A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy

e a new look at canadian indian policy A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy Respect the Collective—Promote the Individual by Gordon Gibson FRASER I N S T I T U T E Fraser Institute 2009 Copyright ©2009 by the Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief passages quoted in critical articles and reviews. The author of this book has worked independently and opinions expressed by him are, therefore, his own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the supporters, trustees, or staff of the Fraser Institute. This publication in no way implies that the Fraser Institute, its trustees, or staff are in favor of, or oppose the passage of, any bill; or that they support or oppose any particular political party or candidate. Date of issue: January 2009 Printed and bound in Canada Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Gibson, Gordon, 1937– A new look at Canadian Indian policy : respect the collective— promote the individual / Gordon Gibson. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-88975-243-6 1. Indians of North America--Canada--Government relations. 2. Indians of North America--Legal status, laws, etc.--Canada. 3. Subsidiarity. 4. Indians of North America--Canada--Politics and government. I. Fraser Institute (Vancouver, B.C.) II. Title. E9-2.G43 2008 322.1197'071 C2008-907617-6 Contents Foreword / v Introduction Where we begin / 3 Chapter 1 Intent and context / 13 Chapter 2 History and law / 33 Chapter 3 The existing situation / 81 Chapter 4 Principles / 107 Chapter 5 Treaties, governance, and other arrangements / 153 Chapter 6 Where to from here? / 199 Appendix The Indian land question in British Columbia / 237 by Paul Tennant References / 253 www.fraserinstitute.org u Fraser Institute Foreword In what follows, I argue that the estate of the Indian people of Canada is the most important moral question in federal politics. The responsibility flows directly to each of us as voters. This book talks about what we, Canadians generally, can do to understand this and what governments can do to dis- charge their responsibilities. In that sense this is not a book that one should read to learn about Indians.1 There are many persons far more knowledgeable on that topic, most particularly the people concerned. Equally, this is not a book on what Indians ought to do. Opinion on that topic is a book that each Indian must write for him- or herself. Rather, my topic is what mainstream society ought to be doing in our Indian policy. I say that the standard model for thinking about Indian policy is fundamentally wrong, giving too much weight to the collective and too little to the individual. But opposition to basic change is immense, the resistance fuelled by habit, thoughtlessness, guilt, the implied loss of intellectual capi- tal that always follows a major re-thinking, and threats to the cash flow and status of workers in the largest failed area of government responsibility in the country. For that reason alone, proposals for change will face criticism, in which honest debate will be difficult in the short term. Some commen- tators will say—with reason—that this book challenges some of the most basic assumptions of established Indian policy. This challenge would not be necessary if established Indian policy was working well, for Indians or anyone else. 1 See “On language,” pp. 18–29, for a note on words and language. In particular, the concepts of “Indian” and “aboriginal” are importantly different. www.fraserinstitute.org u Fraser Institute vi u A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy The recommendations are grounded in the author’s perception of real- ity. Others will see different facts on the ground and have strongly differing views. I respect that. Let us talk. First, why do I say the standard model is fundamentally wrong? In brief, because it presumes and enforces a relationship between the Indian individual and relevant collectives (both Indian and state), which relationship is biased against individual freedom and choice. This relationship, I say, has produced the adverse social outcomes—in health, education, life span, incomes, housing, substance abuse, violence, imprisonment and so on—universally criticized by all. The relationship between the individual and the collective has been the major force in human life from time immemorial but the character of that relationship has evolved over time. Through most of recorded human history, the collective (whether religious or temporal or both) has been in the ascendency in the affairs of ordinary people. Individual liberty was reserved for the leadership. Then came the idea of western liberalism, growing gradu- ally for around two-hundred years now, that to empower all individuals with sufficient information and options is to allow everyone to make the most of their individual lives. From the beginning it has been clear that the individual by himself is virtually nothing while together we can make progress. Experience has led to the establishment of social institutions that can add guidance and assistance to the individual lot while at the same time upholding the social system itself. Ideas of trust and the predictability of the rule of law are the most basic. This is not the place for an essay on social development but it can be said with confidence that this field is subject to constant debate. In our time, different ideas of the relationship between the individual and the collective underlie the tensions between the secular west and Islam. In western societies, some now worry that too much freedom or, more precisely, the irresponsible exercise of freedom can lead to trivial licentiousness. In one dark corner of this long and wide-world drama, a special case of the relationship between individual and collective has been playing out in Canada, especially for the past 150 years, in the lives of native Indians. In this particular corner, the collective assumes an importance unthinkable in the mainstream. Indian policy, imposed by the mainstream on some Canadians— “Indians”—has built for them a world that is both a fortress and a prison. The effects on the individuals within that system have been profound. I believe that there is a growing concern about this. If so, there is an opening to a better future—indeed it has slowly been unfolding for years Fraser Institute u www.fraserinstitute.org Foreword u vii through individual actions. But in spite of good will, pernicious and counter- productive incentives remain to burden an entire people, not just as trailing legacies of the past (like residential schools) but as current active goals of governments and other entities in the system. That is the study of this book. In the longer term, things will sort themselves out for the better as long as we remain a free and liberal society. The only question is how many lives will be wasted in the waiting period, and that is important. The best way to shorten that time frame for betterment is to honestly discuss the issues. What we are doing now is profoundly immoral. The fatal defects in outcomes are not redeemed by the fact that the intentions are in general of the best. The problems in this area are similar to those discussed in the more recent literature on foreign aid (e.g., Easterly, 2006; Calderisi, 2006), which discusses in essence the problems of trying to set other people’s priorities. In our own little Canadian Third World we are guilty of the same mistakes, as what follows will describe. u u u A word about the arrangement of the book, and then the author, and then those he must thank. The introduction, “Where we begin,” supplies a thumbnail sketch of historic context and current statistical and other realities. The first chapter amplifies the historic context and devotes considerable space to a descrip- tion of the words we use in discussing policy. Some of these are ambiguous, some are highly charged, and most of them suffer from difficulties of one sort or another. Yet they are the words we have, so it is important to begin by seeking the greatest possible clarity and objectivity in their use. In a supplementary note to this chapter, the importance of the McIvor case and the implications of C-31 are described as being most important to the long- term demographics. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the history of the Indian peoples and the law that controls their lives. It was Prime Minister Mackenzie King who said that Canada has too much geography and not enough history, by which I think he meant the accumulated social depth of a country like England or the United States, both of which he admired. The Indian people of Canada, by contrast, have a great deal of history, much of it unhappy, which in many cases daily informs their lives to an extent quite unimaginable to most of us. At the same time, judging by land claims, they have too little geography. Many in the mainstream would prefer to forget history and to focus on the www.fraserinstitute.org u Fraser Institute viii u A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy future. That simply will not work in a reconciliation process with people who feel very strongly about their history. We must not only examine it, but understand it. As to law, most of us in the mainstream cannot imagine (nor would we tolerate) the daily basics of our lives being dictated by remote and uncon- trollable law but that is the estate of the Reserve Indian.

Load more