The Canadian Government, Canadas Aboriginal Peoples and the Meaning of Sovereignty - Essay Example

By Their Own Admission: The Canadian Government, Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples and the Meaning of Sovereignty Data from the 2006 Canadian census revealed a litany of facts that lead to one inescapable conclusion: Canada’s aboriginal populations contribute substantially to the country’s cultural and economic prosperity. Aboriginal peoples, defined in Canada as Indians (or “first nations”), Metis and Inuit, total more than 1,170,000 people, comprising nearly four percent of the country’s total population (Statistics Canada, 2008). Many of the tribes and social groups that are defined by these three core ethnic categories continue to speak their own native languages and practice ancient traditions, thereby maintaining a strong sense of identity within Canada’s ethnic composite. In the modern era, nationalist sentiment among the country’s aboriginal peoples has percolated just below the surface of the national domestic agenda since the 1960s. The debate over the concept of “citizens plus,” in which Aboriginal Canadians possess full citizenship “plus other rights,” has been present in varying degrees of intensity for more than half a century (Fossum, Poirier and Magnette, 2009, p. 129). To this civic model has been added the notion of “citizens plural,” which goes even further in establishing the nation’s indigenous peoples as transcending the definition of a Canadian citizen. This “pseudo-franchise” recognizes that indigenous peoples know best how to define their own ‘public interest’ and how best to Name 2 promote, implement and protect it” (Ibid). The incremental recognition of what are essentially native rights to self determination possess a cumulative moral and legal force, which distinguish the identity of the three groups identified by the 1982 Constitutional amendment. As such, the only logical conclusion to what has proven an inexorable historical process is that Canada’s Aboriginal communities are distinct populations that should be recognized as independent nations. To deny this view, as do many Canadians, is to contradict the country’s constitutional principles. Many continue to insist that Aboriginal peoples should be assimilated, should seek nothing more than to be Canadian citizens. However, the relationship between citizenship rights and recognized Aboriginal identity is a complex one; one which is misunderstood and overlooked by many Canadians. What is more, this viewpoint ignores important aspects of the constitutionally established status of Aboriginals within the framework of Canadian legal and legislative tradition. “Although Aboriginal people in Canada are legally equal ‘citizens,’ they are in effect ruled by other citizens, who are not Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people in Canada are ruled but do not rule, contrary to (Canadian) democratic ideals” (Fossum, Poirier and Magnette, 2009, p. 145). According to Canadian citizenship models, specifically, the “citizens plural” construct, a state in which “First Nation” Indians, Inuit and Metis are ruled by other citizens without their consent is both a philosophical betrayal and a legal transgression. In such a condition, the only coherent and proper course of action is to extend full sovereignty to the nation’s indigenous peoples. Name 3 The establishment of Aboriginal rights in Canada has been an incremental process that began with the exploitation and intimidation of native peoples after the establishment of treaties in the late 19th century. These treaties, which were established between the new Canadian government and the various tribes, were intended to be the instruments through which the two parties would co-exist according to national law. But matters took an opportunistic turn when power politics came into play because “once Canadian authorities saw that they had a military and economic advantage over the Aboriginal peoples, they undertook to unilaterally legislate these relations, without consulting the treaty groups, and often in disregard for existing treaty provisions” (Fossum, Poirier and Magnette, 2009, p. 131). Through the late 19th and early 20th century, those native peoples who were not restricted to life on a reservation were regarded as little more than a source of cheap labor (Ibid). Official recognition for the Meti and Indians was particularly slow in coming. The watershed moment, from a legislative standpoint, took place in 1982. The Aboriginal rights clause of the Constitution Act of that year officially afforded constitutional rights to Canada’s native peoples, including: The recognition of the treaty rights of all Aboriginal peoples The protection of Aboriginal lands that are used for traditional rituals and customs The affirmation of rights conferred by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, rights that had been eroded over 200 years (Cook and Lindau, 2000, p. 108) Name 4 The Constitution Act of 1982 was seen by some observers, particularly in the Aboriginal communities, as an instrument for co-opting indigenous independence movements. The government has been guilty of sending out contradictory signals concerning Aboriginal sovereignty, though the official policy has been to “explicitly (reject) the notion that Indian nations are sovereign” (Cook and Lindau, 2000, p. 108). However, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) has at least acknowledged the claims made by Canada’s native tribes. “Aboriginal people asserted constantly that that their inherent rights of sovereignty and self-determination have never been extinguished or surrendered but continue to this day” (Ibid). The admission at the federal level that Aboriginals occupy a “plus” status, one which separates them from non-indigenous Canadians, amounts to a tacit admission that the nation’s original peoples exist within an endemic condition of sovereignty. As constitutionally enfranchised citizens with a “difference,” Aboriginal peoples should be included in any discussions that frame the way in which their sovereignty is to be defined. This, however, has not been the case. Canada’s Gitskan nation considers that their chief and the land are bound together in a kind of marriage in which everything that belongs to the land is shown respect (Cook and Lindau, 2000, p. 145). This spiritual doctrine flows from the chief’s ancestors. This scenario describes the tribe’s conception of sovereignty, as a thing arising from the land itself, bestowed by the land upon this lineage. But there are considerable cultural differences in the ways the government and the Gitskan and their brethren conceive of national sovereignty. But a matter of semantics seems insubstantial when weighed against the requirements of constitutional justice, which empowers Canada’s indigenous peoples to occupy a Name 5 prominent role in this debate. The question of Aboriginal nationhood has often been forced into the background by the incendiary matter of Quebecois independence. It is a fact of Canadian realpolitik that the Quebec question has proven far more consequential to Canadian governments in recent times than Aboriginal claims to sovereignty. As such, the Aboriginal movement in Canada has been materially affected by the tumult in Quebec, where politics has “hijacked” the debate over the meaning of sovereignty within the Canadian domestic scene. “The strong nationalist and separatist movement in (Quebec) now prefers to describe its goal as ‘sovereignty’ rather than using its earlier term of ‘separation’ because ‘sovereignty’ leaves a better taste in the voters’ mouths” (Cook and Lindau, 2000, p. 109). The obvious problem, at least from a cynical, political stance, is that recognizing any definition of Aboriginal independence “might be taken by sovereigntists to justify equivalent recognition of Quebec as a sovereign nation” (Ibid). Navigating this situation may make good political sense but it is hardly a workable answer to a situation that will not go away on its own. The Canadian government has tried to defuse the situation by accommodating the distinct identity of Aboriginal peoples under the blanket concept of assimilation, but this status quo attitude amounts to no more than another political expedient. In Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State, Alan C. Cairns makes the point that the doctrine of assimilation, with its implications of racial and ethnic leveling, has become passe, particularly in the sense that it badly underestimates the strength and durability of Aboriginal identity (2000). It also utterly fails to address the differenced state of Aboriginal existence within Canada, as defined by the RCAP. Name 6 The establishment of the RCAP in 1991 marked a turning point in the relationship between the Canadian government and the country’s indigenous populations. The commission’s 1996 report, which laid out a new definition of Aboriginal peoples, was aimed at enhancing the “recognition, status, and future prospects for Aboriginal peoples of Canada” (Cairns, 2000, p. 19). The RCAP report was a massive undertaking, and it proposed massive change. The Royal Proclamation it recommended was intended to create a new reality in the Aboriginal-Canadian relationship, with sweeping changes that amounted to a kind of “pseudo-sovereignty.” The “hoped-for” results included: 60 to 80 self-governing Aboriginal nations Aboriginal control of key Aboriginal social services in urban environments An “Aboriginal House of First Peoples,” which would have the authority to protect Aboriginal interests (Cairns, 2000, p. 119) Clearly, the 1996 report was more than an attempt to ameliorate old injustices perpetrated on native peoples in the days of Canada’s territorial expansion. The fact that the RCAP proposed “self-governing Aboriginal nationals” is a virtual admission of their right to sovereignty (Cairns, 2000, p. 119). The RCAP also acknowledged the claims to sovereignty of indigenous peoples, and stated that it declared “a new beginning based on the foundational principles that Aboriginal peoples are ‘nations with an inherent right of self-government’” (2000, p. 144). As such, the RCAP’s use of constitutional language lends legal weight to Aboriginal sovereignty. Having reached a tipping point in the debate, Cairns claims that Canada cannot Name 7 restrict its constitutional thinking to “the justification and elaboration of a third order of Aboriginal government” (2000, p. 75). The “third order” concept is nothing more than purposeful equivocation by a government still willing to use its power to impose policy on a population that the government itself admits is deserving of the right to self-determination. The RCAP’s basic role is to see that the government’s various treaties are honored and, that Aboriginal peoples are given an opportunity to govern themselves. However, even the most basic rights have yet to be honored in many parts of the country. In a report entitled Pushed to the Edge of Extinction, the Grand Council of the Crees note that they have lived on their ancestral lands in James Bay for thousands of years. But despite countless promises and an ostensibly binding treaty agreement, the Cree continue to suffer from numerous discriminatory practices in their homeland. Employment is one notable example. Their treaty with the Canadian government promises that the Cree will have equal access to employment, yet despite the presence of more than 700 hydro-electric plants, the Cree, who are the majority population in their region, have less than 1 percent of these jobs (“Pushed to the Edge of Extinction,” 2000). Worse, the Quebec provincial government actually flies in non-aboriginal workers from southern Quebec to fill those jobs. (There is a certain irony to Quebec, home to the country’s most forceful independence movement, violating the Cree’s human rights.) The logging industry represents another violation of the Cree’s treaty with the Canadian government. The treaty includes the protection of the tribe’s economic, social and environmental well-being, a right that has been severely compromised by multi-national and domestic forestry interests (“Pushed to the Edge of Extinction,” 2000). The Canadian Name 8 government currently licenses more than 70,000 square kilometers of Cree lands; since 1975, more than 5,000 square kilometers of hunting lands have been destroyed, which equals the loss of two traditional family hunting grounds per year (Ibid). In addition to their illegality, such treaty violations amount to a substantial deprivation of human rights. As with many native populations, the Cree continue to be vulnerable to the deprivations of government-backed economic interests; the courts, to date, have provided little in the way of legal recourse. The continual abuse of its treaty with the Cree, which is only one of several such examples, legally invalidates the Canadian government’s claim to determine the question of Aboriginal sovereignty. Ultimately, a government must be judged by how closely it adheres to its own legal code and moral ethos. In Canada, as in the United States, the government has frequently regarded its treaties with Aboriginal peoples as an expedient, something to be manipulated in the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians. However, morality is only one aspect of what comes down to a matter of constitutionality. The RCAP, a constitutionally appointed government committee, has addressed the issue of Aboriginal sovereignty from a legal standpoint. The Royal Proclamation, which proceeded from the Constitution Act of 1982, essentially recognized the claims of Aboriginal peoples. “The starting point for this recognition is the thesis that Aboriginal peoples possess an inherent right of self-government” (Cairns, 2000, p. 144). Considering the history of duplicity that has characterized the Canadian government’s treatment of indigenous peoples, this is a remarkable achievement in itself. This, with the pre-determined “differenced” citizenship status that Aboriginal peoples possess, amounts to a tacit recognition of the fact that Canada’s Aboriginal peoples should be endowed with sovereignty. Name 9 Works Cited “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Metis and First Nations, 2006 Census.” Statistics Canada. Web. www.statcan.gc.ca. Cairns, Alan. Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2000. Cook, Curtis and Lindau, Juan David. Aboriginal Rights and Self-Government: the Canadian and Mexican Experience in North American Perspective. Toronto: McGill-Queen Press, 2000. Fossum, John Erik, Poirier, Johanne and Magnette, Paul. The Ties that Bind: Accommodating Diversity in Canada and the European Union. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2009. “Pushed to the Edge of Extinction: Racism Against Indigenous Peoples in Canada.” Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee). Nemaska, Quebec: 2000. Read More