Canada update: A Speech from the Throne and a UN Report

He delivered his preliminary findings in a press conference and on his website on October 15th, 2013. October 16th saw the delivery of the Parliamentary Throne Speech, prepared by the federal government and presented by the Governor General at the opening of the new session of parliament. The purpose of this speech is generally to report on the condition of the nation and to outline the legislative agenda for the next session of parliament. It also, consequently, represents how the federal government views its relationship with Aboriginal peoples and issues. Anaya’s report, similarly, represents the views of many Aboriginal people in Canada, as well as the UN’s view of Canada’s handling of its relationship with indigenous peoples. Needless to say, there are discrepancies between the two reports.

Natural Resources: Canada’s National Inheritance?
Natural resources were one issue on which the two documents diverged. The Throne Speech described Canada’s natural resources as “national inheritance”, to be shared with all Canadians, explaining that “for Canadians to benefit fully from our natural resources, we must be able to sell them.”  In selling them, Aboriginal people “must have every opportunity to benefit”. But the throne speech says nothing of Indigenous people controlling resources, and says nothing about what happens when Indigenous peoples are instead disadvantaged by resource extraction.

An Aboriginal Response
Almost as it to illustrate the need for Aboriginal involvement in resource management, the day after the Throne speech was read an anti-fracking protest movement in New Brunswick, mostly led by the Elsipogtog Mi’kmaq First Nation, came to a violent climax. After months of peaceful protests, protestors seeking consultation in regards to fracking initiatives on Mi’kmaq traditional territories raised a blockade to prevent the Texas-based SWN Resources from accessing some of their equipment. On October 17th, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were sent to dismantle the blockade, equipped with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and attack dogs. Protesters retaliated, and after 12 hours of conflict and over 40 arrests, RCMP vacated the area. This entire conflict is taking place on land that, according to a 1999 Supreme Court decision, has never been ceded.

Though James Anaya left Canada a few days before the Elsipogtog incident, in his primary findings he states that he is worried by the tendency of the Canadian government to allow resource extraction on contested Aboriginal territories, and the without free, prior, and informed consent of the Aboriginal peoples who may be affected. Elsipogtog is evidence of this tendency, and continues to be. For recent news on the continuing Elsipogtog/SWN conflict, see here.

The divergences between the two statements did not end with land and resource management. Both statements reported resoundingly different views on a number of issues, such as the case of missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada, and the proposed First Nations Education Act. It can be said that, in general, there was a pronounced disconnect between the two statements – a disconnect that is most obvious in regard to the impressions they give about the general relationship between Aboriginal peoples and governments in Canada.

A Partnership or a Crisis?
In reference to this relationship, the Throne Speech builds on the narrative of pioneership – a tactic that has been used by the federal government in re-forming Canada’s national mythology. Governor General David Johnston reads:

[W]e draw inspiration from our founders, leaders of courage and audacity. Nearly 150 years ago, they looked beyond narrow self-interest. They faced down incredible challenges—geographic, military, and economic. They were undaunted. They dared to seize the moment that history offered. Pioneers, then few in number, reached across a vast continent. They forged an independent country where none would have otherwise existed.

Many critics have come to feel that this sort of rhetoric, dismissive of Aboriginal histories and contributions, is symptomatic of the Harper government’s policies directed towards Aboriginal peoples. Many likewise criticize the rest of the Throne Speech for failing to meaningfully address pressing Aboriginal issues, instead discussing them as side-notes to other, more ‘relevant’ Canadian issues. Similarly, what was mentioned in the Throne Speech lacks any sort of reflection on the year of protest and unrest that has characterized government-Aboriginal relations; the Idle No More movement made headlines all year and the conflict at Elsipogtog has since reinvigorated the movement. Instead, Aboriginal-government relations were summed up with the following quotation: “And our government will continue to work in partnership with Aboriginal peoples to create healthy, prosperous, self-sufficient communities”.

Anaya, on the other hand, paints his impressions of Aboriginal issues in Canada as decidedly more difficult and complex than the picture of partnership and pioneership that the Throne Speech illustrates. He describes how the well-being gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians has not narrowed over the last several years, that treaty and Aboriginal claims “remain persistently unresolved”, and that “overall there appear to be high levels of distrust among aboriginal peoples toward government at both the federal and provincial levels”. It seems then that, according to both the Aboriginal peoples of Canada and the UN Special Rapporteur, rather than having a secure partnership between Aboriginal peoples and the state, Canada instead “faces a crisis when it comes to the situation of indigenous peoples of the country”.

By Ellen Dobrowolski and Chelsea Mackay,
Students on the Master’s in Indigenous Studies program, UiT The Arctic University of Norway.