During the 1950s, the Canadian federal government enacted policies to relocate Inuit families from their homes in Inukjuak, located in northern Quebec, to the remote High Arctic areas of Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. Their traditional homeland provided all they needed to sustain, including plenty of caribou and other game to hunt, which was a stark contrast from the veritable wasteland that the Inuit found themselves in when they arrived.

It became immediately clear that they had been duped by the government into accepting a barren arctic desert as their new home. The effects of the relocation were devastating. Compounding the issue of sparse hunting opportunity was the federal government’s failure to provide the people with any form of housing, leaving the Inuit to try to survive in Igloos and tents. The struggle for food and shelter in the desolate north left many dead.

On August 18, 2010—five decades after relocation—Canada’s Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development John Duncan officially apologized on behalf of the federal government. “The government of Canada deeply regrets the mistakes and broken promises of this dark chapter of our history and apologizes for the High Arctic relocation having taken place,” said Duncan as he stood before a group of Inuit residents in Inukjuak, Quebec. “They were not provided with adequate shelter and supplies. They were not properly informed of how far away and how different from Inukjuak their new homes would be, and they were not aware that they would be separated into two communities once they arrived in the High Arctic … Moreover, the government failed to act on its promise to return anyone that did not wish to stay in the High Arctic to their old homes.”

The apology appears to be widely welcomed as a step towards healing by those in the community who were affected by the relocations. But as contrite as the Indian Affairs Minister was in his apology, other events currently unfolding make it painfully obvious that the federal government has simply not learned from their many, many mistakes.

Doing right, yet getting it wrong

On February 24, 2010 the mayor of Halifax, Nova Scotia apologized for the evictions and razing of the African-Canadian community of Africville during the 1960s. At that time, I laid the charge that an apology for the “what” and the “how” that happened in the past, but which does not address the “why,” is in itself a failure. This is especially true if the same underlying “why” still persists after the apology is made. While Duncan’s apology to the Inuit has been a very long time coming and is important to the people affected by the federal government’s interference and broken promises, it still amounts to a failure because the government is doing nothing to change the underlying behavior for which it has apologized.

While Duncan was delivering his apology to the Inuit of Inukjuak, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was going forward with the draconian act of imposing a new Chief and Council on Barriere Lake, an Algonquin band located on unceded territory in Quebec about 300 kilometers (190 miles) north of Ottawa, Ontario. The community of Barriere Lake, who have a long established traditional system of self-governing called the Mitchikanibikok Anishinabe Onakinakewin, have widely denounced the decision by INAC. Casey Ratt, who is the Band Council Chief appointed by INAC, has refused the position.

The actions of INAC are not only undemocratic, they are also a violation of section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act which the Canadian government has affirmed protects “the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right.” The reason that the INAC feels that they are entitled to impose their decision concerning such matters upon the Algonquins of Barriere Lake—and the reason the federal government gives INAC a pass at circumventing the Constitution—is found buried in the federal legislation concerning government policy with regards to First Nations. I am speaking specifically about section 74 of the Indian Act, which allows the Minister of Indian Affairs to impose its own electoral system and its results on a community “whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band.”

It is widely believed that the reasoning behind INAC invoking this obscure section of the Indian Act—a provision which has only been used three times in Canadian history, the last being in 1924 against the Haudenosaunee government—is, in the words of community spokesperson Marylynn Poucachiche, “to sever our connection to the land, which is maintained by our traditional political system. They don’t want to deal with a strong leadership and a community that demands the governments honour signed agreements regarding the exploitation of our lands and resources.” It’s an old tactic we’ve seen many times before: destabilize, install, control. In this particular case, the government’s end goal is to exploit the community’s land.

When it comes to fully understanding the many complicated issues facing the First Nations, it is almost impossible to do so without also discussing the aforementioned Indian Act and understanding its history. So let’s dive in together…

An Act Respecting… whom?

For those who are not familiar, the ironically titled An Act Respecting Indians (R.S., 1985, c. I-5)—commonly known by its legal short name as the Indian Act—is a federal statute that originated in 1876. It is the legal embodiment of the government’s long standing policy to coerce the First Nations people (whom the Act identifies as “Indian”), through paternalistic and oppressive policies and practices, to assimilate into the dominant white British-Canadian culture. Historically the Indian Act has been, in effect, a blueprint for apartheid and cultural genocide.

As the legal thumb used by the federal government to systematically oppress the First Nations people, the Indian Act, at different times through different amendments, has been used to shape and control every aspect of their lives by, for example: placing bans on traditional ceremonies and dances (1885); allowing the forced removal of Indians from reserves near towns with more than 8,000 residents (1905);  allowing municipalities and companies to expropriate portions of reserves, without surrender, to be used for public works such as roads and railways (1911); requiring western Indians to obtain official permission from the government before appearing in “aboriginal costume” in any “dance, show, exhibition, stampede or pageant” (1914);  preventing anyone, whether Indian or not, from soliciting funds for First Nations legal claims without a special license from the Superintendent-General, thereby preventing First Nations people from being able to pursue land claims (1927). In 1930 an amendment was added to make it an offense for pool hall owners to allow entrance to a First Nations person who “by inordinate frequenting of a pool room either on or off an Indian reserve misspends or wastes his time or means to the detriment of himself, his family or household”; the list goes on and on.

Annihilation through assimilation

It is under this Act that native languages were at one time outlawed and the infamous residential schools — for which the Canadian government also formally apologized on June 11, 2008 — were established. Through the Indian Act, the federal government even took upon itself to dictate which individuals were and were not “status Indians.” The goal of these policies and practices was to create an environment so oppressive that the First Nations people would chose to escape by giving up their traditions, their culture and their identities and assimilate into white British-Canadian society. Assimilation has always been and remains the desired effect of the Indian Act. It is, in short, the Canadian government’s Final Solution to what is sees as its “Indian problem.”

In 1969, then Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chretien (who would latter become Canada’s 20^thPrime Minister from 1993-2003) proposed a policy that advocated the total assimilation of the First Nations people by abolishing the Indian Act, rejecting all land claims and treaties, and striping the First Nations of their status. This document is aptly, and without any sense of irony, known as The White Paper. The following year, Harold Cardinal and Indian Chiefs of Alberta presented “Citizens Plus,” their response which became known as The Red Paper.

Made in Canada™

The policies and practices outlined by the Indian Act should sound dreadfully familiar; they were the template for some of the brutal policies of both Germany’s Nazi and South Africa’s National Party regimes. While the term “Final Solution” is infamously known as Heinrich Himmler’s plan for the total systematic extermination of the European Jewish population—the plan which Adolph Hitler referred to as “the final solution of the Jewish question”—the term was actually coined first by Duncan Campbell Scott,. Scott, who was the Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913-1932, coined the term in 1910 in reference to what the Canadian government called their “Indian Problem.” In his April 12, 1910 letter to B.C. Indian Agent General Major D. McKay regarding the high levels of deaths due to communicable diseases (such as tuberculosis) in the residential schools, Scott writes:

“It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.”

The bantustans set up by the South African National Party to segregate the Black African population were modeled after the native reservation systems set-up by the governments of Canada, as well as those of Australia and the United States. Many of the apartheid laws and policies are so similar to those of the Indian Act that one would think they were penned by the same hand.

Talking out both sides

The duality of a government’s words and actions is perhaps the most common thread to exist among them at all levels, in all countries, throughout time immemorial. What makes the hypocrisy in this instance even more frustrating than usual is when it comes wrapped in contrition for deeds done in the past while simultaneously conducting the same practices and operating from the same mindset that begat those very deeds.

Since the Canadian government, despite which political party is seated, appears to be bent on continuing these policies and practices, it is up to the people to be proactive. We must voice our concerns to our elected officials and to put pressure on the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Indian Affairs Quebec Regional Director to cease their interference and to respect the First Nations’ inherent right to self-government as recognized by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

The 2010 winter Olympics kicked off in Vancouver, British Columbia with its opening ceremonies on Friday, February 12, 2010. Being perhaps one of the least athletically-minded people on the planet, I wasn’t even aware the ceremonies were happening until comments started flooding my Twitter timeline. I would have ignored the tweets were it not for the praise people were giving for my country’s tribute to our indigenous peoples, which immediately started to give me the creeps. Let me explain…

The Aboriginal peoples of Canada are comprised of three groups: First Nations, which is actually comprised of hundreds of distinct nations or bands (such as the Mohawk Nation and the Algonquins, for example); the Inuit, who inhabit the Arctic and subarctic regions of Canada (no, they are not “Eskimos”); and the Métis, who are of mixed Aboriginal and European (mostly French) ancestry. According to the 2006 Canadian Census, the Aboriginal population of Canada is 1,172,790, which makes up 3.8% of Canada’s population of 31,612,897. The Census counted 698,025 First Nations people which is 59.5% of the Aboriginal population and only 2.2% of the overall Canadian population.

The opening ceremonies were indeed a beautifully choreographed and brilliantly executed event, and the inclusion of Canadian indigenous culture in the ceremony is not the only place where Aboriginal culture is being featured in the winter Olympics. The logo of the 2010 Olympics contains the Inuksuk, which has deep cultural roots for the Inuit people. With all this tribute to Canada’s first peoples, you would think Canadians in general have a deep respect and love for them and their culture. The truth is that all this “inclusion” is right in line with Canada’s theme of parading multiculturalism and Aboriginal heritage when it suites us to do so.

I might have been able to enjoy the exhibition if not for the fact that Canada has very serious issues when it comes to the treatment and attitude towards its Aboriginal people. According to Phil Fontaine, the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, “As far as Aboriginal people are concerned, racism in Canadian society continues to invade our lives institutionally, systematically, and individually.” For example, the First Nations peoples suffer disproportionately higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and incarceration; substance abuse and suicide rates in some areas, such as the northern coast of Labrador, are so high they qualify as epidemics. The general attitude of Canadians is classic blaming the victim; no consideration is given to the systemic abuse the Aboriginal community has historically been subjected to.

Whenever a group of Aboriginals engage in any non-violent action of protest to bring attention to their struggle, the op eds and letters to the editor more often than not express opinions ranging from mild disapproval—criticizing their “confrontational” tactics while being obtuse to the fact that more diplomatic or litigious tactics had already been tried and failed—to outright racist vitriol—typically characterizing Aboriginal people as drunk, lazy ingrates living off of welfare, etc. Even some of my more progressive, liberal-minded acquaintances have made blanket comments about Aboriginal people that left me both stunned and embarrassed for all involved.

In northern British Columbia, there is a 716-kilometer (445-mile) section of the Trans-Canada highway that runs between Prince George (near the Rocky Mountain Trench) and Prince Rupert (which is just south of the British Columbia-Alaska border) that has come to be known as the “Highway of Tears.” Since 1969, at least 32 women—many of whom are Aboriginal—have been killed or have suspiciously disappeared along this stretch of road. For decades, these deaths and disappearances have received minor if any interest from law enforcement. This is just one instance of the systemic absenteeism and institutionalized racism Canada’s Aboriginals have had to deal with for a very, very long time.

With all that in mind, you will have to forgive me for being a “party pooper” when it comes to this so-called tribute. While a beautiful spectacle it may be, it’s little more than lip service. The only time Canada really seems to care about the First Nations, Inuit and Métis is when it serves the national self-image. You may think me cynical, but this little dog and pony show is nothing more than a farce unless it can lead to serious consideration for the justice and needs of the Aboriginal people.