Living in the long shadow of paternalism

The Canadian landscape is a palimpsest, a tableau upon which the Canadian identity has been constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed many times over. It is a testament to former national ideals and societal attitudes as much as it is to present ones – where the past bleeds through, thinly veiled by modern and forward thinking. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Canadian policy dealing with Aboriginal peoples. Throughout Canadian history much concern has been voiced over harmonizing the ‘two solitudes’ of Canada’s founding nations – the French and the English – but in doing so, the third and most vulnerable solitude – the Aboriginal Peoples – who thrived on the Canadian landscape long before the Europeans ever dreamt of its existence has been ignored.
 

In an era of heightened social consciousness, where demands for greater Native rights and equalities are acknowledged and accepted by much of Canadian society, including the state itself, the federal government clings to out-dated and prejudiced Native policies. These policies have institutionalized the marginalization of Aboriginals both on and off-reserves. Whether in rural or urban settings Aboriginal peoples face social exclusion from the greater Canadian population, profoundly impacting on the social cohesion of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultures, thus exacerbating the divide between the two, and eroding the greater Canadian social fabric.
 

It is beyond the scope of this commentary to explore in fine detail the rhetoric behind Ottawa’s Native policies, but a proper understanding of the current Aboriginal situation requires consideration of the flavour of past relationships between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. Native policies, created under the influence of past societal attitudes and ideals regarding Aboriginals, have, in turn, shaped the future of Aboriginal populations for centuries. The most crucial Native policy enacted by Ottawa, the Indian Act came into power within a decade of Confederation.
 

To this day, the Indian Act of 1876 and its later amendments still define the relationship between Ottawa and the Aboriginal peoples. Its powers are sweeping, as it establishes a wide range of social, cultural, economic and political provisions, including conditions regarding band membership and local authority, land allocation and sale, natural resources and agriculture, financial support, taxation and benefits, education, enfranchisement and measures to control morality.
 

The creation of this policy was, in some part, driven by the expansionist desires of a burgeoning, infant nation for more land and resources, but it was also fuelled by the societal opinions of the era. These societal opinions are apparent in the powers of the Act itself - the legislation is imbued with both European paternalism and ideologies of moral superiority. The fact that the Act sets Native lands aside to be held under the guardianship of the federal government, or that there are restrictions in place on the sale of Native lands and the consumption of alcohol suggests that the broader  Canadian public felt Aboriginal populations were incapable of protecting their best interests.
 

Also born from the notion of European paternalism was the reserve system, although some reserves were established well before the Indian Act was endorsed. Both colonial and Canadian powers believed that the reserve could be used to protect Native populations – from themselves as much as from the greater evils of society – and to aid in their integration into the broader Canadian society with the introduction of Christianization and assimilation projects on reserves. The reserve system and the Indian Act, however, failed terribly in their attempts to assimilate Aboriginal populations. Instead, the Indian Act coupled with the reserve system left Native populations to suffer under a form of institutionalized, domestic colonialism which differentiated the Aboriginal population, their land and resources, and their socio-political position from the rest of the Canadian population.
 

Canadian protectionist intervention, then, brought with it a number of new and troubling changes. It saw the replacement of traditional Aboriginal government with bands whose powers were limited by the federal government, as well as the expropriation of former Native lands and resources. It also imposed on the Aboriginal communities new and unfamiliar systems of land allocation, financing and non-Aboriginal concepts on familial values. Forced relocation, the introduction of Indian agents, mandatory residential schooling for Aboriginal children to educate them in the moral and dominate ways of civilized society, and the banning of significant cultural practices for many Aboriginal nations, like the potlatch in 1884 and the sun dance in 1885, were culturally devastating, the effects of which have resulted in generations of family breakdown, high rates of violent death, child abuse, alcohol and substance abuse, and suicide.
 

Thus the state of the Aboriginal peoples today, both on and off reserves, is the legacy of Native policies. Aboriginal underdevelopment can be attributed to the loss of land and sovereignty, cultural deterioration, lack of educational opportunities, and job market discrimination due to both geographic location and societal attitudes.
 

For many Natives living on reserves, educational and employment opportunities are often restricted, due, in part, to their remote locations. Geography makes it difficult to attract and maintain the investment capital needed for growth – as such, the consumer health and educational opportunities that usually follow development are lost as well. The constraints of many Native and non-Native policies – particularly the Indian Act, but including the Fisheries Act and other international trade regulations – also frustrates economic development for many Aboriginal communities. For example, the Indian Act contains a clause that is meant to protect Indian reserve land against liens, taxes, and loss due to debt. In doing so, however, it prevents the mortgaging of reserve lands which hinders the ability of Aboriginal communities to raise outside capital for the financing of development projects. As a result, these communities are usually left reliant upon the federal government for capital, especially when resource extraction and industrial expansion on Native lands is controlled by governmental agencies, with very few of the benefits obtained from such practices passed on to the Native communities themselves.
 

The federal government has extended transfer payments to Native communities in the form social assistance programs and old-age security benefits, but the argument can be made that it has been done out of a paternalistic obligation. Likewise, some would also contend that these payments haven’t truly helped Native populations, creating, instead, an endemic welfare dependency on the part of Aboriginal communities for government support.
 

It is these factors, then – high rates of unemployment and underemployment due to stunted economic growth, and a welfare dependency on the federal government – that have contributed to a state of deprivation among Aboriginal communities on reserves. Depravity, in turn, creates and perpetuates poor social conditions, which lead to the erosion of family units, and increased rates of violence, alcohol and substance abuse, and suicide. As a result, Aboriginal Canadians have lower life expectancies than non-Aboriginal Canadians - 7 years less for Aboriginal men, and 5 years less for Aboriginal women – and are over-represented in the criminal justice system according to Statistics Canada data from 2001.
 

Not all Aboriginals live on reserves however. According to the same data from Statistics Canada, nearly 70% of those who reported having an Aboriginal identity were living off-reserve, with about 49% of those people living in urban areas. Although these people still very much value their cultural heritage and identity, they often move away because they feel constricted by the greater social and economic restrictions of reserve life. Most leave in search of better jobs, better housing, and greater access to social services and education, recognizing the amenities and opportunities cities hold for themselves and their families.
 

The move to urban areas, however, is not always easy, as it requires both social and psychological adjustments. Aboriginals who move away from reserves aren’t just leaving their communities – they’re leaving behind their people, their culture, their history, and their traditional familial support systems. As well, the economic challenges facing Aboriginal populations within an urban area are also often discouraging. Many Aboriginal people move into urban areas to purposely escape the economic disparity of the reserve only to find that similar economic conditions face them in the city – high rates or unemployment and underemployment, and low wages.
 

Inadequate housing and homelessness also threaten the success of Natives within an urban setting. The high rates of unemployment and social assistance, coupled with low incomes, force Aboriginal families into increasingly poor neighbourhoods. In these ghettoized neighbourhoods education levels and employment rates are lower than in other neighbourhoods of the city, and social conditions deteriorate accordingly. These bad neighbourhoods have destructive dynamics, exacerbating a culture of poverty characterized by high crime rates, substance abuse, high drop-out rates and familial tensions.

Within urban centres discrimination of Aboriginals is also quite prevalent. Natives are met with discrimination from landlords and employers, and often feel that racism that has been institutionalized within the health care, social services, judicial and educational systems. Racism not only contributes to the marginalization of Aboriginals in poor urban neighbourhoods, but it may also inhibit the ability for Native populations to adjust to urban living, further fostering familial and personal tensions and creating an environment for substance abuse and domestic violence. These social conditions, as well as being detrimental to the social cohesion of communities, only serve to reinforce our stereotypes regarding Aboriginals and perpetuate the cycle of discrimination.     
 

Both the public and various levels of the government acknowledge that there is an unnecessary disparity between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals, and many are quick to point out, including the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, that much of the marginalization felt by Aboriginal communities is due to out-dated and paternalistic strategies, as the government continues to cling to the Indian Act as its primary Native policy. Equally troubling, however, is the lack of policy regarding the large population of Natives living off-reserve. In recent years there has been an influx of Aboriginal concerns brought to the forefront of Canadian politics, yet the vast majority deal with concerns relevant on reserves – financing, land claims, sovereignty issues etc. These concerns are all extremely valid, but so too are the concerns of the impoverished urban Aboriginal populations across the country.
 

It’s time that Canadian Native policy came to reflect the modern realities facing many Aboriginals – that participation in the broader Canadian society, while still maintaining close cultural ties to their people, language and the land, is not only possible, but can be accomplished without living on a reserve.