The Distinct Identity of Indigenous People

Forward: In conversation with a German couple at a Blackfoot Powwow, I was taken aback by
their observation of the harm being done within Canada to First Nation people by ignorance and
indifference. This article in support of aboriginal identity will attempt to replace this ignorance and
indifference with understanding. Government policy based on equality for native people continues to
harm a people that are equal in dignity, yet unique in the way they express that dignity. Although some
policy and constitutional arrangements have come a long way in their understanding of pre-existing
aboriginal rights, ignorance and indifference continue to thwart positive change. How do we replace this
ignorance with understanding and indifference with empathy towards enabling Indigenous people to foster
their own identity and lead humanity to a greater relationship with the natural environment?
Sitting around your average Canadian coffee table to talk politics often brings up native issues.
Without aboriginal people at the table to defend themselves, the focus can often degenerate to blanket
statements like: Natives are just lazy people who receive too many free hand outs. At best Ive heard less
direct and more wordy efforts at coming around to the same conclusion by saying, Lets use all that
welfare money into getting them off the reserves and making them fully participate in our society. These
painfully ignorant statements have surprisingly ended up formulating government policy with little or no
First Nations consultation. An appropriate native consult would unearth their desire for a distinct identity
that cannot be sustained by simply assimilating aboriginal people into the mainstream of Canadian society.
Rather than subject everyone under the singular rule of a historic European colonial style government, we
need to govern ourselves as a community (of) communities.1 A certain amount of freedom and
sovereignty should be given to these communities so their cultures can properly flourish. History tells us
assimilation of indigenous people only causes harm: All the statistics (on increased poverty among native
populations) overwhelmingly point out: Canadas 125-year-old policy of trying to integrate native people
into mainstream society has been a monumental failure. 2 Yet balance must be achieved between what
unites Aboriginal people to all Canadians and what are distinct qualities to Indigenous identity.
A History of First Nations: The Struggle for Identity
Just after the arrival of Columbus, the appearance of Europeans on North American soil may be
views as a discovery and settlement of a new world or as an invasion and conquest of an old world. Does
this depend on the continental perspective on has or on their amount of understanding and empathy? Either
way, First Nations people suffered immense losses during early European contact. They were a people
pushed aside and torn apart by war, plagues, encroaching settlers, the buffalo slaughter, starvation,
reservations and treaties. 3
Treaties were a way of preventing an invasion from turning into a total genocide. They transferred
the reliance of Native people on the fur trade to reliance on the Canadian government. Aboriginal people
were told that they would be children of our mother the Queen. The First Nations people associated the
mother Queen with the mother Earth who would always take good care of them.4 They would soon find
out that this was by no means a fair trade.
Those under the mother Queen had the best of intentions - residential schools - in store for Native
people. Now without land, the rest of their identity would be stripped away in these schools. Residential
schools were set up in order to assimilate Native people into white society with the hope of consequently
dissolving the treaties. Assimilation policies suppressed all former Indigenous practices, including
language, religion, history and customs.
1

Cairns, Alan C., Citizens Plus Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State (Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press, 2000), 211.
2
T. Schouls, J. Olthius and D. Engelstad, The Basic Dilemma: Sovereignty or Assimilation, Nation to Nation
Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, Eds. Diane Engelstad and John Bird (Concord, ON: House of
Anansi Press Ltd., 1992), 13.
3
Kulchyski, P. Professor. Distance Education Course in Native Studies 110.6. University of Saskatchewan, SIAST
Woodland Campus University Extension, Prince Albert, SK, 1988-89. Ibid, Kulchyski.
4
Ibid. Kulchyski.

Furthermore, Canadian government policy towards the First Nations included private ownership
of land in an attempt to dissolve reservations, what little land Aboriginal people had left. If the loss of land
and treaties became a reality, this would be a final blow toward the loss of identity of a once proud and selfsufficient people. The loss of all these cultural things did not merely mean the loss of things, a peoples
spirit was crushed in the process. Is not where we live, what we believe and how we live out those beliefs
integral to who we are? Amidst this denial of identity something must be said for the resilience of a people
who like a prairie burned over by a destructive fire, still preserve a living green root.
It was as late as 1951 when a revision to the Indian Act lifted the restrictions on Native people
organizing. Then the Indian Movement arose with leaders sprouting out of every region influencing every
level of government. One such leader was George Manuel. By 1970, he brought together the National
Indian Brotherhood from the 12 provincial and territorial regions under one common vision aimed at
winning sovereignty for the First Nations.5 Manuel could not have picked a more opportune time.
Another suppressive government policy was already in the works.
By 1969, the White Paper was proposed by Jean Chretien working under the Trudeau
Government. The White Paper proposed assimilation of Native people to mainstream Canadian society, the
same old policy that smothers Aboriginal identity. This would be achieved by dissolving the Indian Act and
the Indian Affairs Department and giving Aboriginal people private ownership of land. Assimilation would
result in the de-legislation of pre-existing aboriginal rights to land and identity. This loss of rights and the
appropriate provincial care to bring Native people up to speed with the rest of Canada imagines that First
Nation people would be part of the mainstream society in no time.6 However, provincial jurisdiction of
Native affairs would cause Native people to lobby from 12 different fronts. The unity brought about by the
leadership of George Manuel and the National Indian Brotherhood would be short lived. Federal
jurisdiction tends to give Native people more protection than provincial governments are willing to lend
since the provinces are more business based.
In response to the White Paper, Natives proposed the Red Paper in a piece-pipe party with Trudeau
and Chretien. The Red Paper proposed Aboriginal Canadians as just that: Canadians who were also Native,
Aboriginal, Indigenous people with pre-existing aboriginal rights Citizens-Plus. Citizens-Plus was first
proposed in the 1966 Hawthorn report. It found that Natives were better off in their own communities with
Canadian society at arms length. That is, Natives are Canadian citizens, yet they have the right to choose
how Canadian culture and Aboriginal culture blend together. Self-determination is the driving force behind
their social progress.7 At this point the Indian movement was the most potent lobbying force in Ottawa.
The sound reasoning behind the Aboriginal cause and their political resistance began to have an effect on
the government.
In 1971 the White Paper was repealed. In 1973, the Nishga Calder case went to the Supreme
Court and though it lost to a technicality it helped Trudeau to see that land claims were proper by law. He
was beginning to open up to Aboriginal arguments. By the Constitutional Act of 1982 the natives were
heard well enough to have three major sections added. Section 25 and 35.1 upheld all treaties and their
contents. Section 35.2 included the Metis, along with the Inuit and Indian as Aboriginal. Section 37b set
up a Constitutional First Ministers Conference (CFMC) to define Aboriginal identity and rights within one
year.8
On March 1st 1983 the first CFMC was held to resolve the issue of First Nations rights and
identity. At this conference, women were given equal status as men in the constitution. However, native
identity and status was not fully resolved. This probably was the high point of Canadian government and
First Nations dialogue in Canadian history. There was a feeling that Native people were being included in
defining Native government policy. This sounds like common sense, but it has been a problem for Native
peoples who struggle for a voice in Canadian government relations.9
A second conference was held, but with no results. Then with the election of a new government
all progress with the Trudeau government came to a halt. The Mulroney government failed to achieve
results in the next two CFMCs. No further conferences were scheduled, even though the Constitution
5

McFarlane, Peter, Brotherhood to Nationhood George Manuel and the Making of the Modern Indian Movement
(Toronto: Between the Lines, 1993), 8.
6
Ibid, Kulchyski.
7
Ibid, Kulchyski.
8
Ibid, Kulchyski.
9
Ibid, Kulchyski.

required the settlement of Aboriginal rights and identity. This should be a primary goal of our government
with respect to internal policy affecting the people of Canada, living up to our Constitutional promise to
settle Aboriginal rights and identity.10 If we are indeed a multicultural country could we not first lay a solid
foundation of First Nation self-determination?
However, it seems every new government fails to understand the common sense behind consulting
Aboriginal people when attempting to legislate Aboriginal policy. That is why the Mulroney governments
3rd CFMC failed and, in the mid-1980s, they attempted to adopt the Neilson Report, which would
discourage Native people from living on reserves, funds would be redirected to provinces and bands,
programs would be cut and adjusted, and the Department of Indian Affairs (DIAND) would be dissolved.
There was also no Native consultation on this report.11 Does this report sound familiar? It sounded
remarkably like the White Paper of 1969 and the former 100 years of government policy in Native affairs.
The First Nations sided with the previous Liberal governments Penner Report. This report
proposed the Indian Nations Recognition and Validation Act, with Native self-government heading the 58
proposals all arrived at by Native consultation. The report was rejected by the Progressive Conservative
government at the 4th CFMC.12 They were being more conservative than progressive, one might guess.
Then the Meech Lake accord regarding the relationship between French and English Canada,
which from John Amagoliks point of view was an attempt to prolong the myth that there are two founding
nations in Canada.13 Aboriginal people had a good argument in saying issues about the First Nations
should be dealt with first. That is why Elijah Harpers stance in Manitoba that delayed the Meech Lake
proceedings met little or no resistance. After Meech Lake came the Oka crisis. Why not take up arms for a
just cause? It may have done more harm than good. The attention may have set back Aboriginal Canadian
government relations rather than lead to less neglect of Aboriginal issues. Elijah Harper felt Meech Lake
united aboriginal people against such government neglect and Oka, though unfortunate, was a sign non-theless that this neglect must not continue.14
In spite of these recurring political setbacks, competent Native leaders continued to rise up. These
leaders will always be needed to help lead their bands to resemble in part their dignity that once was before
European contact. Such leaders promote events in mixed communities provided for native people that do
not undermine their heritage. And those events forbidden by the Canadian government in the last century,
like the Pow-wow, have become a common festivity for First Nations people. Are these recognizable signs
of the times that native people are alive and a fresh green prairie is rising above the ashes? Are Canadian
people becoming more aware of Aboriginal needs and what they have to offer Canada? Supporting a
reliable First Nations self-government option has its benefit for a Canada lost in a lack of respect for the
land. Indigenous people have the opportunity to lead and serve as a model for all Canadians in how to live
in harmony with nature, provided we can live in harmony together. It was the Native fur traders request,
Give us good measure, spoken at the forts of early Canada scattered across the land.15 This was a plea
from one nation to another.
When the Cretien government was back in power throughout the 1990s there appeared to be a
greater understanding between First Nations people and the Canadian government. The 1995 Federal
Policy Guide attempted to give Canadian government policy another positive step toward practically
supporting Native issues. The policy reaffirmed Aboriginal Self-government as an inherent right. 16 This
government recognized that somehow Native people should have a say in their own destiny. Yet one
governments efforts is not enough. There is needed in Canadian government policy a continual effort and
awareness in leadership on all sides and in every political party. The Canadian people need opportunities to
become more informed about why it is their business to see Aboriginal self-determination and how they can
help the cause.
10

Ibid, Kulchyski.
Ibid, Kulchyski.
12
Ibid, Kulchyski.
13
Aboriginal Self-determination, Ed. Frank Cassidy (Lantzville, B.C: Oolichan Books, & Halifax, NS: The Institute for
Research on Public Policy, 1991), 35
14
Ibid, Cassidy, 165.
15
Ibid, Kulchyski.
16
Federal Policy Guide Aboriginal Self-government, The Government of Canadas Approach to Implementation of
the Inherent Right and Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-government, Published under authority of Hon. Ronald A. Irwin
and Hon. Anne McLellan, (Ottawa, 1995), 3.
11

Because of lack of awareness across the country, potential and future governments are easy prey to
neglect or the temptation to reject Aboriginal issues. In the late 1990s, the Alliance Party Policy Guide
reflected on Aboriginal issues with the same failed notions of the White Paper and Neilson Report on its
desire to put Native people into the mainstream of Canadian society. 17 The Alliance policy would respect
all treaties, giving Natives equal opportunities to access fisheries, and other resources, but not through
race based quotas or special set asides.18 Anyone who took time to read the treaties would see that hunting
and fishing rights are already included in them.
The typical private ownership of land and restricting funds to or abolishment of DIAND were also
part of the Alliance package.19 In the words written in their own policy guide: the Alliance Partys current
system has failed and continues to fail aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast.20 For one of its
members to use a degrading scalping joke during an election speech without being disciplined removed all
doubt that this was not a party prepared to be sensitive to the needs of its aboriginal constituents.
It is clearly this type of policy derived by from the hip ignorant thinking that has caused Native
people harm in the past. How do we find a remedy for this problem? This is precisely what a community
of communities is about. How much can we bend the notion of One Law for All based on my
communities perspective toward a certain amount of freedom to each community for self-governing? The
mainstream is not enough when Canadian identity is born from such diverse well-springs of culture.
What is needed to move beyond a distinct identity and culture for Indigenous people preserved only in
museums or in the promises and best intentions of non-aboriginal governments? For Canada there is a
certain trust investment churning up in the lives and decisions of First Nation people who as much as
possible strive to self-govern.
Assimilation into Mainstream Society
VS
Promotion of Aboriginal Identity with Canadian Citizenship
Aboriginal people have been accustomed to assimilation policy since before the Canadian
federation. The 1857 Canadian Colonial policy of assimilation began as a means to civilize the native
from a primitive society.21 Yet, as stated above, assimilation has been a monumental failure. Everything
that we hold dear is primitive, it comes from an earlier time. To civilize it would only mean to destroy it
and replace it with something new. This may work with buying a new car or recycling trash, but it doesnt
work with cultural identity. Go to any folkfest and youll see a variety of customs that only make it fun
because they are old and different. Yet, in the case of Indigenous culture, is there enough of the old left for
any possible restoration?
After a long period of suppression, the Native resistance toward assimilation began in the late
1900s. Cairns writes that Native resistance brought about reinforcement of difference, however, their
culture was shattered to the point where they are now picking up the pieces. 22 Resistance alone should be
cause enough not to accept a policy that effects the licit identity of a person. In his article, First Nations
Sovereignty and Self-determination, Joe Sanders argues that international law also supports aboriginal selfdetermination:
In international law, the concept of self-determination encompasses the right of peoples
freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue
their economic, social, and cultural development. A people has been authoritatively
described by the World Court as a group of persons living in a given country or locality,
having a race, religion, language and traditions of their own and united by the identity of
race, religion, language and tradition in sentiment of solidarity, with a view to preserving
their traditions, maintaining their form of worship, ensuring the instruction and

17

A Time For Change: An Agenda of Respect for All Canadians, The Canadian Alliance Reform Partys (unofficial)
policy guide, (Printed in Canada: 2000), 21.
18
Ibid, Alliance, 21.
19
Ibid, Alliance, 4, 21.
20
Ibid, Alliance, 21.
21
22

Ibid, Cairns, 49.

Ibid, Cairns, 48.

upbringing of their children in accordance with the spirit and traditions of their race and
rendering mutual assistance to each other.23
Therefore, Sanders concluded that, It requires no imagination to realize that Indians are distinct peoples
within Canada.24 The damaging effects of assimilation policy, ethical arguments and the desire of people
also prove self-determination should be considered over and above assimilation.
Where there is a Will there is a Way
For the most part, Aboriginal people want to determine their own destiny by defining and living
out their own identity. They want to be Canadian Citizens on the terms that enhance or at least preserve
their pre-existing Aboriginal rights. Since, they are a people and they want recognition as a people, it is
time to let them have that rightful recognition. Let them choose what part of Canadian identity they want
to assimilate into Indigenous culture. Elijah Harper says it loud and clear, We have said to the Canadian
people and the Canadian government: We want recognition. (of) our inherent right to selfgovernment.25 Harper continues, It (self-government) is so fundamental because it gives us the
recognition to control our lives, to control our destiny. It isnt something that is developed by legislation
given to aboriginal people. Harper represents a people who are coming out of a long political and social
hibernation and I highly expect the appearance of a mighty bear, a hungry spirit aching for its rightful
place.
Harper explains why self-government is a law that rises above legislative developments:
The right to self-government is not something that is given, it is something that should
be recognized in the supreme law of Canada. Even in the Canadian Constitution we are
not recognized for the positive development we have made in this country. We are not
even recognized as the founding people. Only two nations are recognized, the French
and the English. And yet we are the people that welcomed these people to our shores, to
our homeland. And we dont get any recognition at all.26
The provinces each have their own distinct identity under the Canadian federation. If not, there
would be only Canada, with no provinces. Imagine the turmoil and confusion in Ottawa. Hundreds of
lobbying groups would be on the steps of parliament demanding to be heard and not put into the same
political box. First Nations people must feel like a nameless province. They have an identity that is not
fully recognized within the Canadian federation. George Erasmus and Joe Sanders write: They (the
provinces) are sovereign in their area of jurisdiction. We likewise, want to have clear powers over our
territories.27
As mentioned above, the Canadian Constitution recognizes pre-existing aboriginal rights and
Indigenous people want self-determination. How can the misunderstandings, mismanagement and apathy
be turned into empathy, education and action.
An Ethical Argument
Aboriginal people have a strong ethical argument behind why they should determine their own
identity. Gordon Peters put it well,
Our power (does not come from) the constitution, the legislature, the Magna Carta or the
Bible. There is only one source of authority that we have, and that is the Creator, who
put us here with a very distinct purpose in mind. For us to understand the original
instructions that we were given, it must be part and parcel of our understanding that we
are not the Creator as man, but we are simply part of creation. If we listen to the
23

Ibid, Cassidy, 191, RE Joe Sanders, First Nations Sovereignty and Self-determination with quotes from
the Declaration on the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation
Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G. A. Res. 2625, 25 U. N. GAOR,
Supp.(No. 28), 121, U.N. Doc. A/8082(1970) and the Advisory Opinion of the Permanent Court of
International Justice concerning Greco-Bulgarian Communities (1930) P.C.I.J., ser. B, No.17, at 21.
24
Ibid, Cassidy, 191.
25
Ibid, Cassidy, 164.
26
Ibid, Cassidy, 164.
27
Ibid, Schouls, et al., 11.

Creator we will not try to control nature but be good stewards of it - starting with the
identity of our fellow man and moving out to all creation.28
Peters went on to describe that all other legislation and authority is meaningless until this source of power
is recognized.
In a way Peters touches a sensitive spot with traditional European Christianity. How could an
Aboriginal teach us anything about the Creator, we came to convert these pagan infidels? Yet, in desiring
Indigenous lands we were coveting our neighbors goods (a breach of the 10th Commandment) and in taking
Indigenous lands we were stealing (a breach of the 7th Commandment). Thou shall not kill (the Fifth
Commandment) is now heard in the cries of the Native people who lost their souls in residential schools.
The Greatest Commandment to love God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves is also broken,
because we stand in the way of our Aboriginal neighbor who wants to love their Creator, with all their
heart, their identity.29
All this talk on ethics may be hard to swallow. It is easier for us to turn to the modern relativist
philosophy and ignore these hard sayings. But this is where the empathy comes in to play. We could learn
to walk a mile in our brothers moccasins and then walk another ten to see an Aboriginal perspective on
their own identity, even in its spiritual aspects. Gordon Peters writes:
We must live in harmony and share the power with all other beings the animals, the
birds to keep in tune. We must understand the legends and stories that we have about
the creation of this land and why we call this land Turtle Island our songs, our dances,
our ceremonies all of those oral things that tell us how we were put here and why we
were put here and what we must continue to do in order to remain here.30
Peters also mentions an oral tradition which is something not all European experiences can value.
Getty and Lussier confirm this in As Long as the Sun Shines and the Water Flows:
When I undertake to comment on the interaction of the two cultures, Indian and
European, I must, inevitably, adopt a viewpoint within my own tradition. The problem
which I face is not merely a matter of linguistics. It is rather a problem of values, of
philosophies. To take a simple example: the educated white man is taught to rely upon
written record for the story of his past, records which were long transcribed by hand, but
which, since the invention of the Gutenburg press, are now to be found in print. The
Indian, possessing no written records, has relied upon oral tradition. The educated
white man. tied to written records, is critical of oral tradition./ Because the Indian had
no written records when the first white man reached this continent, he was dismissed by
the white man as having no past. The pre-white era was regarded as an aged of
darkness.31
Any party leader would study night and day just to be able to read a speech in French making
Quebec feel somewhat included. Yet which party members are learning to speak the language of the First
Nations people? The language of the Eagle spirit and the awakening Bear! Every major religion in the
world has the Golden Rule written in their sacred writings: Do unto others what you would want them to
do for you!32
Why suggest that mainstream Canada is not enough for the First Nations people? Assimilation by
enlarge does not work for a number of reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, it has been a marked Canadian
historic failure. History shows that natives are incomplete as a people when mainstream Canadian society
is their only option. Non-native attitudes and treatment of natives leaves them at a disadvantage in white
society. Even those natives that succeeded in appearing on the surface as Canadian as any non-native were
then refused complete access into Canadian society via discrimination. For example, Louis Riel made it to
parliament as premier of Manitoba. However, he was shunned and ignored when he arrived in Ottawa. C.
S. Lewis, a 20th Century scholar wrote, If I find I have a desire which no experience in this world can
satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.33 Indigenous people were
28

Ibid, Cassidy, 33-34.

Scripture clarification: Mark 10:14, Exodus 20:2-17 and Matthew 22:37-40.
30
Ibid, Cassidy, 33.
31
As Long As The Sun Shines and Water Flows, Eds. Ian Getty and Antoine Lussier, (Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press, 1983), 1-2.
32
The Quotable Spirit, Eds. Peter Lorie & Manuela Dunn Mascetti, (Boston: Castle Books, 1996), 211.
33
Ibid, Lorie et al., 63.
29

made for a world based on native decisions that use Canadian resources, society, etc. to enhance their own
identity. In fact, First Nations culture, language, world view, spirituality, history and heritage has stood on
its own and can only benefit from Canadian society according to the preferences and decisions of native
people. Its called freedom, of existence and place, a basic civil liberty. That place of freedom for all
Canadians is rooted in pre-existing aboriginal rights beyond the mainstream, upstream to the source of a
profound and powerful identity.
How Do We Get There?
How do we get there? A working balance between moving in one direction by our common
Canadian citizenship and the freedom to express our distinct identities is needed. This is illustrated well in
the Penner Report where on the back cover it reads:
(We are) two vessels traveling down the same river together. One, a birch bark canoe,
will be for the Indian people, their laws, their customs and their ways. The other, a ship,
will be for the white people and their laws, their customs and their ways. We shall each
travel the river together, side by side, but in our own boat. Neither of us will try to steer
the others vessel.34
Fostering this side by side relationship will require more freedoms for Indigenous peoples through selfgovernment, which is a Constitutional right in section 35. As well, the Constitutions promise of a CFMC to
resolve Aboriginal rights and identity should be rescheduled and held with optimal native consultation.
Native government should not be merely advisers in policy affecting Native people, but participators with
as much powers as possible over their own jurisdictions. These ideas are already in the works with the
Liberal governments goals to enable aboriginal self-government. It is also a good sign that this
government hopes to implement a process that will allow practical progress to be made, to restore dignity
to Aboriginal peoples and empower them to become self-reliant. To govern (themselves) in a manner
that is responsive to the needs and interests of their people.35 Yet, to bring about the needed changes, this
practical progress will require determination, energy, resources and patience.
Needed change is an understatement. It is in the best interest of all Canadians that we work
towards a better Canada for First Nations people. If it is true that a country is as strong as the least of its
individuals, then Canada is a weak nation if some of her children are sniffing gasoline and if entire
communities are caught in a vicious cycle of alcoholism, poverty and suicide. Canada needs to continue to
take responsibility for the needs of her people, while at the same time allowing those people to choose and
preserve their own culture and history within Canada. Is multicultural Canada just a fancy slogan or should
it become our reality? If so, our attitudes have to change from ignorance and neglect to support of the
cause of our Indigenous people. We need to join them in the fight by educating ourselves and maintaining
good relations and support for an Aboriginal level of government.
What effort could be made by non-natives involved in the Canadian government to support native
policies? In many cases First Nations people are better off when parliament is kept from making native
policy. A little education, a little less ignorance, a little more native voice and maybe we will go a long way
in assisting an appropriate recovery for First Nations identity, heritage and self-sufficiency. Maybe then we
will find the assistance of First Nations people a timely help to resolve some of our own problems. For
instance, Indigenous people could teach an industrialized nation how to respect the environment as more
than a resource and where it is something sacred.
These government relations must progress into permanent policies that prevent new federal and
provincial governments from canceling support for objectives that are in the works. Such problems against
progress could lead to protests and other serious situations if new governments with mislead intentions
attempt to re-alienate aboriginal peoples.
Models

34

Smith, Dan, The Seventh Fire: The Struggle for Aboriginal Government, (Toronto: Key Porter Books
Ltd., 1993), 63.
35
Ibid, Irwin and McLellan, 2.

There are those leaders who have problems with corruption and struggling with their history of
poverty. In spite of these temporary issues, there are Aboriginal leaders rising up who serve as models for
Indigenous people. These models or elders serve as the backbone of any society they pass on the life and
dignity of their people. One such model for Indigenous people is George Manuel.
George Manuel could have made excuses to let others take up the fight, such as, his own abusive
residential school experience and a limp brought on by tuberculosis. However, he not only fought for
Native rights, he became a world leader with three Nobel Peace Prize nominations. 36 He even had the
strength to see a Native role in helping the rest of Canada, We, as Indian people, the heart of Canada, must
save the white man in spite of himself.37 With a heart for the environment and a history of community
balance and sharing, Native peoples example and philosophies just might benefit a Canada encroached with
environmental and ethnic problems.
Manuel, as mentioned above, brought the First Nations people together under a common goal of
self-determination by his 1970s leadership of the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB). He not only helped
the NIB become the largest lobbying force in Ottawa, he brought Indigenous rights to the world stage. He
united Indigenous people world-wide in the UN- affiliated World Council of Indigenous Peoples in 1975.
Manuel called these indigenous societies, swamped under successive waves of European expansion,
the Fourth World.38 In 1980, Manuel also led a thousand man march on Ottawa, which opened the door
toward constitutional amendments for aboriginal people.
Manuel used wisdom, whit and determination in his writing and speeches to push forward native
issues in Canada. In British Columbia he set the stage for successful native blockades by rephrasing the
militant words of an early Canadian diplomat who spoke against BC Natives: Agreement with the
government will only come after a show of power.39 He challenged all Canadians to live up to their
Christian principle to Love thy neighbor as thyself, and warned that if we did not we would stand naked
before the world. He said such a Canada will become renowned for its moral emptiness. He also ignited
the hearts of his own people by his actions and words, such as, Our people have been awakened by the
spirit of our ancestors and we can continue to beat our drums throughout our Indian nations.40 Harold
Cardinal made this appropriate note of the value of his leadership: The torch George Manuel inherited was
barely aflame. The torch he passed on was burning bright. 41 This bright burning torch, this passion
Manuel had for his people is well expressed in these words from the Declaration of the World Council of
Indigenous Peoples:
And rising up after centuries of oppression
evoking the greatness of our ancestors
in memory of our Indigenous martyrs:
We vow to control again our own destiny and
Recover our complete humanity and
Pride in being Indigenous People.42
Another leader among Native people in Canada is Elijah Harper. As mentioned above, Harper is a
leader that helped put Aboriginal issues out from behind the Meech Lake proceeding. He spoke of the
recognition needed for the First Nations contribution to Canada. Harper is a model because of the good
sense behind what he says. He speaks to all Canadians in his words: People shouldnt be scared when we
talk about self-government. We are not going to take the country back. Certainly if you look at other
jurisdictions of the world they develop the laws from three levels of government. 43 Harper has a
point when he speaks of the way other jurisdictions govern: If Canadian government can incorporate the
fundamental laws of common law Great Britain, then what is more Canadian than to embrace and
incorporate the laws, customs, and traditional democracies of aboriginal people in this country? 44

36

Ibid, McFarlane, 9.
George Manuel on April 17, 1971.
38
Ibid, McFarlane, 8.
39
George Manuel on his return to British Columbia, 1977.
40
Manuel, October, 1981.
41
Ibid, McFarlane, Essay by Harold Cardinal, On the Legacy of George Manuel.
42
The World Council of Indigenous Peoples Declaration (in part), October, 1975.
43
Ibid, Cassidy, 166.
44
Ibid, Cassidy, 166.
37

Like Manuel, Harper speaks of working with, not against, non-aboriginal people: There has been
much more support for aboriginal people from other Canadians. We must continue to build upon that
support, build bridges, because we need allies in order to achieve our goals.45 And to his own people,
Harper speaks the words of a strong leader and model: We need to be strong. We need to be united. We
need to work together. We have so many common issues across the country. Hopefully, in our time, we
will be able to achieve self-government and build a better future for our children and for generations to
come.46
McFarlane sums it up well by saying that the tireless efforts of such leaders, have forced
Canadians to look at the historical injustices on which their society is founded. These leaders can begin to
help us form new attitudes and build new bridges that will lead to a more honest and open Canada. We can
only imagine what good can be built upon this new foundation of trust. Such leaders are not only needed in
the Aboriginal ranks.
While writing this article I accidentally bumped into Ken Dryden. Well, not really, but I did attend
his conference at the University of Lethbridge. I only went because he was a model to me in my younger
years as a hockey fan. Little did I know he would inspire me to open up my mind just a little more towards
other people and their viewpoints. He did not mention Aboriginal people and their cause, however, he set
for me an example of a non-aboriginal willing to foster an attitude of openness. At the conference, Dryden
spoke of a Canada that manages to coexist with many internal divisions our size, our climates, our
divisions have made us so. He spoke of the dying of the old authoritarian leader who is confused when
confronting diversity, who is forced to make sense and lead by truth, no longer by force or power and who
leads not by personality, but by an ability to listen and understand. Dryden said there is a new leader that
works for Canada who has given up the power of knowing it all and is instead a humble listener with an
open heart and mind. Then he said these words: Underneath it all is a voice that says I want to be me I
want the ability to live what I feel is an expression of myself. 47
Dryden spoke of a 21st Century that will belong to Canada because of its need to adjust to diverse
circumstances and communities. I believe his openness to diversity sets an example for an attitude
profitable for all Canadians. Yet what unites us in our diversity is a standard of principles that holds true
for all people. I believe that some of these principles are universality (cooperation with and awareness of
others), openness, understanding, patience, and humility. There are no laws or barriers that restrict these
principles besides our own attitudes. Consider the opposite meaning to these principles: individualism (a
me-one philosophy), a singular and fixed world-view, strict confidence in ones own experience and
knowledge, forcefulness of expectations and a pride based on self-centered egotism. A Canada built on
which principles and attitudes would you expect a minority like First Nations people to find a home?
As a Catholic myself I am humbled to know my Churchs history is tainted with a lack of the
positive principles mentioned above when working with Aboriginal people.48 Rene Fumoleau may be one
model who can help reverse this trend. In working beside Native people, Fumoleau was humbled and
became more open to their cause:
I had come to Denendeh (NWT) with the idea of helping poor people, the Indians.
And now their questions and their challenges were educating me. Their problem was not
poverty, but unjust economic and political structures. The Dene were struggling for
justice and for self-determination, and it was my ministry to support their activities. 49
Empathy

45

Ibid, Cassidy, 167.

Ibid, Cassidy, 168.
47
Ken Dryden, University of Lethbridge, Physical Education Gymnasium, March 5th, 2001.
48
In writing this report I am confident I express part of the true spirit of my Catholic faith in its universal or
all embracing context: a face of Catholicism all too often missed even by those of us who belong under her
umbrella not that I am nearly out of the rain.
49
Ibid, Engelstad & Bird, Essay by Rene Fumoleau, Are You Willing To Listen, 209.
46

In Nation to Nation, Schouls, Olthius and Englestad50 write: Aboriginal nations still lack the
freedom and resources they need to live creative, respectable lives.51 That is all empathy is: awareness
insight to the needs of another, the compassion to act on that need and the understanding to know how.
The basic insight we need to embrace for Aboriginal people is this: It is time that we as a nation
turned from the destructive and counterproductive task of assimilating First Nations and toward the much
more rewarding response of creating room for their self sufficiency. 52
Cairns suggests this empathy when describing the relationship with Aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people, To so describe it without qualifications risks a damaging confusion.53 So our understanding
should lead us to not only act because we care, but to be careful how we act. Even in the 90s Liberal
governments somewhat enlightened Federal Policy Guide on Aboriginal Self-determination we could get
lost in the confusion where it reads: The government will take the position that negotiated rules of priority
may provide for the paramountcy of Aboriginal laws, but may not deviate from the basic principle that
those federal and provincial laws of overriding national or provincial importance will prevail over
conflicting Aboriginal laws.54 The old Liberal policy guide does reveal a government with hints of
empathy or the understanding required to do something right. For instance, the policy reaffirms Aboriginal
self-government as an inherent and constitutional right (Section 35). It also reads: It is in the interest of
both Aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments to develop co-operative arrangements that will ensure the
harmonious relationship of laws which is indispensable to the proper functioning of the federation. 55 Here
we have a government that understands that Aboriginal people are partners in the federation. There is also
the awareness of specific needs of Aboriginal communities: Diverse aboriginal environments across
Canada call for diverse self-government implementations56 and work will need to be done in a wide range
of areas (such as) environmental management, housing, labour, training, money transfer (and more). 57
Although this policy has its quirks, it is truly a giant step for a historically European centered
government in relation to Indigenous government. It has taken us nearly 500 years to catch up to and move
beyond the highest ideal given to us by a European leader. In 1537, Pope Paul III declared Indians are
truly human. They may and should, freely and legitimately enjoy their liberty and possession of their
property.58 Is such a stating of the obvious mixed with hypocrisy just noise? Moreover, if these words
were lived out by a European expansion that partnered with Indigenous people, where would we be today?
Our sense of careful empathy requires this type of partnership that has an understanding of
balance. Cairns writes about a proper balance between assimilation and parallelism (coexisting side by
side) in encouraging differences: Formerly, where differences were greater, official policy was to eliminate
difference. Now, when cultural differences are weaker, the direction of constitutional thought is to
reinforce difference, or at a minimum recognize it.59 He later writes: diversities alone are insufficient to
sustain a meaningful togetherness. Canada was born not only to protect our differences, but to create a new
country that would transcend differences without destroying them.60 He went on to describe how our
empathy should lead to cooperation of communities within a community, that we are locked in an
inescapable interdependence and, therefore, have to adjust by loosing attempts to escape each other and
form a sort of pluralistic solidarity. 61 Thus, care is needed to enhance a compatibility between Aboriginal
nationhood and Canadian citizenship.
Where will this hard work of learning to empathize with Aboriginal people take us? Cairns
describes how our good fortunes will lead us to positive goals: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples live
in different worlds, which fortunately have a degree of overlap62 and we are moving toward a goal whose
50

Ibid, Engelstad & Bird, 25.

Ibid, Engelstad & Bird, 25.
52
Ibid, Engelstad & Bird, 27.
53
Ibid, Cairns, 210.
54
Ibid, Irwin and McLellan, 11.
55
Ibid, Irwin and McLellan, 3.
56
Ibid, Irwin and McLellan, 4-5.
57
Ibid, Irwin and McLellan, 7-8.
58
Pope Paul III, Sublimus Deus, 1537.
59
Ibid, Cairns, 48.
60
Ibid, Cairns, 158.
61
Ibid, Cairns, 212.
62
Ibid, Cairns, 45.
51

specifics are unclear, but which will combine difference and commonality in fruitful ways. 63 This is where
patience comes in and we need to tread surely but softly by being careful. If not we can just as easily slip
into what Cairns calls residues of past patterns of thought and behavior (which) inpede the wholehearted acceptance in Canada of our version (of ethnic resurgence).64 Aboriginal people need a say or we
increase the likelihood that we will make grievous errors of diagnosis and prescription, as we formerly did
when Aboriginal people were relatively voiceless. The quality and permanence of the new relationship we
seek to build requires mutual, civic discussion, which requires careful nurturing and candour. 65
More Concrete Steps
Empathizing with our neighbor is really just the beginning of a shared journey in enhancing and
fostering the human spirit. In this journey, a pattern of continued learning, growth and openness is
required. Dryden put it well when he said, The 21st Century will belong to the conciliators, learners,
listeners, to whoever knows what they are sure of today they will be unsure of tomorrow it (the 21st
Century) will belong to Canada.66 Dryden is not only expressing a healthy optimistic view, he is making
common and concrete sense. We need to give up our idea of a world that we can tame and conquer and
open our minds to a limitless universe made by a Creator we, in our own way, will be forever marveling
anew at.
Cassidy writes how the voice of First Nations people as a whole is our primary source of
educating ourselves about and understanding First Nations needs:
It is important, for example, to make a special effort to identify, circulate, and build
upon related research that is currently being undertaken in aboriginal communities and by
aboriginal governments and organizations. The initiatives of aboriginal peoples and their
governments are the real basis of the energy for change and growth in this policy area,
and they should be treated as such.67
In this article, Aboriginal Governments in Canada: An Emerging Field of Study, Cassidy outlines
some more of the concrete steps that can be taken in assisting First Nations people in their struggle for
Aboriginal governments. The steps are as follows: opening up to a scholarly research trend in the field of
Aboriginal government that would assist all levels of government in their understanding of the issues. This
research can cover a variety of issues, such as, understanding Aboriginal communities and their
governments, social and cultural trends, economic development, the land question, history and tradition,
political decision-making patterns. Cassidy also discusses components of governing, such as, structure,
policy making, services and programs, finance and accountability. As well, in a wider policy environment,
Cassidy writes about citizenship and Aboriginal rights issues, the constitution, intergovernmental relations,
and the international context.68 Although Cassidys focus is on research, he insists this research should be
done in compliance with Aboriginal people and their actual needs and that this research should be
accessible to all levels of government. 69 Moreover, much can be done to carry this education over to
practical avenues for an all embracing Canada enhanced by First Nations and Indigenous world-view.
Conclusion
The history of government policy for the First Nations people has not developed enough since
early European contact. Assimilation has been the basic approach of the Canadian government in trying to
solve native issues. Assimilation sought to integrate aboriginal people into the mainstream of Canadian
society, while suppressing the native way of life. At first, the government used residential schools to
attempt achieving this task. After being ravaged by the conquest, the loss of land, the plagues, starvation

63

Ibid, Cairns, 45.

Ibid, Cairns, 45.
65
Ibid, Cairns, 46.
66
Ibid, Dryden, March 5th, 2001.
67
Ibid, Cassidy, 253.
68
Ibid, Cassidy, 252-271.
69
Ibid, Cassidy, 273-274.
64

and addictions that followed, Natives were now being forced to loose their identity, their history and their
way of life.
Yet, even as late as 1971 with the proposed Liberal White Paper, the 1982 Progressive
Conservative Neilson Report, and the Alliance 2000 government policy, assimilation was again favored in
government policy for natives. After the lessons learned by the Trudeau government, we have to relearn
them with every new non-native government that comes along. Since this is a reoccurring pattern in
government straight through to the Harper government, new trends of openness and listening are required
before implementing new policy. Indigenous people need to have a policy that leads to their selfsufficiency by allowing them the sovereignty to incorporate that part of Canada that complements and
enhances their distinct identity. This will require more of the competent leadership that is able to bring
together a diverse First Nations people, together with Aboriginal, provincial and federal governments.
The finest sounding deals and a bundle of cash will not solve the problems of native Canada. 70
Until then, shall we listen to the declaration of an Indigenous heart:
A Declaration of The First Nations
We the original people of this land know the Creator put us here.
The Creator gave us laws that govern all our relationships to live in harmony with nature
and mankind.
The laws of the Creator defined our rights and responsibilities.
The Creator gave us our spiritual beliefs, our languages, our culture, and our place on
Mother Earth which provides us with all our needs.
We have maintained our freedom, our languages, and our traditions form time
immemorial.
We continue to exercise the rights and fulfill the responsibilities and obligations given to
us by the creator for the land upon which we were placed.
The Creator has govern us the right to govern ourselves and the right to
Self-determination.
The rights and responsibilities given to us by the Creator cannot be altered or taken away
by any other Nation.71
Bibliography:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

70

Cairns, Alan C.. Citizens Plus Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press, 2000.
Aboriginal Self-determination. Ed. Frank Cassidy. Lantzville, B.C: Oolichan Books, &
Halifax, NS: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1991.
As Long As The Sun Shines and Water Flows. Eds. Ian Getty and Antoine Lussier.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1983.
McFarlane, Peter. Brotherhood to Nationhood George Manuel and the Making of the
Modern Indian Movement. Toronto: Between the Lines, 1993.
Nation to Nation Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada. Eds. Diane Engelstad
and John Bird. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press Ltd., 1992.

Ibid, Smith, 188.

Ibid, Getty & Lussier, A Declaration of First Nations, Assembly of First Nations Conference, December
1980, signed by Chief, Charles Wood, Chairman, Council of Chiefs and Delbert Riley, President, National
Indian Brotherhood, 337.
71

6.

Federal Policy Guide Aboriginal Self-government, The Government of Canadas Approach

to Implementation of the Inherent Right and Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-government.
Published under authority of Hon. Ronald A. Irwin and Hon. Anne McLellan. Ottawa, 1995.
7. A Time For Change: An Agenda of Respect for All Canadians. The Canadian Alliance Reform
Partys (unofficial) policy guide. Printed in Canada: 2000
8. Kulchyski, P. Professor. Distance Education Course in Native Studies 110.6. University of
Saskatchewan, SIAST Woodland Campus, Prince Albert, SK, 1988-89.
9. The Quotable Spirit. Eds. Peter Lorie & Manuela Dunn Mascetti. Boston: Castle Books,
1996.
10. Smith, Dan. The Seventh Fire: The Struggle for Aboriginal Government. Toronto: Key
Porter Books Ltd., 1993.