The Red Paper
The Red Paper, also titled "Citizens Plus", is a policy proposal put forward by the Indian Association of Alberta in 1970 under the leadership of Cree political leader Harold Cardinal. The Red Paper was a counter-proposal to the White Paper, a policy put forward by Pierre Trudeau's Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien. The White Paper is also titled 1969 Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy.
On January 22, 1970, the Indian Chiefs of Alberta sent a letter of concern addressed to Pierre Trudeau, in which they stated they had a first draft of a Red Paper counter-proposal and plan to complete the final draft in the near future, for presentation to the federal government. In June 1970, the Red Paper was published.
The White Paper suggested multiple policy changes such as: removal of the definition of "Indian" in the Constitution and of the special legal status of Indians; recognizing and giving credit to Indian cultural contribution to Canadian society; shifting Indian services to flow from the same channels as other Canadians; helping the reserves who are "furthest behind" first through economic development; recognizing the Crown's lawful obligations and transferring Crown lands to the Indian people. These proposals were all set forth, in effort by the Canadian government, to implement what it considered equal status for Indian people among Canadian society. The Red Paper response was the counter-proposal to each of these projects. The alternate policies requested the Canadian government to, in the same order: retain legal Indian status; preserve Indian culture through status, rights, lands and traditions; accept legislative responsibility for Indians; help all tribes rather than just the most impoverished; modernize the treaties and recognize that land title belongs to Indian people held in trust by Crown, rather than belonging to the Crown itself.
Where the White Paper proposed elimination of distinctive legal Indian citizenship, indicating "the full integration" of Indians into Canadian society, the Red Paper suggested a reformation, rather than abolition, of the current Indian policies, as well as several other suggestions.
Historical background
The historical background listed in the Red Paper goes back to when the Crown established treaties with the Indigenous Peoples. The historical events that this sub section looks at are broad main events that have influenced the grievances listed in the Red Paper.Treaties
With plans and ambitions for westward expansion, the Dominion of Canada entered negotiations with the Indigenous peoples who would tend for the land. The Crown sought to cede these lands; as expressed by Joseph Howe, the then Secretary of State of Canada, when he talked about the "necessity of arranging with the bands of Indians inhabiting the tract of the country between Thunder Bay and the Stone Fort, for the cession, subject to certain reserves such as they should select, of the lands occupied by them". While there was never a treaty allowing the cession of reserve land to the federal government, Section 91 of the British North America Act handed the authority of these reserves to the federal government.According to the authors of the Red Paper, the treaty negotiations were made from a position of strength, as the Crown was under the impression that Indigenous groups were in weak bargaining positions. Due to the ceding of the land, benefits were promised to Indigenous Peoples, which were meant to be in perpetuity.
While promises were made to Indigenous groups verbally, these promises were not always reflected in the written treaties themselves. These promises created a disparity between what was orally promised and what was transcribed in the treaties. While Treaty 6 said that Indigenous Peoples have the right to pursue hunting and fishing "subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made", in the negotiations, Lieutenant Governor Morris mentioned that "You are at liberty to hunt as before."
This disparity was also seen when Indigenous Peoples asked for the supply of medicine chests, and such requests were accounted for in treaties six and seven, however, it was not accounted for in Treaty 8. This medical care was promised, as stated on the commissioner's report on September 22, 1899.
Residential schools
The legacy of residential schools is related to the Red Paper and to the history of Indigenous peoples in Canada. These schools started in the 17th century and the last few were shut down in the 1990s. These schools were mainly run by the churches, and the federal government played a key role in funding these schools. The schools were initially set up to assimilate Indigenous youth with what was considered mainstream culture; however, they had negative impacts on communities. Some of the negative impacts experienced by the children forced into the system included "harsh discipline, malnutrition, poor healthcare, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, neglection, and the deliberate suppression of their cultures and languages". In Canada's history, there were a total of 130 residential schools, which were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 6000 children. When the White Paper was written, residential schools had not been closed down entirely, and the trauma and the subjugation inflicted on Indigenous peoples was still on-going.History leading up to the White Paper
The civil rights movements in the United States of America brought the subjugation of minorities to the forefront of public consciousness. Based on these movements, the Canadian federal government started to examine the socio-economic barriers faced by Indigenous Peoples. This led to the government commissioning Harry B. Hawthorn to conduct research on Indigenous communities across Canada. These findings had culminated in the Hawthorn report. Based on his findings, Hawthorn concluded that Indigenous Peoples were "citizens minus" and cited various failures in governance as reasons for the unequal social conditions. His report additionally called for the shut down of any form of "forced assimilation programs". A main form of forced assimilation in Canada could be seen through the Residential Schools.Based on the report, the government decided to engage in consultation with various Indigenous Communities, and proceeded to amend the Indian Act. Following regional discussions, in 1969, various leaders of Indigenous nations had been called to Ottawa for a meeting with the federal government. Based on the findings of the Hawthorn report, in conjunction with the various discussions that they federal government had with Indigenous Nations, the White Paper was written.
These historical backgrounds played a key role in advising the policies and the advocacies outlined in the Red Paper.
Rejected White Paper policies
The 1970 Citizens Plus document, or "The Red Paper", put forward by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta expresses significant frustration with the federal government's White Paper proposal, believing that "it offers despair instead of hope". As such, it included counter-policy in which certain policies presented in the White Paper were either rejected outright, or with some type of alternative.The first to be addressed is the White Paper's proposal to remove Indian status. The Citizens Plus document rejects this, stating that "etaining the legal status of Indians is necessary if Indians are to be treated justly. Justice requires that the special history, rights, and circumstances of Indian People be recognized." They believe that in order to preserve their culture, the recognition of Indian status must remain in place.
The Red Paper goes on to reject the proposal of services provided to Indigenous people becoming the responsibility of provincial governments. They state that the federal government is legislatively responsible for "Indians and Indian lands" as per the British North America Act, 1867. They argue that their people have paid for these services by surrendering their land and the federal government is therefore required to provide services related to health, welfare, and education.
The White Paper also proposes what it calls "enriched services" for those who are "furthest behind" and require additional help. The response in the Citizens Plus document simply rejects this, believing that the promise of "enriched services" are merely bribes by the federal government to accept the rest of the policy which will result in further division of Indigenous people.
The Red Paper also rejects what was presented regarding Indigenous land. While they agree with the intent behind giving control of "Indian lands" to "Indian people", the document states that there are two important errors made by the federal government. The first of which, the document states, is that the government "thinks that Indian Reserve lands are owned by the Crown". The Red Paper corrects this, stating that such lands are held in trust, rather than owned, by the Crown. The significance of this correction is explained further, as land held in trust can therefore not be sold or broken up. As such, the document is against any change that would allow individual ownership of the land with the rights to sell. The Indian Chiefs of Alberta go on to correct what they state is an assumption made by the government that control of land can only take place if said land is owned in the same fashion as ordinary property. The Red Paper concludes this section by stating that "Indian lands...must be held forever in trust of the Crown".
The proposal put forward by the White Paper to repeal the Indian Act is also rejected. While they believe it essential to review the Indian Act, the Red Paper argues that it provides the legal framework for Indian people that federal or provincial governments would to other Canadians.
Furthermore, the Red Paper rejects the proposal to abolish the Indian Affairs Branch, stating that there will always be a need for it. While the Red Paper believed there to be issues with the Indian Affairs Branch, they argue that it should be changed in accordance to the needs of Indigenous peoples, providing direct access to the federal government.
An appointment of a sole commissioner is also rejected. The White Paper's proposal of this commissioner states that the appointment would happen by the government alone, and it is there that the Red Paper takes issue. Because this appointment would happen without any consultation whatsoever, the proposal is rejected.