? Would the society be fundamentally different without it? Also, the practices,
customs and traditions which constitute Aboriginal rights are those which have continuity with the
practices, customs and traditions that existed prior to contact with European society.
After establishing that the exchange of fish for money or other goods was an integral part of the
distinctive culture of the specific Aboriginal group, the Court then faced the next task of deciding
whether the restrictions put on this Aboriginal right were justified. Aboriginal rights were not created
by Section 35 (1) and subsequent to Section 35 (1) they cannot be extinguished. They can, however,
be regulated or infringed consistent with the test set forth in Sparrow. The state may limit the exercise
of the right of the Aboriginal Peoples, for purposes associated with the responsible use of the right,
including conservation and prevention of harm to others. Subject to these limitations, the Aboriginal
Peoples have a priority to fish for food, ceremony, as well as for supplementary sustenance. In times of
plentitude, all interests may be satisfied. In times of limited stocks, Aboriginal food fishing will have
priority, followed by additional Aboriginal commercial fishing to satisfy the sustenance of basic
amenities only which the fishery provided the particular group since ancestral times.
However, the Supreme Court found no compelling purpose such as that proposed in Sparrow. The
denial to the Aboriginal group of their right to sell fish for basic sustenance was not being shown to
be required for conservation or for other purposes related to the continued and responsible exploitation
of the resource. The regulation, moreover, breached the fiduciary duty of the Crown to preserve the
rights of the Aboriginal Peoples to fish in accordance with their ancestral customs and laws by
denying an important aspect of the exercise of the right.
4.20
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
The Delgamuukw Decision (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1998) was a milestone for future land
claims and self-government issues. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw Decision sent
a clear message to the Crown to embark on new negotiations on Aboriginal rights and title with
First Nations. The decision very clearly established the presence and nature of Aboriginal title and
Aboriginal rights. It was equally clear that the reality of Aboriginal title would necessitate new
negotiations in good faith. In its concluding observations, the Supreme Court in Delgamuukw noted
its preference to see Aboriginal Peoples and governments in Canada negotiate rather than litigate
Aboriginal rights. The Court observed that this is the only way to bring about the reconciliation of
pre-existing Aboriginal societies with Crown sovereignty. “Let’s face it”, said the Court, “we are all
here to stay.”
The appellants, all Gitksan or Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs of northwestern British Columbia,
claimed separate portions of 58,000 square kilometres in British Columbia. Their claim was originally
for “ownership” of the territory and “jurisdiction” over it. At the Supreme Court, this was transformed
into, primarily, a claim for Aboriginal title over the land in question. The Chiefs relied on evidence
of traditional songs, feasts and legends to demonstrate their connection to the land. This evidence,
the Chiefs argued, pointed to their unextinguished ownership and jurisdiction over this large tract
of land.
Although the Supreme Court of Canada sent the matter for retrial, the Court in its deliberations
provided considerable guidance for how to determine Aboriginal title and self-government. The
Court also made it very clear that Aboriginal issues are best settled in negotiations, and accordingly
provided the following principles to work with:
• The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that oral evidence of traditions and oral histories can be used
to establish Aboriginal title. They based much of their case on the testimony of their Elders as to
the nature and history of their society, the extent of their territories, and how they used their land
and resources. Once again, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance to Aboriginal Peoples
of their oral traditions and called upon lower courts to give oral evidence more respect. Often it is
the only form of proof available to Aboriginal Peoples, especially with regard to their practices and
traditions prior to the arrival of Europeans.
The Court also stated that Aboriginal title is part of the common law in the sense that it did not
invent new concepts, but rather drew its reasoning from Canada’s common law and constitutional
law traditions.The common law, according to the Court, recognizes Aboriginal occupation as proof
of possession and systems of aboriginal law which pre-existed the assertion of British sovereignty.
In the Delgamuukw Decision, the Court sought to clarify the terms Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal
title. Aboriginal title is one among many Aboriginal rights, even where Aboriginal Peoples cannot
prove title, they may still be able to prove the existence of rights either across all of their traditional
lands or in specific sites such as fishing stations where particular Aboriginal practices occurred.
As a result, the existence of Aboriginal title or rights is highly contextual and, therefore, any
discussion or decision on land rights issues will require careful consideration of site-specific history
and oral histories.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.21
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
The Court noted that Aboriginal title is more than the mere ability to use the land, it is a right to the
land itself. Any infringements by government of Aboriginal rights and title must, therefore, be justified
and ought in certain circumstances to be compensated. The infringement may be necessary and
justifiable for activities such as agriculture, settlement, economic development, conservation and the
like as long as Aboriginal Peoples are involved in decisions taken with respect to their lands. At the
same time, Aboriginal title allows Aboriginal Peoples to use their lands in contemporary ways so
long as they do not destroy its usefulness for future generations of their own people.
Conclusion
It has now been agreed upon by all parties that Aboriginal rights are in their nature inalienable from
the land except by a valid surrender to the Crown of their land or can be recognized by treaties.
However, the extent of the content of Aboriginal rights or title is unknown. Although the courts have
readily accepted traditional harvesting activities of hunting, fishing, and trapping as falling within the
doctrine, the right to use other surface and subsurface resources has not been settled. There is also
continuing debate as to whether any non-traditional means of using these resources may be exercised
even if a right of use is enjoyed. Furthermore, it is unclear if Aboriginal title encompasses bodies of
water as well as land. This uncertainty means that appropriate Aboriginal groups can initiate litigation
challenging the legitimacy of Crown mineral, timber, and petroleum leases and the hydroelectric
activity in much of the country. Likewise, there has been no determinative judicial pronouncement
describing the scope of non-resource rights (such as cultural, linguistic or religious rights; control
over political and legal institutions; preservation of customary law, etc.) that may be included as
Aboriginal rights and protected by the Constitution.
4.22
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Aboriginal Women and
Equality Rights
Overview
This segment critically analyzes the notions,
the extent and the characteristics of Aboriginal
women’s equality rights.
The topic provides an analytical description of
the effects of colonization on the status of
Aboriginal women and the origin of patriarchy
in traditionally egalitarian Aboriginal society.
It also incorporates a critical probe into the
Indian Act of 1876 including the Bill C-31
amendments, and its impact on Aboriginal
women’s equality rights.
A brief description of the challenges and
achievements of Aboriginal women activists in
their struggle for rights, has been included as well.
The segment ends by bringing to the forefront
the debate on self-government and representation
and role of Aboriginal women.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.23
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Points to Remember
The place that Aboriginal women hold in terms of their own community and also in the larger
society, particularly in the paid economy of this country, is primarily determined by the
intersection of two characteristics: that of being Aboriginal and of being a woman. The origin of
gender division, discrimination against Aboriginal women, patriarchy and sexism in Aboriginal
society, has its roots also in the spread of colonialism and their capitalist interest in this continent.
The oppression and domination of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada has been a complex process
necessitated by colonialism and the development of capitalism. European colonization severely
affected women in First Nations communities and resulted in women being put in a subservient
position. Traditionally, Aboriginal women had a highly valued role. Women were advisors to the
men, held names and gave names to the people according to their potential; some societies
were matrilineal and the family line, names, dances, songs, etc. went through the women.
Women were teachers. Women were the givers of life. Women chose the leaders of the
community. The role of women was endless and varied from community to community.
Understanding the substantive changes to Aboriginal women’s traditional roles and the ultimate
denigration of Aboriginal women as a result of exploitation of Aboriginal women’s labour by the
European mercantile capitalists. Hence, subjugation of Aboriginal women were necessary for
achieving the maximum profit by the colonizers. Ultimately, these women suffered the loss of
culture, loss of land, loss of membership, loss of children and loss of their traditional roles as
Aboriginal women.
Aboriginal tradition was irrelevant to the colonial power and hence they uniformly imposed the
nineteenth century patrilineal European view of women as essentially the property of men and
incorporated such view in the Indian Act of 1876. That was the formal beginning of devaluation
of, the traditional roles of Aboriginal women by white men, and at the same time, Aboriginal men
started internalizing the white devaluation of Aboriginal women.
Thus, the historical disenfranchisement of Aboriginal women occurred due to the regressive
membership regime in the Indian Act. Until 1985, an Aboriginal woman who married a nonAboriginal man lost her membership and identity (status) as an “Indian” whereas if an Aboriginal
man married a non-Aboriginal woman, his partner gained First Nations membership and status.
From 1960s , Aboriginal women like Mary Two-Axe Early and women from Tobique Reserve in
New Brunswick began raising concerns about the regressive impact of the Indian Act on gender
equality. Consequently, equality rights issues affecting Aboriginal women have generated
litigation, legislative reform and constitutional change in this period. However, it was not until the
Supreme Court challenge of Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell and Yvonne Bedard in 1973 and United
Nations ruling in favour of Sandra Lovelace in 1981 that the sexist discrimination in the Indian
Act was brought to public light.
4.24
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
The major achievements won by Aboriginal women activists are amendments to the Indian Act
in 1985 removing sexually discriminatory provisions relating to Indian status entitlement and an
amendment to the Constitution Act, 1982 guaranteeing existing Aboriginal and treaty rights
equally to male and female persons.
Despite the 1985 amendments, there are continuing concerns about the equal status of women
under the Indian Act. These concerns include residual sex discrimination in the Indian status
entitlement provisions, access to band membership, participation in self-government or
governance-related measures, such as the development of band membership codes, access to
programs and resources controlled by band council governments on reserve and division of
matrimonial real property on reserve.
The above mentioned gaps in the Indian Act including the changes made by the Bill C-31, have
negatively affected Aboriginal women’s experience with work and employment. There are no
sections in the Act that focus specifically on the needs of Aboriginal women or that guarantee a
place for Aboriginal women on council. This has a bearing on Aboriginal women and their work
both within and outside the community. If they are not guaranteed a place on council, they have
no power to make decisions regarding their work opportunities and the treatment of workers in
the community. Moreover, they cannot participate in negotiations with employers and
government outside the community to further their interests.
Consequently, the policies regarding status and membership in the current Indian Act, affect
negatively the economic and social conditions of Aboriginal women. The position of Aboriginal
women with respect to labour force participation, income and negotiating with their employers
is severely constrained because of the Indian Act policies referring to Aboriginal women.
Thus, the Aboriginal women have too long been excluded from the circle of decision-making.
This has lead to male bias and has perpetuated the disintegration of harmony between male and
female in Aboriginal societies. This is quite obvious from the current male-dominated governance
of First Nations communities and the notable lack of involvement of First Nations women in
these decision-making bodies. In short, the Indian Act and Bill C-31 give rise to such concerns
as how communities are going to reconcile the need to preserve the interests of women with the
desire to secure self-governance.
Aboriginal women are not opposed to self-government but justifiably demand that women’s right
must be recognized by the different level of governments including the Aboriginal governments
and shouldn’t be under the cover of collective rights for all Aboriginal people. These women feel
that the self-government agreements and provisions have inadequately addressed their
concerns and participation.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.25
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Points to Remember
The concerns of Aboriginal women are mainly around the issues of race, gender, equality and
human rights which are not clearly reflected in the self-government agreements and treaties.
Of particular concern is the lack of accountability in decision-making process as proposed in
these agreements, even though many of the decisions may impact negatively on Aboriginal
women’s rights and their socio-economic status.
First Nations structures of governance need to reflect their culture and values. The strength that
Aboriginal Peoples gain today from their traditional teachings and their cultures comes from
centuries of oral tradition and Aboriginal teachings, which emphasized the equality of man and
woman and the balanced roles of both in the continuation of life.
4.26
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Colonization and Origin of Discrimination
Against Aboriginal Women
“We’ve had a long hard struggle. I think what kept us going
was our heritage and our sticking together. Maybe we didn’t
have all the same ideas, but we all had the one main goal
in mind: equality for the women. We’re just as good as the
men. That was our one strive. I think what really kept us
going is our determination to seek what is rightfully ours.
And that is our heritage. We all knew that no government
agency – be it white or be it Indian – was going to tell us we
were no longer Indian, when we know we are Indian. Here
the Canadian government was making instant Indians out
of white women. You might as well say they were trying to
make instant white women out of us Indians. And it cannot
be, because being Indian is our heritage: it’s in our blood.
I think that is our determination right there – it’s because
we are Indian. We were fighting for our birthright.”
(Tobique woman, Mavis Goeres. Enough is Enough, Aboriginal Women
Speak Out; As Told To Janet Silman. The Women’s Press, 1987.)
Aboriginal women have been fighting for many years to create policies to improve the lives of
Aboriginal people, in general, and Aboriginal women in particular. The place that Aboriginal women
hold in terms of their own community and also in the larger society, particularly in the paid economy
of this country, is determined by the intersection of two characteristics: that of being Aboriginal and
of being a woman. The origin of gender division, discrimination against Aboriginal women, patriarchy
and sexism in Aboriginal society, has its roots also in the spread of colonialism and their capitalist
interest in this continent. Exploitation of Aboriginal women’s labour and subjugation of women were
necessary for achieving the maximum profit by the colonizers.
The oppression and domination of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada has been a complex process
necessitated by colonialism and the development of capitalism. The European immigrants embarked
on a “new” life because of a desire for profit which could not be expected by enterprise at “home.”
This process of emerging capitalism led to British and French colonial expansion in Canada, they
colonized “Native,” creating an inequitable relationship grounded in race privilege. It gradually
altered and destroyed the egalitarian Aboriginal communal societies. The labour power of Aboriginal
women and men was exploited to develop mercantile capitalism through the establishment of the fur
trade in North America.
The pre-colonial Aboriginal society was based on an egalitarian kinship system where Aboriginal
men and women collectively decided what to produce and how it would be distributed. After their
arrival in North America, the Europeans started the commodity production of fur for their own
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.27
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
profit. The only available local source of labour was the Aboriginal population.Therefore, the
Europeans had to transform the Aboriginal population into the desired form of labour that would
produce the maximum profit. In this new relationship, Aboriginal men were entrusted with the
primary means of production as hunters and trappers and Aboriginal women were forced to work
to upkeep of the post.
As the hunting-gathering societies were transformed through a formal policy of domination, the role
and status of Aboriginal women were also transformed. The colonial powers, particularly the British,
also introduced the notion of ‘male authority’ in the public spheres through the signing of treaties as
binding trade agreements, and creating a male comprador class. At the end, the pre-colonial equal
relationship between Aboriginal men and women was changed from an equalitarian relation to a
hierarchical patriarchal gender relation. Aboriginal men started domination of Aboriginal women,
but ultimately both were exploited by the European settlers.
In short, the changes that were done both to the Aboriginal society and to the relations between the
sexes within that society were determined by the political and economic interest of the colonizers and
at the expense of the Aboriginal society at that time. Aboriginal tradition was irrelevant to the Crown
representatives, and regardless of traditional values and practices, they uniformly imposed the
nineteenth century patrilineal European view of women as essentially the property of men and
incorporated such view in the Indian Act of 1876. That was the formal beginning of devaluation of,
the traditional roles of Aboriginal women by white men, and at the same time, Aboriginal men started
internalizing the white devaluation of Aboriginal women.
The Indian Act as a Tool for Discrimination
Against Aboriginal Women
Going back to the effects of the Indian Act of 1876 on women, the Indian Act not only governs almost
every aspect of Aboriginal Peoples’ lives in Canada, it also defines who is, and is not, legally an “Indian.”
Since its enactment in 1876 and until 1985, the determination of Indian status was determined by a
patrilineal system; that is, by a person’s relationship to a male person who is a direct descendent in
the male line of a male person.
Accordingly, an Aboriginal woman born with status lost it when she married a non-status man. She
would be unable to regain it even if she subsequently was divorced or widowed. In the process, a large
number of Aboriginal women lost their status. Along with her status, the woman lost her band
membership and with it, her property, inheritance, residency, burial, medical, educational and voting
rights on the reserve. In direct contrast, an Indian man bestowed his status upon his white wife and
their children, and could bestow it by adoption upon any other children. Consequently every Indian
woman was dependent upon a man – first her father and then her husband – for her identity, rights
and status under the Indian Act.
The face of the struggle for Aboriginal women against gender-based discrimination in the Indian Act
has not significantly changed in the past decade. The inequities of the Indian Act had already been
raised as an issue by women such as Mary Two-Axe Early and others in the 1960’s. In 1970 the Royal
4.28
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Commission on the Status of Women released its report and among the many recommendations one
pertained to Indian women. The Commission condemned sex discrimination in the Indian Act and
suggested that special status rights to be restored to those who had lost them. The enforced inequalities
that were put in place to separate both men and women through the Indian Act regulations, proved to
have had significant impact on the lives of both status and non-status Aboriginal women, both on and
off the reserve.
Non-status Aboriginal women were the first to call attention to the issue of sex discrimination in
the Indian Act, although they were to be followed shortly after by on-reserve status-Indian women.
Influenced by the women’s movement, these women realized that they had to take action to deal with
their unequal treatment. They began to connect their deprivation with inequality within the Indian
Act system.
However, it was the Supreme Court challenge of Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell and Yvonne Bedard that
brought sexist discrimination in the Indian Act to prominence. These two legal cases from the early
1970s involving the discriminatory status regulations against Aboriginal women in the Indian Act
clearly illustrate the complexity of the Aboriginal women’s equality question. Jeanette Corbiere Lavell,
a status Ojibway from the Wikwomikong reserve in Ontario married a non-Aboriginal man and lost
her status based on sections 12(1)b and 14 of the Indian Act in court. The second case concerns
Yvonne Bedard, a non-Status Iroquois woman from the Brantford reserve in Ontario. She had separated
from her non-Aboriginal husband and returned to her reserve to live in the house that was willed to
her by her parents. A year later, Bedard was evicted from the reserve by the band council. Both the
Lavell and Bedard cases were brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973 and both lost.
The rationale of the Supreme Court judges was that the Aboriginal women who lost their “Indian”
status under the Indian Act (Section 12(1)(b)), were no worse off than other Canadian women.
This 1973 ruling allowed the Act to remain in force, and left Aboriginal women with no avenue to
challenge 12(l)(b) within Canada. Aboriginal women who supported Lavell and Bedard were attacked
even by their own leaders and labelled “white-washed women’s libbers” who were undermining their
Indian heritage. Nevertheless, having exhausted all domestic avenues, in 1977, an extraordinary group
of women from Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick who were in the forefront of Aboriginal women’s
struggle for equality, decided to work towards raising awareness of Canadian public regarding
Aboriginal women’s concerns and problems related to their “status” and hence, they took the case of
one of their own, Sandra Lovelace, to the United Nations. They argued that Section 12(1)(b) of the
Indian Act was in violation of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which provides for the right of individuals who belong to minorities to enjoy their culture, practice
their religion, and use their language in community with others from the group. The United Nations
determined that Sandra Lovelace had been denied her cultural rights under Section 27 because she
was barred from living in her community.
This ruling by the U.N. put additional pressure on the federal government to bring down changes in
the Indian Act. Finally, in June of 1985, the Canadian Parliament passed a bill which was supposed to
end over one hundred years of legislated sexual discrimination against Aboriginal women. The passage
of legislation to amend the Indian Act marked the culmination of a long campaign by Aboriginal
women to regain their full Indian status, rights and identity.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.29
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Key Amendments Brought by Bill C-31
Bill C-31 changed the registration system so that entitlement was no longer based on sexually
discriminatory rules.
The amendments, effective April 17, 1985:
• treat men and women equally;
• treat children equally whether they are born in or out of wedlock and whether they are natural or
adopted;
• prevent anyone from gaining or losing status through marriage;
• restore Indian status for those who lost it through discrimination or enfranchisement;
• allow first-time registration of children (and in some cases descendants of subsequent
generations) of those whose status is restored; and
• allow for the registration of children born out of wedlock if either parent was a registered Indian,
regardless of their date of birth.
The federal government continues to maintain the Indian Register. Those who were recorded in the
Indian Register when the amendments came into force continue to be recorded there. Those whose
status was to be restored or who are eligible to be registered for the first time must apply to the
Registrar to be recorded.
Two categories of persons were excluded from registration under the C-31 provisions:
• women who gained status only through marriage to a status Indian, and later lost it (e.g. through
re-marriage to a non-Indian); and
• children whose mother gained Indian status through marriage and whose father is non-Indian.
Those who lost their membership in a band through sexual discrimination in the past, can apply to
regain membership.
Bands can control their own membership based on their own membership rules.
Bill C-31 provides that, under the Indian Act, band membership rules respect two principles:
• a majority of band electors consent to the band’s taking control of membership, as well as to a set
of membership rules; and
• existing band members and those who are eligible to have band membership restored do not lose
their entitlement to band membership because of something that occurred before membership
rules were adopted.
Two years after Bill C-31 was passed into law on June 28, 1987, bands who chose to leave control of
their membership with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) were
subject to the Indian Act provisions that a person who has Indian status also has a right to band
membership at the same time.
Bands may still take control of their own membership registration, but the rights of those individuals
already registered and added to the band list are protected.
4.30
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
A woman who marries a member of another band no longer automatically becomes a member of her
husband’s band. Transfers between bands are still possible if the receiving band agrees.
Bands gained new by-law powers to regulate:
• which band members and other individuals reside on reserve;
• the provision of benefits to non-member spouses and children of band members living on reserve;
and
• the protection of dependent children’s right to reside with their parents or guardians on reserve.
Bands can better control development on reserve lands.
The maximum fine for all by-law violations under Section 81 of the Indian Act increased to $1,000
from $100.
Bands can seek court orders to enforce all by-laws made under Section 81.
A provision empowers courts to make orders prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the
offense by the person convicted.
Since some people accepted into band membership under band rules may not be status Indians,
C-31 clarified that various sections of the Indian Act would apply to such members. The sections
in question are those relating to community life (e.g., land holdings). Sections relating to Indians as
individuals (e.g., wills and taxation of personal property) were not included.
Bill C-31 abolished the concept of enfranchisement. Band membership is subject to band rules
(for bands that had assumed membership control) or subject to the membership provisions of the
Indian Act.
Band by-laws cover:
• prohibition of sale, barter, supply or manufacture;
• prohibition of intoxication;
• prohibition of possession; and
• exceptions re: intoxication or possession.
By-laws apply on reserve if agreed to by a majority of electors at a special meeting called by a band
council to review the proposed by-law.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot disallow intoxicant by-laws.
Maximum penalties:
• $1,000 or six months or both, for provision of intoxicants;
• $100 or three months or both, for possession and intoxication.
Sections 94 to 100 of the Indian Act regarding control of intoxicants were repealed to permit bands to
make the transition to band by-laws or to provincial laws if they desired.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.31
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
All status Indians including those newly registered as a result of Bill C-31 are eligible to apply for post
secondary education assistance through DIAND and are eligible for non-insured health services
through Health and Welfare Canada. This applies to both on-reserve and off-reserve Indians.
The federal government provides programs and services to Indians living on reserve much as provincial
and municipal governments provide programs and services for other residents. For people living on
reserve, the federal government provides funds for housing, elementary and secondary education,
health services and social assistance, most of which are delivered by bands or tribal councils.
Impacts of Bill C-31 on Aboriginal Women
With Bill C-31, the federal government has tried to bring the Indian Act into accord with the equality
provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, it expanded band control over
membership and community life, enabling Indian people to take an important step toward selfgovernment. The federal government announced that the amendments to the Indian Act were guided
by three basic principles:
• removal of discrimination;
• restoring status and membership rights; and
• increasing control of Indian bands over their own affairs.
On the first principle, however, although women can now marry who they please without forfeiting
their ‘Indian’ status, residual sexist discrimination is still at work in the legislation. While Bill C-31
removed the most blatant forms of sexual discrimination from the Indian Act, it did not go far enough
and thereby, creating a new form of unfairness. In effect, women reinstated under Bill C-31 do not
have the same ability to pass on Indian status to their descendants as their male relatives who were
never deprived of status, even though they also had married non-Indian spouses. Accordingly, many
of the descendants of women affected by Bill C-31 are or will be deprived of Indian status for no
other reason than the discrimination suffered by their forebears.
Sharon Mclvor, a prominent lawyer and past executive member of NWAC, brought a court challenge
to Section 6(2) under Bill C-31. Her goal is to have the courts declare it discriminatory on the basis
of gender. She lost status through Section 12(l)(b) while her sister-in-law, a non-Native woman,
gained status by marrying Sharon’s brother. Under Bill C-31, Sharon’s children were reinstated under
Section 6(2) of the Act, while her brother’s children were granted full rights under Section 6(1).
Under this system, Sharon’s grandchildren will lose their status if they do not marry partners with
status, while the children of her nieces and nephews can do so without having to face this threat.
Therefore, the legislation’s one of the fundamental objectives, the removal of sexist discrimination,
has not been achieved. Instead, a backlash has ensued and reinstated women have started facing
stigmatization and hostility from within the communities to which they hoped to return. Hence, for
these women, the situation did not change and they continue to face discrimination and exclusion in
pre- and post-Bill C-31 periods from both the dominant society and their communities of origin.
At the end, these women continue to find themselves in a state of alienation.
4.32
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
In essence, for many who have been reinstated, the experience of separation has not been eradicated,
rather it has only been pushed down to the next generation. Women who fought for their status are now
observing their children and grandchildren going through some experience of loss. A large number of
people reinstated were registered under Section 6(2). If they have children with partners who are not
registered as status ‘Indians’, or entitled to be registered, they will not be able to pass on status.
The Courtois v. Canada in 1994 underscores some of the above mentioned problems reinstated
women encountered upon returning to their home reserves. In this litigation, two women, who were
recently reinstated as Status Indians under Bill-C31, complained to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission that their children did not have access to a band-controlled school. The Human Rights
Tribunal concluded that the Department of Indian Affairs acted in a discriminatory manner by
refusing access to the services of the band school to the children of the two recently reinstated women.
They were also denied the right to vote in band elections. At the end, the court ruled that by denying
non-resident band members the right to vote, it violated Section 15 of the Charter. Nonetheless, more
than a decade after the passage of the legislation that ostensibly removed discrimination from the
Indian Act, the situation persists even after a ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against
the discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act.
It is clear from the above court case that women and others who regained their Indian status pursuant
to the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act (Bill C-31) have no effective means of ensuring that they
are dealt with equitably in matters such as the allocation of lands and housing. Also, Bill C-31 has
created a new class of Aboriginal people and, thus, has intensified divisions within communities while
creating competition for scarce resources and benefits. While we generally defer to the right of
Aboriginal communities to determine their own membership structures, this does not diminish the
urgency of dealing with persistent problems arising out of Bill C-31 that the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples in its report has described in considerable detail.
To summarize, Aboriginal women’s equality rights interests on vital matters of personal identity are
impaired under the Indian Act. The explicit gender-based discrimination in the Indian status and
band membership provisions have been only partially removed under Bill C-31. Furthermore, the
gender-based discriminatory provisions have been replaced with a descent-based discrimination in
the determination of Indian status entitlement which negatively affects Aboriginal women. The 1985
amendments (Bill C-31) increased the number and type of arbitrary legal categories of “Indians” and
have provided a foundation for discriminatory conduct within Aboriginal communities. While
administrative decision-making has been increasingly downloaded to the community level on band
councils, sufficient additional resources to meet most of the basic needs of reinstated members have
not been provided. For many communities, band lands have not been increased to accommodate the
influx of Bill C-31 members, and land disputes have created conflict. These circumstances provide
ripe conditions for discriminatory decisions in the distribution of resources to community members
belonging to the various new legal categories created under the Act.
The Indian Act, including the changes made by Bill C-31, have affected Aboriginal women’s
experience with work and employment. Aboriginal women face an array of race related issues in
the workforce that are compounded by issues around gender and socio-economic status. Issues of
concerns identified by women generally are of concerns to Aboriginal women as well. However,
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.33
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
in case of Aboriginal women, the same concerns are magnified, and are made more complex by
cultural and economic differences, and by the systematic racism and sexism entrenched in Canadian
culture. Therefore, from the perspective of Aboriginal women, equality in the areas of women’s work
must mean racial equality along with gender equality. This connotation of equality must be included
as the central platforms for any effective policy formulations with regard to Aboriginal women.
There are no sections within the Indian Act that specifically address employment. There are no
sections that protect the property interests of Aboriginal women who live on reserve land, which is
also tied to Aboriginal women’s employment. Furthermore, self-employment opportunities for
women become difficult, if not impossible, when they are denied access to land use in their own
communities and cannot obtain a division of matrimonial property on reserve lands.
In addition to the above gaps Indian Act, it only includes provisions that deal with the structure,
composition and powers of band councils, the eligibility of members who run for council and the
voting procedures. There are no sections that focus specifically on the needs of Aboriginal women or
that guarantee a place for Aboriginal women on council. This has a bearing on Aboriginal women
and their work both within and outside the community. If they are not guaranteed a place on council,
they have no power to make decisions regarding their work opportunities and the treatment of
workers in the community. Moreover, they cannot participate in negotiations with employers and
government outside the community to further their interests.
In sum, Aboriginal women, particularly the reinstated women, cannot formally make decisions
respecting work policies on any level whether in respect of work or education in their own
communities or outside the community. Any opportunity for these women to have a voice, to take
leadership and to ensure support for an issue (i.e., day care) in this system will be accidental, and
very much dependent on the whims of those with the power to make decisions.
Thus, the policies regarding status and membership in the current Indian Act, affect negatively the
economic and social conditions of Aboriginal women. The position of Aboriginal women with
respect to labour-force participation, income and negotiating with their employers is severely
constrained because of the Indian Act policies referring to Aboriginal women.
Aboriginal Women’s Rights and Self-Government
In connection with Aboriginal women’s current economic and social situation, it is important to
examine further the relationship between Aboriginal women’s work and self-government. Bill C-31
amendments, as noted earlier, did not go all the way in guaranteeing equal rights for Aboriginal
women in all aspects of their lives, particularly in terms of the decision-making process on the band
councils and other Aboriginal government structures. In short, the Indian Act and Bill C-31 give rise
to such concerns as how communities are going to reconcile the need to preserve the interests of
women with the desire to secure self-governance.
Aboriginal leadership argues that they are more interested in protecting collective rights of selfgovernment than individual rights of gender equality. In response to this argument, Aboriginal
women’s rights advocates say that there is no conflict in the coexistence of these two rights. In fact,
4.34
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
one is complimentary to the other. Collective and individual rights do coexist in domestic and
international law. Also, one has to remember that if the collective or group rights are exercised in
such manner that it interferes with or does not protect the safety and security of individual
Aboriginal persons, such as Aboriginal women, then the justification for protecting collective or
group rights is somewhat refutable.
In this case, the primary controversy regarding the amendments to the Indian Act on status and
membership is that they interfere with efforts by Aboriginal communities to secure local governance
for themselves. Specifically, the amendments interfere with the Aboriginal right to determine
membership and status. In the Twinn decision (Sawridge Band v. Canada, 1997), an Aboriginal
band argued that its right to determine its own membership and status had been breached by the
amendments to the Indian Act. Although the court decided that Aboriginal women’s right to retain
status and membership on marriage must be preserved, the decision gave rise to mixed feelings.
On the one hand, many feel it is critical that Aboriginal women’s rights be preserved. On the other
hand, many also feel that communities should have the right to govern themselves and determine
their own laws on membership and status.
Consequently, the amendments and the decision bring into question whether self-determination
of Aboriginal Peoples is possible under present legal and constitutional ambiguities. This has serious
implications for Aboriginal women in the workplace, particularly in Aboriginal communities,
because if Aboriginal women are denied the right to status and membership, they are denied
eligibility to sit on council and make decisions about internal policies on employment.
Aboriginal women are not opposed to self-government but justifiably demand that women’s right
must be recognized by the different level of governments including the Aboriginal governments and
shouldn’t be under the cover of collective rights for all Aboriginal people. These women feel that the
self-government agreements and provisions have inadequately addressed their concerns and
participation. The concerns of Aboriginal women are mainly around the issues of race, gender,
equality and human rights which are not clearly reflected in the self-government agreements and
treaties. Of particular concern is the lack of accountability in decision-making process as proposed
in these agreements, even though many of the decisions may impact negatively on Aboriginal
women’s rights and their socio-economic status.
In addition to the above, the current self-government agreements and provisions do not assure
women participation in all aspects of governments. Various modern treaties and self-government
agreements, such as the Nisga’a Treaty or Nunavut agreement do not include gender equality
provisions. Therefore, there is no guarantee that women will be granted fair representation in
government unless specific provisions are put in it.
Aboriginal structures of governance need to reflect their culture and values. Many First Nations
premise their claims to self-government on their traditional values and practices. Traditionally,
women have a highly valued role in Aboriginal structure of governance. They were advisors to the
men, chose leaders of the community and were the backbone of their families. These historical roles
must be taken into consideration in the development of various policies on self-government and
Aboriginal women should be reinstated in important roles in all aspects of self-government.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
4.35
SECTION FOUR
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Aboriginal women’s groups, particularly the Native Women’s Association of Canada, continue to
press their issues as the political status of Aboriginal Peoples through self-government negotiations
evolves. The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has summarized the
women’s concerns in four major areas: the Indian Act and the impact of Bill C-31 amendments;
the need for healing through health and social service programs; the vulnerability of women and
children to violence, and; accountability and fairness in self-government.
In short, women must be included in leadership positions, elder advisory roles and play a central
role in the development of self-governing entities. Women must be treated equally in such areas as
employment, payment of wages, opportunities, educational opportunities and capacity building.
Only when women are restored to their place of importance within First Nation governments will
self-government be fully achieved.
Conclusion
Aboriginal women represent a spirited and highly diverse segment of Canada’s population, who share
a common legacy of marginalization and oppression. The Canadian Government and the Aboriginal
male leadership have seldom included women’s particular needs and concerns into their own agenda.
The non-Aboriginal population and the Aboriginal leadership have paid scant attention to the
enormous impact that colonization has had in devaluating the traditional roles of women. These
Aboriginal women suffered extreme isolation when they were denied their right to membership in
their respective communities and their right to enjoy “Indian status.” Loss of membership and status
has had, and continues to have, an obvious impact on women’s role in First Nations governments. Many
newly reinstated members (women) have lived away from their communities for many years. Some of
them were unable to return after getting back their status due to housing shortages and continue to
be discriminated against because they are Bill C-31 Indians. Therefore, their roles in existing governing
structures or in self-government discussions have been basically restricted. The lack of women’s
representation in decision-making has led to non-inclusion of the above concerns expressed by
Aboriginal women about their equality rights into the discourse on governance and self-government.
However, as the debate over self-government continues, the rights of Aboriginal women must not be
forgotten. The historical responsibilities of Aboriginal women in Aboriginal societies must be secured
and realized. The mistakes of the past cannot continue. The rights of Aboriginal women in Aboriginal
society and government must be constitutionally guaranteed as was advocated by Aboriginal women
during the constitutional process leading up to the Charlottetown Accord.
4.36
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
Aboriginal Peoples
and Labour Issues
Overview
This section includes information on Canadian
labour movement’s efforts to address the
challenges faced by Aboriginal Peoples in
accessing employment.
It describes how the organized labour as a social
justice movement have tried to ameliorate the
barriers which prevent Aboriginal Peoples from
participating in the labour force.
The section has incorporated some sample
collective agreement provisions, employment
equity language, policy statement and partnership
agreements, all of which have been developed
with the goal of making the Canadian workforce
more inclusive and representative of its
Aboriginal population
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.1
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
Points to Remember
Canada, as it enters the 21st century, is a different place from the country of 100 years ago.
We have seen the birth and growth of an Aboriginal civil rights movement. Alongside it, the trade
union movement has grown and developed. Aboriginal workers are seeing unions as allies in
their campaigns. All workers are starting to recognize the exploitation and injustices done to their
Aboriginal sisters and brothers. Both are beginning to see that Canadian society needs to be
fundamentally changed if we are going to see justice and equality for everyone.
Aboriginal workers also because they are the fastest growing segment of the labour force.
The Aboriginal population is young and growing at a rate almost twice that of the Canadian
population. As the baby boomer population works its way towards retirement, the Aboriginal
youth represent an untapped source of employees that will become a valuable asset to Canada
as the labour crunch gets critical. The cost of under-utilizing Aboriginal future workforce will be
enormous. It has been estimated that by providing employment and training opportunities to
Aboriginal population, the province of Saskatchewan alone can expect an approximate gain of
$600 million a year in productivity and savings up to $5,000 million annually due to reduced
health, human justice services and social assistance costs.
The labour movement has started to address the social and economic challenges faced by
Aboriginal Peoples. The labour leadership continue to make sure that Aboriginal issues are
brought to every level of the union. The unions are participating in campaigns and political action
in conjunction with aboriginal rights organizations. The organized labour has also developed
initiatives needed to create a representative workforce and inserted special provisions and
employment equity plan, special language in the collective agreement to enhance Aboriginal
Peoples’ accessibility to the workforce. By improving wages and working conditions for workers
generally, organized labour has improved the wages and working conditions of a small percentage
of Aboriginal workers employed inside the mainstream labour market; at times it has also been a
positive force for the many Aboriginal people living in remote and isolated areas, as well as
employed in marginal employment markets.
With various initiatives involving collective agreements language change, employment equity
plan, partnership agreements and so on, the unions have addressed proactive processes that
support a representational workforce which shall include but not be limited to identifying
employment opportunities, education and training, and preparing workplaces. These proactive
initiatives have been designed to ensure Aboriginal people are present in all occupations in their
proportion to the country’s working population. Therefore, when hiring new employees, the
Aboriginal representative principle shall be applied, providing there are qualified Aboriginal
applicants for the vacancy.
Aboriginal Peoples and labour organizations have to work more closely than the past. They both
share the fundamental belief in the right to solidarity. The two groups recognize the power of the
collectivity. Moreover, many of the social and economic policy interests of organized labour and
Aboriginal Peoples are common ones and working in cooperation with each other, they would
comprise a formidable political force.
5.2
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
Introduction
Over the past thirty years, the Canadian labour movement has wrestled with a complex set of issues
relating to Aboriginal Peoples. Patiently and persistently, it has addressed the barriers to Aboriginal
employment and recommended solutions to facilitate the development of a workforce representative of
Aboriginal population in this country. The labour movement, under the leadership of the Canadian
Labour Congress, has been continuing their efforts in ensuring that the Aboriginal equality issues are
brought to every level of the union. The unions have developed some much needed initiatives designed
to achieve employment equity for Aboriginal population. The resulting partnership agreement in 1998
between the CLC and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) thus reflects the support of Canadian
labour movement for Aboriginal Peoples in their struggle for full equality and justice.
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Between The Canadian Labour Congress
And The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
WHEREAS the Canadian Labour Congress is committed to supporting Aboriginal Rights; and
WHEREAS the CLC believes in the rights of Aboriginal Peoples to access social and economic
rights which include the participation of Aboriginal Peoples in the labour force; and
WHEREAS the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) agrees that all workers have the
democratic right to be represented by unions; and
WHEREAS CAP agrees that human resource development, strategic utilization of education
and training resources must be a key building block to ensure future workforce entrants have
equal access to jobs and the skills needed; and
WHEREAS the CLC is committed to working with its affiliates to address workplace systemic
barriers and the under-representation of Aboriginal Peoples through the collective bargaining
process in order to address high unemployment, impact of technological change among
Aboriginal Peoples.
THEREFORE the CLC and CAP are committed to work together to pro-actively address the
Aboriginal labour force participation inequities in the twenty-first century and next
millennium; and
THEREFORE the CLC and CAP will work together to develop and strengthen “Aboriginal
voices” within the structures of the labour movement; and
THEREFORE CAP will assist the CLC and its affiliates in their anti-racism initiatives which
will include the design of continuous learning opportunities; and
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.3
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
THEREFORE the CLC and CAP commit to the establishment of a joint committee whose
mandate will include the development, implementation, and recommendation of processes and
actions designed to eliminate systemic barriers which limit Aboriginal employment and/or
economic, political, social and cultural rights.
Solidarity Between Aboriginal Peoples and Organized Labour
In the past, both Aboriginal organizations and organized labour have both been apprehensive about
establishing a fully co-operative relationship with each other. However, in the face of the challenges
posed by economic restructuring, devolution of social programs and recent cut backs, accommodation,
co-operation and partnerships between the two social movements are urgently required for mutual
benefits.
However, true solidarity arises out of situations where different groups discover their own reasons for
wanting to achieve that same goals. The coming together of otherwise disparate groups on the basis of
common interests provides the basis for true community. In the past non-Aboriginals were persuaded
to become involved in Aboriginal issues largely on the basis of altruism. For whatever reason – conscience,
guilt, Christian charity – they were willing to offer “support” to Aboriginal Peoples when gross injustices
appeared to be taking place. The underlying assumption still remained that Aboriginal problems were
unrelated to their own, at least on a day-to-day basis. As long as this assumption was held, the
involvement of non-Aboriginals remained limited to occasional offers of “support”.
For solidarity to occur, it will be necessary for non-Aboriginal population to discover their own
reasons for reshaping Canadian society in ways that would also benefit Aboriginal Peoples. NonAboriginals have been encouraged to learn about the circumstances relating to Native people, but
have seldom been encouraged to analyze their own. This can and must change if solidarity is to be
developed, and if the government’s long-term agenda is to be successfully challenged. No single group
in society – organized labour or Aboriginal Peoples – can alter the right-wing agenda by acting on its
own. Only by working with others toward a shared vision of an alter Native society can any single
group hope to achieve its goals.
One of the profound example of building partnership between labour movement and Aboriginal
Peoples is the joint historic conference in April of 2002, organized by the Forestry Union and First
Nations and held in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
The theme of the conference was “Building Bridges Between First Nations and Forestry
Unions: New Approaches to Partnerships.” It was organized by the Aboriginal Economic
Renewal Initiative (AERI), an Ontario-based non-profit organization which links Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal parties on the basis of mutually-beneficial interests, and the Industrial,
Wood and Allied Workers of Canada (IWA Canada). In this conference, First Nations and
the union had a unique opportunity to have discussions in order to better understand each
other’s diverse cultures, histories, and relationships to Canada’s forest industry. The IWA
Canada stressed that this type of joint activities are quite important as the socio-economic
5.4
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
relationship between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals will continue to change and evolve
in the years ahead. The forum offered First Nations and the IWA the opportunity to have
discussions from a point of view of mutual respect which will serve as a basis for moving
forward together in the future. The conference was also an opportunity for both sides to
have meaningful dialogue in order to enhance existing partnerships and form a basis of
dialogue to embark on new ones.
Special Provisions to Achieve Employment Equity
The fundamental premise behind building a strong and positive relationship between Aboriginal
Peoples, including their own representative organizations, and the trade union movement would
best be served by an enhanced, mutual understanding. Both organized labour in Canada and
the contemporary Aboriginal Peoples movement have been collective attempts to utilize formal
organizations with an elected leadership to advance and protect the interests and welfare of large
constituencies of people. In addition, both constituencies are made up of people who have been
negatively affected by exploitation or oppression by more powerful groups in society.
Obviously, there are also significant differences between the aims of these two social movements.
Particularly, it has been often argued that certain policies and elements of the structure of union
organization do act as barriers, limiting accessibility and opportunities for upward mobility to
Aboriginal workers desiring careers in the socially valued and financially attractive mainstream
workforce. These barriers have proven persistent and unyielding and have defied even the best
intentions of progressive union leaders and activists. In order to alleviate these barriers, the unions
have inserted special language in the collective agreements to make their structure more inclusive.
Two of such exemplary efforts by the unions are: the collective agreement between United Keno Hill
Mines Limited and United Steelworkers of America (USWA - Local 924) and the collective agreement
between Anvil Range Mining Corporation and United Steelworkers of America (USWA - Local 1051).
Draft Collective Agreement between United Keno Hill Mines Limited and USWA, Local 924
Dated March 3,1995
6.17
FIRST NATIONS/NATIVE EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT EQUITY PLAN
(A)
(B)
(1)
In this Collective Agreement, “First Nations or native employee(s)” are considered to
be persons who are Indians, Inuit or Metis and who at the time of hire identify
themselves as such to the Company and to the Union or agree to be identified by the
Company and the Union as Indians, Inuit or Metis.
The onus shall be on the person to show that he or she is a “First Nations or native
employee” and thereby entitled to the rights and benefits set forth herein.
Despite the provisions of Article 16 or any other provisions of this Collective
Agreement, in all cases involving the filling of vacancies, promotions, selections for
training, transfers, layoffs, and recalls from layoff, the Company and the Unions
agree that the Company shall be entitled to give preference to First Nations or native
employees regardless of their seniority.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.5
SECTION FIVE
5.6
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
(2)
Despite the provisions of this Article or any other provisions of this Collective
Agreement, the Company shall be entitled to develop and implement special work
schedules applicable to First Nations or native employees to allow them to engage in
traditional activities, including traditional, economic and spiritual activities, while
maintaining employment with the Company.
(3)
Where the rights of First Nations or native employees pursuant to this Article
conflict with rights of non-native or non-First Nations employees under any
provisions of this Collective Agreement, the rights of First Nations or native
employees shall prevail.
(4)
In all cases of vacancy, promotion, transfer, layoff and recall from layoff, First Nations
or native employees shall be entitled to preference provided they have the ability to
perform the work despite their seniority.
(5)
The Company and the Union also acknowledge the interest of the Nacho Nyakdun
Band in the disposition of any grievances affecting a First Nations or native employee.
To this end, the Company and the Union agree to notify the Chief of the Nacho
Nyakdun Band of any such grievance and the Company and the Union shall both
consider the recommendations and advice of the said Chief in the processing of any
such grievance, investigating the relevant facts respecting any such grievance and
determining the merits of any such grievance.
(6)
Upon the request of any First Nations or native employee who has completed the
probationary period under this Collective Agreement, the Company shall grant to
him leaves of absence which total not more than three (3) months in a calendar year,
for the purpose of engaging in traditional activities, including traditional spiritual
activities and traditional economic activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping.
It is acknowledged by the Company and by the Union that any one leave may need
to be restricted to a period of less than three (3) months having regards to the total
number of employees on such leave at any one time.
(7)
A First Nations or native employee shall continue to accumulate seniority during any
leave granted in accordance with Article 6.17(6).
(8)
In order to facilitate access to upgrading programs by First Nations or native
employees, in the first half of 1997 the Company and the Union agree to establish a
joint review process which will include the participation of First Nations or native
employees, if possible, to implement a program during the first half of 1998 which
would provide physical facilities and equipment at the mine site for use in viewing
high school and other upgrading television/video programs for First Nations or
native employees.
(9)
The Company and the Union agree to establish a joint First Nations/Native
Employee Employment Equity Committee comprised of two (2) representatives of
the Union, one of whom shall be a First Nations or native employee, if possible, and
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
two (2) representatives of the Company, one of whom shall be a First Nations or
native employee, if possible. The Committee shall meet not less than once each
calendar month to support, monitor, maintain, and work through difficulties
whenever possible, pertaining to this First Nations/Native Employees Employment
Equity Plan. No employee shall suffer any loss of income in connection with his
participation on the Committee.
(10)
The Company and the Union agree that the rights and benefits accorded to First
Nations or native employees under this Collective Agreement constitute reasonable
and necessary special programs expressly designed to benefit First Nations or native
employees in recognition of the historical discrimination, both direct and systemic,
experienced by First Nations people or native people and that the rights and benefits
under this First Nations/Native Employees Employment Equity Plan have, as their
objective, the providing of special opportunities to members of First Nations or
native people who are employees of the Company in the bargaining unit under this
Collective Agreement.
Collective Agreement between Anvil Range Mining Corporation and
United Steelworkers of America (USWA - Local 1051)
FIRST NATIONS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
00.01
The Union and the Company acknowledge that the Company has entered into an
agreement with the Ross River Dena Cooperation (hereinafter the “Ross River
Agreement”) in accordance with which the Company has made certain promises in
connection with First Nations members of the Ross River Kaska Dena Band and in
connection with the Ross River Corporation. Wherever the Ross River Agreement is
not inconsistent with the terms of this clause and this Collective Agreement, the Union
agrees to co-operate with the Company and with the Ross River Kaska Dena Band to
promote and encourage compliance with the Ross River Agreement by the Company.
00.02
While the Company and Union agree that the Ross River Agreement shall not form
part of this Collective Agreement and shall not be enforced in accordance with any
of the terms of this Collective Agreement, the Company shall provide the Union, on
an ongoing basis and in advance of the quarterly consultation meeting as hereafter
provided, with all documentation concerning the administration of the Ross River
Agreement which relates to the recruitment, training, and retention by the Company
of First Nations employees who are members of the Ross River Kaska Dena Band
and with respect to the recruitment, training and retention of any and all other First
Nations employees of the Company.
00.03
The Company will also request and consider on a quarterly basis at the quarterly
consultation meeting as hereafter provided, oral and written input from the Union
and from the Ross River Kaska Dena Band, with respect to the work place and
community living experiences of First Nations employees including members of the
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.7
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
Ross River Kaska Dena Band, and with respect to their recruitment, training and
retention by the Company, and such other related matters as may be agreed from
time to time.
5.8
00.04
The Company shall also provide the Union, on a quarterly basis and at the quarterly
consultation meeting as hereafter provided, with detailed information (excluding
financial information) with respect to all contracts for goods and services which the
Company may enter into. from time to time with the Ross River Dena Corporation
and with members of the Ross River Kaska Dena Band.
00.05
The Company and the Union agree that not less than once per quarter the Company
shall convene a consultation meeting (referred to herein as “the quarterly consultation
meeting”) – The location for the quarterly consultation meeting shall alternate between
Faro and Ross River. In attendance at the quarterly consultation meetings shall be
the Company’s First Nations Liaison Officer, two representatives of the Ross River
Kaska Dena Band designated by the Chief of the Ross River Kaska Dena Band, a
representative of the Union designated by the President of Local 1051, a First Nations
employee of the Company in the bargaining unit designated by the president of
Local 1051 and a Company representative. The minimum quorum for the quarterly
consultation meeting shall be any four persons of the six persons identified in the
preceding sentence. At the quarterly consultation meeting the Company and the
Union shall give effect to paragraphs 00.02, 00.03. and 00.04, above and shall promote
co-operation, mutual respect, understanding and tolerance in all relations between
the Company, the Union, First “Nations bargaining unit employees, all other
employees in the bargaining unit, the Ross River Kaska Dena Band, and all other
First Nations employees and individuals living and working in, about and near the
area of Faro.
00.06
None of the bargaining unit employees shall suffer any loss of earnings by virtue
of their attendance at the quarterly consultation meetings.
00.07
The Company and Union expressly agree that under no circumstances shall any
preference or program or agreement of any kind whatsoever operate to displace a
senior employee from his position or job. or cause a senior employee to be laid off
from employment out of seniority, or delay the recall to work of a senior employee
on lay-off.
00.08
The Company and the Union agree that disciplinary action taken by the Company
against any First Nations employee may not conform with traditional labour
relations disciplinary action but shall lake into consideration such special circumstances
as are unique to the experience of First Nations employees who work for a mining
company such as the Company, and as are unique to First Nations employees’
experiences living in a mining community such as Faro.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
00.09
In addition to the provisions of this Collective Agreement, the Company and the
Union may develop and implement special work schedules for First Nations
employees. including work sharing arrangements, as they may agree upon from time
to time.
00.10
The Company and the Union commit themselves to removing work rules which
constitute a barrier to allowing First Nations employees of the Company to engage in
their traditional economic activities and lifestyles, including hunting and fishing, and
their traditional religious observances, while maintaining continuing employment
with the Company Accordingly, the Company and the Union agree that the
Company may afford each First Nations employee with a First Nations Leave of
Absence (hereinafter “FNLOA”), without pay but without loss of accumulated
seniority, upon the written request of a First Nations employee which shall be
provide to the Company with a copy to the Union not less than one week prior to
the commencement of any portion of the FNLOA in question (minimum of one
week period at a time), for a total of not more than ten (10) weeks in any calendar
year. The FNLOA shall not accumulate from one calendar year to the next.
00.11
The Company and the Union agree that the rights and benefits afforded to First
Nations employees under this clause constitutes a special program pursuant to
Section 12 of the Human Rights Act of the Yukon Territory.
Hence, it must also be recognized that the labour movement has often played a very constructive role
on behalf of Aboriginal workers. By improving wages and working conditions for workers generally,
organized labour has improved the wages and working conditions of a small percentage of Aboriginal
workers employed inside the mainstream labour market; at times it has also been a positive force for
the many Aboriginal people living in remote and isolated areas, as well as employed in marginal
employment markets. Credit is clearly owing to the tremendous efforts of organized labour in
convincing employers the necessity of special initiatives and employment equity plan and at the
same time, proposing one to them.
United Steel Workers of America (USWA - 8914) and Cameco Corporation
ARTICLE 24 - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
24.01
The Union acknowledges the Company has entered into Surface Lease Agreements
with the Province of Saskatchewan which have as one of their objectives, the
maximizing of employment of residents of Saskatchewan’s north. The Union
further acknowledges the Company has as one of its objectives, the maximizing
of employment of northern residents of aboriginal ancestry.
24.02
The Company will hire residents of Saskatchewan’s north and northern residents
of aboriginal ancestry who are qualified to perform the work required, when it is
necessary for the Company to hire replacement or additional workers.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.9
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
24.03
The Company will utilize, amongst other sources of employment, available northern
hiring programs to assist in the hiring of residents of Saskatchewan’s north and
northern residents of aboriginal ancestry.
24.04
Subject to Article 24.05, it is agreed that preference will be given to residents of
Saskatchewan’s north and northern residents of aboriginal ancestry in matters of
hiring and recall. In the case of a reduction in the work force, preference will be
given to retaining residents of Saskatchewan’s north and northern residents of
aboriginal ancestry.
24.05
Notwithstanding Article 24.04 hereof, it is understood and agreed that no employee
who has either: a) a Company service date prior to November 16,1993 or b) ten (10)
years of continuous service with the Company shall have his or her seniority rights
affected in matters relating to a reduction in the workforce or recall, as a result of
preference being given to residents of Saskatchewan’s north and northern residents
of aboriginal ancestry.
24.06
The Union and the Company agree to the establishment of a joint Affirmative
Action/Employment Equity Committee comprised of up to four (4) representatives
from the Union and up to four (4) representatives from the Company. The development,
implementation, and maintenance of the Affirmative Action/Employment Equity
program will be mutually agreed upon.
Agreements Among Stakeholders
The labour movement has long realized that the Canadian society as a whole should make
accommodations to the special needs of Aboriginal Peoples for practical reasons as well. It makes
pragmatic sense for organized labour to respond sympathetically and proactively to the challenge of
promoting Aboriginal inclusion in the labour force. Not only organized labour supports the
Aboriginal cause to live up to its social unionist ideals, but also to keep pace with the profound
demographic and economic changes that are reshaping the country’s social life. Therefore, the labour
leadership has consciously and effectively worked towards the goal of creating a representative
workforce, thereby advancing the interests of not only the Aboriginal workforce but other equity
groups as well.
Thus, unions often have taken the lead in pressing for Aboriginal inclusion in the mainstream
workforce. Compensatory interventions to overcome labour force barriers for Aboriginal Peoples,
such as special employment subsidies or employment equity programs have been lobbied for by the
unions to different levels of government. People in the labour movement often had to press hard to
promote greater Aboriginal labour force representation in the face of a fairly consistent resistance
from other sectors of the society to their efforts. However, several unions have forged ahead with
their relentless advocacy efforts in making the job market accessible to Aboriginal population and in
the process, making the labour force representative as well.
5.10
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Between Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations
and Canadian Union of Public Employees Health Care Council
and Saskatchewan Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs
The parties to this Agreement recognize that First Nations and Metis persons are not
represented in the health sector employment in proportion to their potential labour force
numbers. Therefore, the parties agree that specific initiatives are required by health sector
employers, health sector employee unions and by other stakeholders including the Aboriginal
community, the two senior levels of government and the education/training institutions, to
prepare and develop the Aboriginal workforce and to facilitate the integration of Aboriginal
persons into health sector occupations.
The parties therefore mutually agree in principle to work together to address the following
general employment related issues. Details to be addressed in implementing this agreement
shall include but not be limited to those issues identified in Appendix A to this agreement:
1. Identify and remove existing barriers to Aboriginal employment which may be contained
in the terms of current collective agreements with health sector employers;
2. Develop a health sector to Aboriginal community communications strategy;
3. Develop an Aboriginal community to health sector employer communications strategy;
4. Participate in career information and planning events within the Aboriginal community;
5. Develop a health sector training needs communications strategy with the appropriate
training institutions;
6. Work with health sector employers to adopt a strategy to recruit, hire, train and retain
Aboriginal workers.
APPENDIX A
Some of the important issues to be addressed in implementing this agreement:
1. Collective Agreement Initiatives
Draft a model collective agreement with Aboriginal specific language:
Remove any barriers which may exist in current collective agreements: and recommend
such model agreement to be used in future SAHO/Union collective agreement negotiations.
2. Employer/Community Strategy
Make Aboriginal communities aware of employment opportunities in the health.sector;
Regularly provide the Aboriginal community with information which current and
potential future Aboriginal employment candidates can use to do career planning and to
prepare themselves with the knowledge and skills they need to successfully compete for
employment in the health sector;
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.11
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
Encourage and inform Aboriginal students and other Aboriginal persons about health
sector career opportunities;
Stress the importance of Aboriginal students completing their high school; and
Stress the need to choose the appropriate high school classes if they are to gain access to
medium and high knowledge/skill health sector occupations.
3. Aboriginal Community/Employer Communications Strategy;
Make employers aware of the potential Aboriginal community workforce; and
Assist health sector employers to identify, actively recruit and seek applications for job
vacancies from qualified Aboriginal persons.
4. Career Planning
Provide to the Aboriginal community and to schools in the Aboriginal community,
information about career opportunities in the health sector including qualification
requirements, responsibilities and duties, pay scales and other personnel practices and
benefits;
Employer to provide personnel to participate in career development and planning events;
and
Inform the Aboriginal community of Aboriginal role models, including those who are
union members and assist the Aboriginal community to enable such role models to
participate in career planning and development events.
5. Training Needs Strategy/Employer/Training Institutions
Inform training institutions of current and future staff needs of employers;
Make training institutions aware of the potential students in the Aboriginal community;
Work with training institutions to modify and/or enhance current training curriculum,
where feasible, to respond to the specific social and cultural needs of Aboriginal persons
and the general student body;
Jointly with training institutions recruit high school graduates and other Aboriginal
persons for entry into post secondary training programs;
Determine specialized remedial and social/cultural support services Aboriginal students
may require;
Jointly with the Aboriginal community work to develop and deliver such services; and
Jointly undertake initiatives which are required to assist Aboriginal students to be
successful in making the transition from the formal classroom setting to the health sector
workplace.
6. Health Sector Policy Modification, Recruitment/Training/Retention Strategy
Encourage and assist health sector employers to review their personnel policies and
5.12
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
practices to identify potential barriers to Aboriginal employment and to make
modifications to current policies and practices so they encourage and support Aboriginal
persons to actively compete for health sector jobs;
Work with the employers existing staff to prepare them to accept and to actively
participate in the integration of Aboriginal persons into the health sector workplace;
Providing bursaries and/or scholarships to support further formal training for Aboriginal
persons;
Provide Aboriginal workers with flexible work arrangements or leave of absence to engage
in further training;
Guarantee Aboriginal employees continued employment while completing training
appropriate to the employer needs in knowledge and skills; and
Encourage employers to take other initiatives to make the workplace culturally friendly to
Aboriginal employees. Examples are: Aboriginal art, Aboriginal publications or Aboriginal
cultural awareness training.
Joint Action Plan Between Aboriginal Advocacy
Organizations and the Unions
The current economic restructuring and the challenges it poses for the economic prosperity of both
Aboriginal Peoples and organized labour has necessitated co-operation between Aboriginal Peoples
and labour movement in order to achieve the common goals of enhancing the socio-economic status
of Aboriginal population. To this end, unions have joined forces with Aboriginal Employees Network
and initiated an appropriate, continuing dialogue with the network to explore issues of mutual
concern. This has resulted, in some cases, in the development of concrete approaches for building a
representative workforce in the public sector.
Aboriginal Government Employees Network and
Saskatchewan Government Employees Union
A PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS DESIGNED TO INCREASE
ABORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE PROVINCES PUBLIC SECTOR WORKFORCE
Preamble
WHEREAS, SGEU and AGEN have entered into a Partnership Agreement to study and take
action to remove barriers to Aboriginal employment in the public service sector represented
by SGEU; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that special initiatives are required to help Aboriginal person
achieve equity in numbers within and greater access to employment in government service; and
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.13
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
THEREFORE, AGEN and SGEU on behalf of all Aboriginal workers propose the following
initiatives for consideration and action:
A 1. Joint Action
a) promote Aboriginal employment by urging the government to adopt and implement
an Aboriginal Labour Employment Policy that will result in Aboriginal workers being
fairly represented at all levels of the government workforce;
b) negotiate a letter of understanding with the government which will come in effect
upon the date of signing:
1) that commits the employer to implement this policy which may include “strategic
appointments” for Aboriginal workers to in-scope and out-of-scope positions within
the Public Service Commission (PSC) and Department Human Resources
Branches;
2) that requires the employer to provide human rights training including sensitivity
and Aboriginal education/training to all of their current employees within a
reasonable time frame:
3) which provides for the Human Rights Commission to monitor the implementation
of the governments Aboriginal Labour Employment Policy and requires the
commission to annually report on its findings to the government and the union;
c) urge the government to change the existing Human Rights legislation to include more
effective enforcement provisions for all plans under its jurisdiction.
A 2. Union Action
a) adopt a policy and an implementation process to ensure fair representation of
Aboriginal persons:
• in the unions internal workforce; and
• on union executive/leadership position, and union bargaining and other committees;
b) provide Human Rights training including sensitivity and Aboriginal education/training
to the union’s internal staff;
c) create a standing committee whose membership will include Aboriginal employees
who are union members, a key member of the union executive plus representatives
selected by the Aboriginal community:
d) give the standing committee a mandate to develop and to prepare for consideration
and approval by the union membership, policies and specific initiatives to promote the
goal of a union membership in which Aboriginal workers are represented in
proportion to their numbers in the provincial labour force.
5.14
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
B 1. Joint Action
a) urge the government to devote more human and financial resources for in-service
training including literacy training and career path counselling and planning to prepare
Aboriginal workers for specific occupations;
b) work with employer and the post-secondary training institutions to expand the range
of occupations for which work study programs such as co-op training. practicums.
articling, etc., are available.
B 2. Union Action
a) negotiate a clause in collective agreement committing the government to participate in
such work study programs:
b) participate in work study programs by working with the universities, SIAST and
Aboriginal post-secondary institutions to place Aboriginal workers in with the union
jobs where they can gain experience appropriate to their training;
c) support and utilize the Aboriginal post-secondary institutions to carry out some of
these initiatives for internal union education/training where applicable;
d) establish a scholarship fund based on academic achievement from which stipends can
be awarded to assist Aboriginal students and workers who wish to pursue post-high
school education and training;
e) negotiate a leave of absence clause without loss of appointment or seniority in
collective agreements for workers who wish to pursue further education/training
opportunities.
C 1. Joint Action
a) work with the Human Resource personnel of the government to ensure that
education/training and experience requirements for positions are appropriate to the
duties and responsibilities for each job classification;
b) urge the government to adopt as policy the representation of Aboriginal person on all
screening and interview committees for in-scope positions where feasible, through the
panel observers and to adopt a similar method for out-of-scope Aboriginal
representation on the panel of observers for out-of-scope positions;
c) urge the government to provide Human Rights training, sensitivity training and
Aboriginal education training for out-of-scope management personnel within a
reasonable time frame:
d) urge the government managers to include their employees in a review of the workplace
culture as reflected in policies and practices, the reasons for these and to make changes
to the workplace where appropriate;
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.15
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
e) Urge the government to provide appropriate support services to Aboriginal workers
(job, personal and family counselling career pathing);
f) work with the PSC to develop and implement a process whereby persons who are
included as part of the inventory of Aboriginal employment candidates, are always
informed of job openings commensurate with their qualifications and experience;
g) work with the PSC to ensure that the resources needed (funding and staffing) necessary
to create a vibrant and credible process for utilizing the inventory of Aboriginal
employment candidates are available;
h) work with PSC to develop administrative procedures ensure the PSC and Departments
Human Resources use the inventory of Aboriginal employment candidates for all job
openings/opportunities and to develop a system to monitor and report on the
utilization of the inventory.
C 2. Union Action
a) negotiate a provision for job classifications which will recognize relevant job experience
gained in other comparable employment and including a process to implement and
monitor this clause;
b) negotiate a letter of understanding with the government which will come into effect
upon the date of signing:
• that all new employees will be required to participate in an orientation process to
provide human rights training and sensitivity and Aboriginal education/training
including the employers Aboriginal policy and practice initiatives within a reasonable
time frame:
c) negotiate a provision in the collective agreements which allows and encourages
Aboriginal workers to organize and/or to join Aboriginal employee networks such as
AGEN which have as their mandate advocacy and support for Aboriginal employees;
d) include a clause in collective agreement to allow Aboriginal workers with some time off
work to participate in and/or seek the personal support of such Aboriginal employee
networks.
D. 1. Joint Action
a) to urge the government to change its recruitment and hiring practices to ensure that
there is a fair representation of Aboriginal people in the government workforce; and
b) to urge the government to agree to changes to collective agreements with the union
which remove barriers to Aboriginal employment which are present in such
agreements with specific changes to the following:
1) appointments beyond entry level positions;
2) promotion practices to ensure the promotion of a fair representation of Aboriginal
workers;
3) layoff, bumping and recall practices.
5.16
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
D 2. Union Action
a) the union is prepared to seek changes to collective agreements which will address these
barriers as follows:
1) earmark a fair proportion of jobs beyond entry level positions to be filled by
qualified Aboriginal candidates;
2) provide for promotion of a fair proportion of the qualified Aboriginal employees to
jobs, beyond the entry level, who do not possess the necessary seniority to compete
for such jobs;
3) where there are layoffs include a clause which ensures that Aboriginal workers will
retain a fair proportion of the remaining jobs;
4) protection of a fair proportion of Aboriginal workers from job losses as a result of
the bumping rights provisions of collective agreements (Example, an employee in a
higher job class bumps an Aboriginal worker because of seniority);
5) ensure that Aboriginal employees are fairly represented among those workers
recalled for work.
b) the union is prepared to educate their members and seek their support to negotiate
provisions in the collective agreement which would cover the following:
• job entry practices beyond entry level positions;
• seniority rights of existing employees;
• bumping rights of existing employees;
• layoff practices;
• promotion practices;
• recall practices.
E 1. Joint Action
a) monitor the unions operations to ensure that Aboriginal persons are fairly represented
in the decision making processes of unions? (Examples, on the union executive and
leadership positions, bargaining and other committees, etc.);
b) work with the employer to improve long term employment prospects of Aboriginal
workers;
c) work directly with the standing committee to develop a long term fair employment
strategy for Aboriginal workers within the government services? (Example, targeting
specific employment sectors for fair employment policy and practice initiatives, e.g.
Health Care, Social Services, etc.);
d) work with Aboriginal and other training institutions to ensure that a long term
education and training strategy is developed and implemented? (Example, expanding
special initiatives of Aboriginal education institutions in the area of teacher training to
other key employment sectors);
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.17
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
e) develop a long term strategy to make the workplace more sensitive to the culture of
Aboriginal persons? (Examples, a room for ceremonial observations, display some
Aboriginal Art, have available Aboriginal publications, etc.);
f) ensure that fair employment initiatives become a permanent part of the employment
practices of government.
Reasons for Involvement of Organized Labour
There are many reasons why a partnership is needed between the employer, government and the union:
• To build positive relationships between employer, union and Aboriginal community;
• To create understanding between two cultures that have separate histories;
• To establish a better understanding and integration in our workplaces between Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal people through dialogue and collaboration;
• To create equitable and fair workplaces and a equal playing field for everyone; and
• To encourage open discussion to develop solutions in which there is a “win win” situation for
everyone.
For unions as a social justice movement, there are added reasons to get involved in such endeavour.
These reasons may not be within the traditional realm of labour movement, however, all Aboriginal
Peoples and the Canadian population as a whole are affected by these factors:
1) Poor employment and income statistics and the resulting high poverty rate in Aboriginal
community
2) Along with poor socio-economic situation, deplorable living conditions and quality of life, such as
housing, high suicide rates, low educational attainment
3) Future demographics – The Aboriginal population is young and growing at a rate almost twice
that of the Canadian population. Aboriginal people, with over 51 per cent under 25 years of age,
are the fastest growing population within Canada and will be an important part of solving the
issue of a dwindling amount of trained labour.
4) High unemployment is a chronic feature for Aboriginal communities. The 20 percent
unemployment rate for all Aboriginal groups and 27 percent for Registered Indians, continue to
be more than double the rate of the non-Aboriginal population, which is at 10 percent. The labour
movement believes that the cost of under-utilizing our workforce must be beard by everyone.
There will be an enormous savings if we can take every opportunity to ensure that Aboriginal
Peoples have access to jobs and economic activity. For example, it has been estimated that by
working together and providing training and employment opportunities for Aboriginal people,
only the province of Saskatchewan can expect an estimated gain of 600 million a year in productivity
and savings of up to 5000 million annually due to reduced health, human justice services and
social assistance costs.
5.18
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
Consequently, several unions have concluded that this situation cannot continue and decided to fight
alongside with Aboriginal Peoples in removing barriers so that the Aboriginal Peoples can participate
at a representative level. Otherwise, the demographics speak of a disaster in the making if nothing is
done to resolve these issues. Therefore, the labour movement with its most effective tool of collective
agreements, has addressed the issue of representative workforce by including special provisions on
hiring, workplace preparation, in-service training and accommodation of spiritual or cultural
observances.
IBEW LOCAL 2034
We are working collaboratively with Manitoba Hydro to promote hiring of Aboriginals and
Local Northern Residents and to date we have:
Letter Of Intent LOI # 4/2000 which states “The parties agree to work co-operatively to
identify and remove systemic barriers to employment in order to facilitate equitable
participation of qualified Aboriginal people and minorities in Manitoba Hydro’s
workforce, in stable long-term employment”
Article 13.5: In order to promote the hiring of local residents, particularly in northern
locations, the Union will give every consideration to Management requests to waive
posting of some positions to accommodate the hiring of local residents.
LOU # 5/2000 – Aboriginal Pre-Placement Training Programs
LOU # 6/2000 – Technical Trades Aboriginal Pre-Placement Training Program
LOU # 7/2000 – Construction Work Associated with Northern Aboriginal Communities
Employment of Local Residents
IBEW Local 2034 not only has an obligation. We are committed to working with
Manitoba Hydro to remove these systemic barriers and obtain equitable representation.
Saskatchewan Union Of Nurses (SUN)
ARTICLE 4.03 REPRESENTATIVE WORKFORCE
(a)
General Provisions
The Union and the Employer agree with the principle of achieving a representative
workforce for Aboriginal workers. The Employer shall develop, implement, monitor
and evaluate initiatives designed to facilitate employment of Aboriginal RN/RPN’s in
proportion to the provincial working population
(b) Workplace Preparation
The Employer agrees to implement, in consultation with the Union, educational
opportunities for all Employees to raise awareness of cultural differences with an
emphasis on Aboriginal people. Payment for such educational opportunities shall be
in accordance with Article 41.02 (a).
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.19
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
ARTICLE 4.04 ACCOMMODATION OF SPIRITUAL OR CULTURAL OBSERVANCES
Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate an Employee in order for her to attend or
participate in spiritual or cultural observances required by faith or culture. It shall be incumbent
upon the Employee to provide the Employer with reasonable notice of such observances.
Organizing in an Aboriginal Community
1. Is there anything unions need to do to prepare themselves for organizing campaigns in
Aboriginal communities?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify organizing prospects/workplaces;
Identify workers;
Understand the needs of Aboriginal workers;
Understand the time-framing differences;
Cultural awareness;
Develop the political will within the organization to embrace the issues that are important to
Aboriginal workers;
– Tell ’em, tell ’em once more then tell ‘em again
– Encourage leadership to know more about Aboriginal Peoples
Establish and support Aboriginal Committees at the Federation, the Labour Council and in
local unions;
Establish your credibility;
Link Aboriginal injustices with other social justice issues – Aboriginal Rights are Human Rights;
Ipperwash would never have happened without Oka – Link struggles;
Provide resources/resource people for people with a concern about Aboriginal issues;
Raise awareness through newsletter and other union communication tools;
Scholarships for courses on Aboriginal Peoples from CLC & Affiliates;
Raise issues at Labour Council meetings and schools;
Establish a working class Aboriginal presence on public boards;
CLC intervention on Indian Act amendments, Employment standards and labour codes;
Train, support, hire and promote Aboriginal organizers, staffers and leadership; and
Promote university labour programs with an Aboriginal element.
2. Who in the Aboriginal community should we be aligning ourselves with?
Informal leadership in the workplace:
• Approach slowly, with respect and ask how we can learn from each other;
• Perform a needs assessment;
• Build from the ground up;
• Find an “in”;
• Maintain existing relationships with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but shift focus to
workers and not bosses; and
• Plant seeds in the community.
5.20
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
SECTION FIVE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LABOUR ISSUES
3. In what ways can a union be an ally in Aboriginal communities?
• Highlight our successes;
• Align common struggles – social injustice, lack of democracy, devolution of social programs, etc.;
• Union sponsorships, for example, BCGEU’s involvement with Indigenous games or “in kind”
Supports;
• Information booths at conferences with an Aboriginal focus; and
• United Way Agencies – Union Counseling programs
4. How do we build trust between unions and Aboriginal communities?
• Speak on their terms, in a language common to their interests;
• Listen!! Hear!! Keep issues simple; and
• Soft sell – move slowly.
5. Is there any conflict between the labour movements’ support for Aboriginal self-government
and self-government agreements containing their own labour code? If so how can we overcome
this apparent contradiction?
• Negotiate around existing codes and legislation – deal with the now;
• Amend and improve as we are able to; and
• Affirmation and improvement of existing codes is one tool in keeping Aboriginal leaders
accountable to working people in their communities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Canadians, regardless of heritage, are the drawers of water and the hewers of wood for
transnational corporations. Despite the warnings of the great Canadian economist Harold Adams
Innis, we have not moved beyond our staples economy. Workers, including Aboriginal workers, are
capable of more than supplying the labour for primary resource industries. For the most part, the way
our natural resources are exploited today creates limited and short term employment opportunities.
We are all caught in the Staples Trap and governments, powerless in their sovereignty, would have us
believe that Canadians are capable of no more than supplying raw resources and labour for
transnational corporations.
In the backdrop of the above mentioned attitude, Aboriginal Peoples and labour organizations have
to work more closely than the past. They both share the fundamental belief in the right to solidarity.
The two groups recognize the power of the collectivity. While both organized labour and Aboriginal
Peoples have had their differences in the past, the impact of economic restructuring on both of their
constituencies will be very profound. Therefore, they should join in forces and form partnerships
to fight the battle. The jobs and social programs of benefit to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
young people are at great risk. Moreover, many of the social and economic policy interests of
organized labour and Aboriginal Peoples are common ones and working in cooperation with each
other, they would comprise a formidable political force.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESOURCE TOOL KIT
5.21