11 Relocation of Aboriginal Communities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 1 - Looking Forward Looking Back PART TWO False Assumptions and a Failed Relationship 11 Relocation of Aboriginal Communities AS EUROPEANS ARRIVED on the shores of North America, one of the principal effects on Aboriginal peoples, almost from the beginning of contact, was physical displacement from their traditional hunting and fishing territories and residential locations. Our overview of the history of Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations in Chapters 3 to 6 revealed that geographical displacement took many forms. While the Beothuk are believed to have resisted the earliest incursions on their lands, other Aboriginal peoples gave way and moved to locations more distant from the incoming Europeans. As we have seen, some nations were drawn into French/British, British/American and other conflicts of the 1600s and 1700s, and lost their traditional homelands as a direct or indirect result. As settlers replaced soldiers in their territories — often taking over choice coastal, riverfront and agricultural lands — Aboriginal people had to abandon their traditional hunting, fishing and residential lands. They also saw their homelands restricted and often changed as a result of land purchase agreements, the treaty-making process, and the establishment of reserves. In more recent times, the displacement of Aboriginal people has often taken the form of deliberate initiatives by governments to move particular Aboriginal communities for administrative or development purposes. We use the term 'relocations' to describe these forms of displacement, which are the subject of this chapter. As illustrated by the dramatic relocation of Inuit from Inukjuak, Quebec and Pond Inlet on Baffin Island to the High Arctic in the 1950s, and by the current situation of the Mushuau Innu of Labrador in the province of Newfoundland, the relocation of Aboriginal communities continues to be an issue. Following special hearings on the High Arctic relocation and the release of our report on the matter in July 1994, we stated that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples would have more to say on the subject of relocation. This chapter continues our examination of how the issue has affected other Aboriginal peoples.1 In our report on the High Arctic relocation, we called upon the federal government to recognize that moving 92 Inuit to Grise Fiord and Craig Harbour on Ellesmere Island and to Resolute Bay on Cornwallis Island was wrong. We heard testimony from people who endured hardships in an alien land far from their homes and families. Our research showed that the Inuit were not given enough information about the move or about the 395 conditions they would face. We concluded that they could not be said to have given their informed consent to the move. Promises made by government officials were not kept, the relocation was poorly planned and executed, and there was little monitoring of its effects afterward. The report recommended that the government apologize to the relocatees and their descendants and negotiate compensation. After weighing all the evidence, the High Arctic relocation seemed to us a prime example of how erroneous assumptions by administrators concerning Aboriginal people can lead to abuses of authority and power. We believe that a March 1995 statement about the High Arctic relocation by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ron Irwin, is a good first step in a process of reconciliation. The minister said that, "no matter how well intentioned, such a major undertaking involving the movement of people would not be done in the same way today."2 In this chapter we examine other relocations to demonstrate that the High Arctic case was not unique. We believe that relocations must be seen as part of a broader process of dispossession and displacement, a process with lingering effects on the cultural, spiritual, social, economic and political aspects of people's lives. We are troubled by the way relocations may have contributed to the general malaise gripping so many Aboriginal communities and to the incidence of violence, directed outward and inward. As we noted in our report on suicide, the effects of past oppression live on in the feelings of anger and inadequacy from which Aboriginal people are struggling to free themselves.3 Governments saw relocation as providing an apparent solution for a number of specific problems. As we show in this chapter, government administrators saw Aboriginal people as unsophisticated, poor, outside modern society and generally incapable of making the right choices. Confronted with the enormous task of adapting to 'modern' society, they faced numerous problems that government believed could be solved only with government assistance. If they appeared to be starving, they could be moved to where game was more plentiful. If they were sick, they could be placed in new communities where health services and amenities such as sewers, water and electricity were available. If they were thought to be 'indolent', the new communities would provide education and training facilities, which would lead to integration into the wage economy. If they were in the way of expanding agricultural frontiers or happened to occupy land needed for urban settlements, they could be moved 'for their own protection'. And if their traditional lands contained natural resources — minerals to be exploited, forests to be cut, rivers to be dammed — they could be relocated 'in the national interest'. Justifying its actions by this attitude of paternalism, Canada used its power in an arbitrary manner. Decisions were made with little or no consultation. Communities were relocated on short notice. People's entire lives were disrupted if governments believed it was in their interests to do so. Few Canadians would tolerate the degree of interference in their lives that Aboriginal people have had to endure. In many cases, relocation separated Aboriginal people from their homelands and destroyed their ability to be economically self-sufficient. This loss of economic livelihood contributed to a decline in living standards, social and health problems, and a breakdown of political leadership. As we 396 will see, these effects are evident in varying combinations in all the relocations discussed in this chapter. There have been instances of non-Aboriginal relocations in Canada, but we are concentrating here on those that affected Aboriginal people because they illustrate so starkly the problems in the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies. The three traditional goals of Canada's policy toward Aboriginal people — protection, civilization and assimilation4 — were all expressed through relocation at one time or another, reflecting attitudes as old as the relationship itself. Our research indicates that the practice of relocation was widespread. There are dozens of examples, some of which are only touched on in this chapter, and they took place throughout Canada. Many Aboriginal communities are still feeling the emotional, social, economic, cultural and spiritual effects of being moved. Some are seeking recognition of their suffering, and redress. Others, anticipating future government-sponsored moves, want to ensure that these relocations are done properly. The goal of this chapter is to increase awareness and understanding about the role relocation has played in the lives of Aboriginal people and the role it continues to play in communities such as Tsulquate and Burns Lake in British Columbia, Easterville and Tadoule Lake in Manitoba, and Makkovik and Davis Inlet, Labrador, in Newfoundland. The chapter sheds light on relocation practices, their effects and their implications for Aboriginal communities today, providing a foundation for recommendations to resolve outstanding community claims involving relocation. The material in this chapter also offers guidelines to ensure that future relocations, such as that planned for the Innu of Davis Inlet, are carried out in accordance with standards that respect the human rights of Aboriginal people. 1. Why Relocations Took Place Relocation was used to solve specific problems perceived by government or other agencies. In some cases, relocation was part of other changes in the lives of Aboriginal people — changes that were often the result of other government policies. Our analysis shows that although there have been many reasons for relocation, and these reasons cannot always be neatly separated, the moves can be grouped into two main categories: administrative relocation and development relocation. 1.1 Administrative Relocations Administrative relocations are moves carried out to facilitate the operation of government or address the perceived needs of Aboriginal people. Facilitating government operations was the rationale for many relocations in the era following the Second World War. Aboriginal people were often moved to make it easier for government administrators to provide the growing number of services and programs 397 becoming available through the burgeoning welfare state. We examined several moves of this type because they illustrate both the erroneous assumptions made about Aboriginal ways of life and the arbitrary use of power by government officials. Relocation in this category often involved centralization and amalgamation — moving widely dispersed or different populations into a common community. The centralization of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in the 1940s was an example of a relocation carried out primarily to cut the administrative costs of government services