[MUSIC] Following Confederation in 1867, the newly established Dominion government, which included Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the British colonies of Canada, set out to establish a legal framework to deal with Indian affairs. In 1876, Parliament introduced the Indian Act, which was actually a consolidation of previous colonial acts concerning First Nations. The Act stipulated who would be defined as an Indian in the eyes of the government, and discounted and dismissed all pre-existing Indigenous governance systems. According to the Act, an Indian was defined as a man belonging to a band that had a reserve, or had lands that were held in common, but which the Crown nonetheless still held legal title. Wives and children of these men also had Indian status. However, women who married outside the status Indian community lost their status, as did their children. This patriarchal provision will be discussed in a later lesson when we look at Bill C-31. Interestingly, when a non-status woman, even if she was not a First Nations person, married a status man, the woman and subsequent offspring would be given Indian status. >> The Indian Act in 1876 was officially created by the federal government. In its relation to treaties, there are many that believe that the Indian Act was created to implement the treaties. I've always taken sort of exception to that because of what the treaties were intended to do, and in particular, what was the end date for the treaties. And arguably, there is no end date. There's nothing within them that says 20 years, a decade, anything. So, you know that they're there arguably permanently, unless both sides want to change them. Whereas the Indian Act had a central function of assimilation through the process called enfranchisement. And it did have an end date, and that end date was 1906. They believed that in two generations for the West, and maybe one generation for Indians of the East, they would be assimilated. Of course, that didn't occur, and we still have the Indian Act with us to this day. It has been called to be the most paternalistic piece of legislation any sort of western nation has ever created. On the even more negative side, South Africa back in its apartheid days came and looked at the system and basically based their system on our Indian Act/reserve system. So, it has been a very controversial piece of legislation. And when the controversy really rises is when there are suggestions by politicians to eliminate it. And all of a sudden, Natives and others say no, no, no, and non-Natives sort of think, well, what's the problem here? They hate it, but when somebody wants to get rid of it, they protest. What's going on? And I've talked to many people over the years about this because it does, it looks very confusing. And to sort of summarize, their point is, we'll deal with the devil that we know, not with the devil that we don't know. And so, no love for the Indian Act, but until what's going to replace it is on the table, we'll keep dealing with the Indian Act. >> Embedded within the Act was a further paternalistic measure in which status Indians were made wards of the federal government. More specifically, they were to be treated as minors and would be denied the basic rights of citizenship, such as voting. Now, should an Indian wish to participate as a full member of Canadian society, they could work towards enfranchisement, whereby they would lose their status as an Indian. In order to become enfranchised, one had to pass certain requirements, such as a literacy test in French or English, be free of debt, and have good moral character. These requirements would have been difficult for most Canadians at the time to achieve. In the early part of the 20th century, the government made amendments to the Act, which allowed the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs the ability to enfranchise people against their will. Nonetheless, individuals resisted this tactic of assimilation, but paternalistic measures of the Indian Act persisted. As noted, the Act completely ignored longstanding forms of Indigenous governance. With the implementation of the Indian Act, however, bands had to elect chiefs and councils under rules dictated by the federal government. They were no longer legally permitted to govern themselves on their own terms. Instead, Indigenous peoples were beholden to a foreign government and its foreign laws. Rooted in his belief of molding Canada into a just society wherein every citizen of the country would be equal in the eyes of the law, then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau attempted to significantly alter and eventually abolish the Indian Act. In June 1969, Jean Chrétien, who was the Minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs at the time, presented to the House of Commons a proposed policy paper that would effectively dismiss federal responsibility toward status Indians. This paper is commonly known as the White Paper. This proposal is a prime example of how the government continually attempts to assimilate Indigenous peoples into Canadian society through heavy-handed policy. Prior to Chrétien's presentation of the White Paper, there appeared to be a willingness on the part of the government to seek input from various First Nations people and leaders. However, it was not long after this attempt to seek input that the government simply disregarded the responses they were getting and went forward with their own mandate. Therefore, when the White Paper was announced, it did not include any input from the very people it would most affect. This galvanized First Nations leadership across the country to rebuke what they saw as a plan to terminate federal responsibilities. Dave Courchene, the then leader of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, has speculated that the government was fearful of the rise of Indigenous political organizing and that, by altering or extinguishing the Indian Act, the funding to these organizations would cease to exist. Additionally, the White Paper illustrated the government's complete disregard of the treaty agreements. It was clear to many that Trudeau and Chrétien were attempting to erase foundational agreements between the state and Treaty people. Harold Cardinal from Sucker Creek First Nation in Alberta was part of the contingent of First Nations leaders leading the push back against the White Paper. In 1970, Cardinal, who was serving as the president of Indian Association of Alberta, put together a document countering the White Paper titled, Citizens Plus, which subsequently became known as the Red Paper. This document summed up and criticized the numerous problematic elements found in the government's proposal. At the same time as formally rejecting the White Paper, the National Indian Brotherhood presented the Red Paper to the federal government. Long-time Indigenous rights activist Arthur Manuel recalls that, the ceremony was accompanied by Indian drumming and singing, which was something new in the Canadian Parliament. This show of collective will on the part of Indigenous activists working together forced the government to withdraw the White Paper. Arguably, these events were just the beginning of Indigenous peoples' political mobilization in Canada, as the 1970s also witnessed the ushering in of Indigenous led radical forms of direct action. Without question, the rise of Indigenous activism across Canada in the 1970s can partly be attributed to the influence of the American Indian movement south of the Canadian-American border. Commonly referred to as AIM, the organization was an Indigenous response to the burgeoning civil rights movements of the 1960s across the United States. Activist such as John Trudell, Dennis Banks, and Russel Means engaged in protests that caught the attention of young Indigenous people in the US and Canada. In addition to occupying government buildings and other forms of direct action, there was a growing body of literature emanating from radical Indigenous scholars and activists that would influence an entire generation of youth. These up-and-coming Indigenous activists were looking for resources not only to survive in the white man's world, but to fundamentally alter it in order to better the lives of Indigenous people. Sioux scholar Vine Deloria Jr.'s book, God is Red, and Métis intellectual Howard Adams' book, Prison of Grass, played foundational roles in galvanizing youth against the wrongs committed by the state. The sheer number of protests undertaken by Indigenous protestors in the 1970s makes it difficult to provide details for all of them. The following example of the Native People's Caravan reveals how Indigenous peoples' discontent of government policy led to action. Vern Harper, a young Indigenous activist, and Louis Cameron, a leader of the Ojibway Warrior Society, envisioned a gathering of Indigenous peoples from across Canada, hoping to unite an allied Indigenous voice. The Native People's Caravan took off from Vancouver on September 15th with a big rally and send off march which attracted over 200 people. Travelling across the trans-Canada highway on its way to Ottawa, the Caravan made stops in major cities allowing others to join. On September 29th, they rolled into the capital city of Ottawa, and the following morning headed to Parliament Hill to voice their concerns. The Caravan arrived in Ottawa for the opening of Parliament on September 30th. However, they were not prepared for the hostile reception from the police. Indeed, as protestors walked toward Parliament, they were greeted by hundreds of riot-clad officers and barricades blocking them from ascending the stairs and entering the building. The Indigenous members of the Caravan were accompanied by a large contingent of left-wing allies who were told to stay in the back. Nonetheless, the additional protesters did nothing to quell the violent onslaught delivered by the police towards the protesters. Vern Harper described the event as a police riot, whereby peaceful, unarmed demonstrators were unmercifully attacked. The scuffle ended with protesters scrambling in retreat, and not a single acknowledgement from a government representative was delivered. In many respects, the grassroots organizing in the 1970s of Indigenous peoples, as demonstrated with the Caravan, paved the way for Indigenous voices to be heard in the following decade. Living conditions, education, land, and treaty rights were, and continue to be, issues affecting Indigenous communities across the country. Young people mobilized, worked together, and made tangible efforts to get their message and concerns known to mainstream politicians, as well as the wider Canadian public. Along with the grassroots mobilization of Indigenous youth during the 1970s, there was a rise in more formally recognized Indigenous political entities. At the start of the decade, the federal Liberal government provided funding to support organizations, such as the National Indian Brotherhood, representing Status Indians, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, representing the Inuit, and the Native Council of Canada, which represented Métis and non-status Indians. Leaders from each organization would play fundamental roles in helping to secure Aboriginal rights in the following decade. Two individuals in particular worked tirelessly in championing Métis rights and peoplehood, Harry Daniels and Elmer Ghostkeeper. With the rise of Indigenous peoples' participation in formal political arenas, there emerged many outspoken and influential Indigenous leaders across the country. For the Métis, the opportunity to redefine their relationship with the federal government spawned a renewed sense of nationalist fervour. We will look at the crucial work carried out by Harry Daniels and Elmer Ghostkeeper, and their involvement in securing and navigating the definition of the constitutional rights of the Métis people. Born in Regina Beach, Saskatchewan, in 1940, Harry Daniels would go on to secure his place as one of the most highly respected Métis leaders since Louis Riel. In 1976, he was elected president of the Native Council of Canada and argued vehemently against the two-nations myth central to Canadian history. This myth recognizes both the French and British as the founding fathers of Canada. Daniels maintained that, as a result of the establishment of a Métis provisional government in Red River prior to Canadian confederation, the Métis should, in fact, be recognized alongside the British and the French as one of the founding nations of the country. Of course, this argument fell on deaf ears for most people outside his constituency. But it revealed that Daniels wasn't afraid to disrupt long-standing beliefs concerning Canadian history. With the rise of discussion surrounding constitutional reform in the 1970s, Daniels was extremely vocal about the inclusion of Indigenous peoples’ rights being cemented in Canada's history, in particular, the distinctive mention of, Métis people within the constitution. In other words he did not want Indigenous nations to be branded as ethnic minorities within the fabric of what would be the newly worked constitution. The nationhood argument offered by Daniels was based in the assertion of recognizing the collective rights of Métis people, as opposed to the concept of individual rights being proposed by the federal government. As constitutional debates carried on, it was becoming very clear to Daniels that without any specific mention of the Métis, there was a good chance that their rights would be ignored. The then acting Justice Minister, Jean Chrétien, had assured Daniels that the term Aboriginal peoples would be interpreted broadly. This assurance left Daniels skeptical and unconvinced that the Métis would be recognized within the constitution. Daniels' last minute efforts to advance Métis issues including speaking with committee members in corridors and in offices succeeded. As a result of Daniels' and other Métis leaders' determination, Jean Chrétien included a subsection to the amendment that explicitly recognized three distinct Aboriginal peoples: Indian, Inuit, and Métis. Elmer Ghostkeeper was also a key player in the progression and inclusion of the Métis within the Canadian constitution. Ghostkeeper was elected president of the Federation of Métis Settlements in 1980. The federation was a governing body representing the collective land base for the Métis in Alberta. It’s important to note that the Métis settlements in Alberta are uncommon, as Alberta is the only province whose statute recognizes and protects the collective land base of the Métis. Ghostkeeper leveraged the unique position of the Métis in Alberta to argue that the Métis should move towards establishing a separate umbrella organization with more overt, nationalistic aspirations. Eventually, the Métis National Council was formed to represent the Métis Nation as a unified voice at the First Minister Talks. By the early 1980s, the Canadian government began making concerted efforts to patriate, or transfer control, of the constitution from British Parliament to Canada. Under the Constitution Act of 1867, Canada could not add to, nor could they alter any provisions because the country was still a dominion under the British Crown. Prior to the eventual Patriation of the Constitution in 1982, there were a series of legal challenges including the James Bay Agreement, which we discussed in a previous lesson, and the Calder Decision, which we will see in an upcoming lesson. From Indigenous peoples directed towards various levels of government concerning rights and title to Indigenous territories. These court challenges reflected an emerging sense of Indigenous peoples' desire for self-determination. Various legal battles and movements of the 1970s witnessed the emergence of a Red Power movement that would galvanize Indigenous peoples into political activism. These processes awakened Indigenous self-determination and motivated Indigenous people to participate in the constitutional amendments. As the federal government began the process of patriating the constitution, Indigenous peoples worked tirelessly to ensure that their rights were acknowledged and secured on a legally binding document. The result would be the addition of Section 35 into the constitution. Within the provision, there are a number of subsections. However, the first two are essential in understanding the importance of Section 35 for Indigenous people across the country. Section 35(1) The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. Section 35(2), In this Act, Aboriginal Peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit, and Métis people of Canada. Interestingly, while the government recognized the existing rights of Aboriginal peoples, it did not go into detail as what this would mean. The politicians determined that defining these rights with greater specificity would occur the following year at a First Ministers’ conference. The government also believed that the judiciary would help resolve the meaning and scope of what these rights would demand. [MUSIC]
