Canada is a complex country. It was only a matter of time before the wave of Canadian patriotism and nationalism that has been swapping into the country since the election of Donald Trump brings together consciences all that Canada has … complex.
Well, we are there. This country is, among other things, a colony of settlement built by and for the extraction of natural resources in Aboriginal territories, and therefore in perpetual tension with indigenous rights. It will only have taken a few months for the economic nationalism of our governments and the fever of acceleration for the development of energy projects that it involves revive the political tensions between indigenous and non -Aboriginal leaders. We’re right in it.
I’m talking about two different protest movements, which are completely connected in terms of ideas.
First in Ottawa, there was the adoption under the gag of bill C-5, the law on the unity of the Canadian economy, the objective of which is to accelerate the implementation of major energy projects. In doing so, the ministerial cabinet has granted more powers and has also weakened the capacity of civil society and indigenous peoples to be heard on the major projects in question. The main indigenous groups have tried to share their concerns and submit amendments, which have been rejected.
Demonstrations were organized on 1is July, on the occasion of Canada’s Day in several communities in northern Ontario. Other mobilizations could follow. Mark Carney promised to meet the main Aboriginal leaders in July: he will visibly seek to lower the tension. He will surely argue that one of the criteria of the law specifies that projects must make the “promotion of the interests of indigenous peoples”. Except that this criterion, you see, is optional.
Basically, the federalty responds to indigenous concerns by promising to be … good prince. He wants to be able to decide more autocratically and direct, but he assures us that he will make sensitive decisions. This is not that constitutional guarantees and the right of peoples to self -determination work. Especially since a law remains in place for a long time: nothing indicates that a less “benevolent” Prime Minister would refrain from using it to accelerate the destruction of territories as essential to maintaining cultures.
If Carney fails to lower tensions, he could deal with the first major social movement of his mandate as Prime Minister. The Idle No More movement has ignited in 2012 in similar circumstances. The Harper government had adopted the Omnibus C-45 law, which notably changed the laws on fisheries, navigable waters and environmental assessments, in addition to the Indian Act. The title of the law? “Employment and growth law”. We see the ideological parallel with law C-5 which concerns us today. The movement had mobilized a whole generation and contributed to educating the general public to the ways of piloting relations between Aboriginals and allochthones with mutual respect.
Thirteen years later: are we due for a collective reminder?
Pressure has also been in Quebec since the presentation of Bill 97 on the “modernization of the Quebec forest regime”. Here too we seem to believe that modernizing means minimizing certain indigenous rights: this is why this law arouses strong oppositions, especially among attikameks, anichinabés and the Innu. Since dialogue seems to be almost at downtime with the Caquist government, we use a set of tactics to be heard: disseminating press releases, multiplying communications, but also sending expulsion opinions and blocking the path to forestry companies that operate in traditional territories. Some of these companies themselves seek to maintain more peaceful relationships with the nations concerned and put pressure on Quebec to resolve the dead end.
The stake is similar to the one who had fueled the dead end with the Wet’suwet’en, in British Columbia, on the construction of a pipeline in 2020. In addition to the band’s advice, elected officials mainly for all that relates to the administration of “reserves”, there are hereditary leaders who draw their traditional systems authorities and see the defense of the whole ancestral territory as their responsibility. When these hereditary leaders exerts a strong influence on communities and the government does not recognize them as relevant interlocutors, we sometimes arrive at political dead ends. In short, beyond the constitutional right to be consulted, the question of which must be consulted, how, when and to what extent, has never been completely settled in the Canadian system. Periodically, the problem goes back to the surface.
The most tragic, both in Quebec and Ottawa, is that these are quite avoidable problems. There would be quite a means of working with the first peoples upstream, directly at the drawing table, when it comes to projects on the territory, which would allow us to have access to more complete knowledge and a more intelligently thought economy.
One could see that the old mentalities which consider the indigenous peoples as obstacles rather than as allies are in fact self -fulfilling: they lead to methods which effectively create obstacles rather than allies. As well as delays.
In fact, the best way to support the Canadian economy is to accelerate reconciliation. Let us see how long – even generations of social movements – it will be necessary before the lesson percola with our leaders.
Anthropologist, Emilie Nicolas is a columnist at Dutyin Radio-Canada and CBC.
