ࡱ>     #` hbjbj\.\. 7n>D>D %NNN0~NNNbF-F-F-8~-.lbm2.."/2/2/ 0 0 0lllllll$nhLqmQN|V 0 0|V|VmNN2/2/lmd]d]d]|VN2/N2/ld]|Vld]d]ryhTNNyi2/. K,F-*[$hl$m0mhrN\ryirNyiX 0& 3=d d]FNa 0 0 0mm\p 0 0 0m|V|V|V|Vbbb%F-bbbF-bbbNNNNNN Strangers in Their Own Land: First Nations and Canada as a Place of Peril Hugh Shewell, PhD Associate Professor, York University Visiting Scholar, Centre of Canadian Studies, University of Edinburgh Abstract Since its creation in 1867, far from being a place of refuge, Canada as a nation state has been a place in which its first peoples have been in a perilous position socially, politically and economically. In its construction and intent Canadas founding constitution, the British North America Act (1867) now the Constitution Act (1982) accommodated Qubec and French language rights and, arguably, in that spirit of accommodation Canada has since emerged as a liberal, multicultural nation. Despite their vital, historical role in forging the basis of the Canadian nation however, First Nations peoples were conspicuously absent in the distribution of powers under the constitution. Instead, they were subjected to them and made wards of the federal government. This official status has functioned over time to marginalise and alienate them from Canada. For First Nations peoples Canada has become a site of endless struggle and resistance to those social and economic forces that would undermine and destroy their collective identities and force them finally to disperse into the general population as individuals at best of native ancestry. Utilising historical and current socio-economic data the paper describes the extent of First Nations marginalisation within the Canadian state. In addition, drawing upon the extant literature the paper explores the impact of their increased economic and political disempowerment since colonisation and confederation. The paper concludes by outlining options available to First Nations to exist as free, self-governing, self-sufficient peoples. Introduction: Canada, A Place of Refuge and Protection Canada, even prior to its existence as a sovereign, nation-state, has had, with some notable exceptions, a long history of providing refuge to peoples subjected to political and social persecution elsewhere. As early as 1763 the Royal Proclamation arguably established a principle of protective refuge when non-colonised aboriginal lands in British North America were protected and could only be surrendered to the Crown for settlement with the express consent of recognised aboriginal leadership at a public meeting or assembly of Indians. In this sense, aboriginal peoples lands were to be protected from arbitrary settlement, their hunting and fishing rights preserved and thus, their customs including their right to self-government maintained. Although its geographical reach was limited and its implementation extremely inconsistent the principle of protection was established. Of course, the problem with the Proclamation, in addition to its limited geographical reach, was its implicit recognition of the inevitability of settlement, of colonisation. Subsequently, in early Canadian state formation, during and following the American War of Independence the Province of Quebec created by British parliament through the Quebec Act (1774) became a place of refuge for the United Empire Loyalists as did the colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Following the Constitution Act (1791) that split Quebec into Lower and Upper Canada the first governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe managed, in 1793, to have the colonial legislature pass a bill effectively abolishing slavery. The passage of this bill contributed greatly to Upper Canada becoming a place of refuge for slaves, particularly from the American south, and was perhaps the first real positioning of early Canada as a place of refuge for those outside its borders. Consequently, by the beginning of the 19th century Canada had established itself in a rudimentary way both as a place of refuge and protection. Despite this early appearance of goodwill and, in comparison to its record as a place of refuge, Canadas record of protection of its aboriginal peoples pursuant to the Royal Proclamation has been especially poor, so poor in fact, that I argue Canada is a place of peril. There are those who have argued that the fundamental problem lies with the First Nations themselves; that it is their failure to adapt and to yield to the Canadian state that has brought them such social and economic misery. However, the question surely is not what is it that inherently contributes to their failure to adapt a question that is implicitly racist but what is it in the nature of liberal democracy that is inherently oppressive and destructive? In the next two sections I explore both demographic data and key federal government policy initiatives that demonstrate, in my opinion, the extent to which Canada has imperilled First Nations peoples. As well, I will show that there has been no linear progress in Canadas treatment of First Nations; there have been initiatives that have been progressive followed by those that have been remarkably regressive. While the political resistance of First Nations to Canada has been strong and while their overall situation within the Canadian state has somewhat improved, they still remain on the extreme margins of Canadian society. That said, I do not argue that progress will mean their full inclusion in Canadian society, rather it will be signified by their economic and social well being either as self-determining societies parallel to or as full partners with the Canadian state. First Nations on the Margins The socio-economic position of First Nations relative to the rest of Canadians has been well-documented in recent years but, up until the mid-1960s this was not the case. Until it commissioned the Hawthorn Report in the early 1960s the federal Department of Indian Affairs had no systematic data base by which it could ascertain the overall social and economic conditions of First Nations and thus develop reasonable policies designed to improve their situation. There was certainly a consciousness among observers of Indian policy that their situation was far from adequate, but there were no organised data from which to draw significant comparisons among bands and regions of the country and upon which to base informed decisions for future policy initiatives. From confederation until World War Two the federal government had focused its efforts on the continued subjugation of First Nations and the introduction of rudimentary policies designed to promote their abilities as farmers or, as in Ontario, industrial workers. There was an assumption as Usher has noted that they would somehow naturally be absorbed into the economy around them. In Canadas north, where sustained, organised capitalist economic activity was not yet present, they were best left as Indians and encouraged to maintain self-sufficiency through hunting and trapping or through wilderness guiding and so on. The federal government expended most of its efforts on Indian education and on the management of their internal affairs including the surrender and sale of their lands as well as their governance. Nevertheless, the fact of their growing marginalisation was increasingly reflected in reports of tuberculosis and diseases of malnutrition as well as constant and consistent expenditures on welfare relief. Indeed, one academic observer of the period commented in 1937 that Indians were Canadas forgotten people. The turn to more active state intervention in the economy and social welfare during and after World War Two was similarly reflected in Canadian Indian policy, a period I have termed the period of citizenship, meaning that there was a more active attempt by the state to integrate Indians into Canadian society as full and equal citizens. Despite this attempt more actively to engage First Nations in the Canadian state project they were clearly not a state priority in terms of spending, nor did the state begin to come to terms with their political and social rights until the early 1970s. In particular, First Nations land claims long an outstanding grievance among many bands were studiously ignored. By the early 1960s in the context of the war on poverty, the American civil rights movement and elevated concerns about human rights the federal government commissioned a study of the overall situation of First Nations within Canada. The government Indian Affairs had no organised knowledge of the very people it was meant to administer; it had some idea of the felt concerns of Indian communities but it had no way of knowing the true nature and extent of their problems and what policies might best address them. The study was headed by Professors Harry B. Hawthorn of the University of British Columbia and Marc-Adlard Tremblay of the Universit de Laval. Together they assembled an expert team of social science, political, educational and legal scholars to study every facet of life in about 60 First Nations communities. I will return to the report in the next section of this paper but at this juncture it is important to highlight some of its socio-economic findings inasmuch as they provide the first concrete glimpse of First Nations marginalisation in Canada by the mid-twentieth century. Table 1, derived from the Hawthorn Report, highlights some basic and striking differences in income, earnings and welfare dependency between First Nations and non-native Canadians just over 40 years ago. (The figures are based on a sample of 35 bands across Canada). Notably, First Nations per capita income was less than 1/4 that of all other Canadians in fact, it was closer to 1/5th that of other Canadians. The average earned income of non-Native Canadians was nearly three times that of First Nations. Welfare (social assistance) dependency rates a strong indicator of economic marginalisation were about 10 times higher in First Nations than in non-native communities. The 1966 welfare dependency rates among First Nations were even higher than those experienced by the non-native population during the Great Depression about 16% higher. In addition, Hawthorns team also found that the average length of employment for registered Indians on-reserves in 1964/65 was only 4.8 months. Although the Hawthorn Report did not provide completely comparable statistics for non-Natives the implications were clear; Canadas unemployment rate at the time was about 4.0% and First Nations peoples were simply not part of the prevailing economic prosperity. Commenting on information he had received from other government sources, a senior clerk in the Welfare Division of Indian Affairs in a document to file stated in 1963, The infant mortality rate among Indians is nearly four times the national rate. The preschool mortality rate amongst Indian children is more than eight times the national rate Indian mortality rates trended upwards during 1962 The Tuberculosis death rate amongst Indians in 1960, the latest yearstatistics are available, was 23.8 per 100,000 persons as compared with 4.6nationally. Between 1964/65 and 1997/98 the Indian social assistance dependency rate continued to climb. It peaked in 1973/74 at 55.0% and fell to 42.8% by 1997/98, still 6.8% higher than in 1964/65 (Table 2). Comparably, in Canada, Table 1 Selected Findings from the Hawthorn Report, 1966 Average Per Capita Income, 1965 Indians C$ 300 National C$ 1,400 Average Annual Earnings, 1965 Indians C$ 1,361 National C$ 4,000 Average Social Assistance Dependency Rates Indians (on-reserve) 36% National 3.5% Source: Harry B. Hawthorn, ed. A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada: A Report on Economic, Political, Educational Needs and Policies. Vol. 1. Ottawa: The Queens Printer, 1966. social assistance rates over the same period with the exception of 1964/65 and 1973/74 for which years data were not available were considerably lower (Table 2). For example, in 1981 the Indian social assistance dependency rate was nearly seven times greater than the Canadian average (38.7% and 5.8% respectively) while in 1996 it was over four times the national average even though the national average was abnormally high (43.1% and 10.1% respectively). These high rates of dependency persisted despite the infusion of millions of dollars into economic development programs on the reserves. Thus, while more active state intervention into the social and economic lives of First Nations occurred, their extreme marginalisation remained relatively unchanged. Since 1996, when the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples produced its final report and 1997, when the federal government responded to it with the document, Gathering Strength accompanied by new economic development initiatives and spending, the overall situation of extreme marginalisation has remained much the same. Table 3 shows a continued, wide disparity between social assistance dependency rates for First Nations on-reserve and for the general Canadian population; by 2003, almost 40 years since Hawthorn, the Indian dependency rate remains 6.6 times the national rate. There has been a gradual decline in social assistance dependency in both Table 2 Comparison of National and On-Reserve Social Assistance Dependency Rates, 1964-1996 Year Population Beneficiaries Dependency Rate Canada On-Reserve Canada On-Reserve Canada On-Reserve ____________________________________________________________________ 1964 n/a 211,389 n/a 76,100 n/a 36.0% 1973 n/a 193,551 n/a 108,330 n/a 56.0% 1981 24,343, 190 227,492 1,418,400 88,079 5.8% 38.7% 1986 25,309,345 264,187 1,892,900 114,478 7.4% 43.3% 1991 27,296,859 304,751 2,282,200 151,501 8.3% 49.7% 1994 28,230,412 326,268 3,100,200 153,613 10.9% 47.0% 1996 28,846,761 354,369 2,937,100 152,746 10.1% 43.1% ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Annual Reports,1964/65, 1973/74, 1981/82; Basic Departmental Data, 1990, 1996 & 1997; Indian Social Welfare, 1982. Canada, Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996. Canada, National Council of Welfare, Profiles of Welfare: Myths and Realities (1998). Harry B. Hawthorn, ed. A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada: A Report on Economic, Political, Educational Needs and Policies. Vol.1. Ottawa: The Queens Printer, 1966. populations which may be attributable in part to increased employment opportunities but which may also be a result of harsher, provincial welfare regimes that disqualified those already in receipt of benefits and made future applicants ineligible. Whatever the reasons the facts that social assistance rates in every province are well below poverty lines and that the rates vary widely between provinces mean that disproportionate numbers of First Nations peoples live in extreme poverty in Canada. Social assistance dependency rates do not tell the whole story. Labour force participation rates as well as employment and unemployment rates are also instructive. Hawthorn had already noted in 1966 that First Nations participation in the labour force was very low and that unemployment and underemployment were extremely high. His team explained this partly by noting that the Indian population at the time as it is now was an extremely young one; over 49% of the population was in a non-productive age range compared to just over 28% of the general population while only 45% of the First Nations population was in the productive age range compared to 65% of the general population. Other factors were also identified including the geographic remoteness of many reserves from access to labour markets, racist discrimination in the hiring of First Nations and their inadequate education and training. Since the Hawthorn report the federal government has focused considerable effort and expenditures on the economic development of reserve communities and on the labour force participation rate. Table 3 Comparison of National and On-Reserve Social Assistance Dependency Rates, 1996-2003 Year Population Beneficiaries Dependency Rate Canada On-Reserve Canada On-Reserve Canada On-Reserve ____________________________________________________________________ 1996 28,846,761 354,369 2,937,100 152,746 10.1% 43.1% 1999 29,539,083 384,778 2,279,100 151,737 7.7% 39.4% 2001 30,007,095 396,688 1,910,900 146,194 6.4% 36.8% 2003 30,607,237 409,671 1,745,800 146,558 5.4% 35.7% ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Basic Departmental Data, 2004; Canada, Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996, 2001, 2006; Canada, National Council of Welfare, Welfare Incomes, 2005. In relation to these efforts the results of the 2001 Canadian census provide instructive information. Table 4 compares some basic labour force and income data between the registered Indian population on reserve and the rest of the Canadian population minus all registered Indians. The 2001 data consistently demonstrate the significant gaps between each population group. Labour force participation and employment rates in the general population were nearly 1.3 and 1.6 times greater respectively than on reserve while the unemployment rate on reserve was almost 4 times that of the general population. Reliance on government transfer payments including social assistance - was about 2.8 times greater on reserve. When on-reserve residents were employed full-time their average employment income was only 64% of that in the general population. Average and median incomes on reserve were essentially at poverty levels and were only 48% and 47.6% of the respective, comparable measures in the general population. Furthermore, 44.5% of those with income on reserve had income under $10,000 per year compared to 22.4% in the general population. At the other end of the income distribution scale, only 1.3% of those with income on reserve had annual incomes over $60,000 while just over 10% did so in the general population. Thus, five years after the release of the Royal Commissions final report and four years following the federal response First Nations on reserves continued to be deeply mired in poverty. While current data are not available in 2006, there is no reason to believe that the situation has significantly changed. The depth of poverty and the extent of marginalisation in most First Nations communities continue to be grim. Other key indicators derived from the 2001 Table 4 Labour Force and Income: Registered Indians On Reserve and Total Population of Canada, 2001 On Reserve Total Population Population 15 years and over 173,655 23,535,740 Participation Rate 51.8% 66.6% Employment Rate 37.4% 61.8% Unemployment Rate 27.7% 7.2% Average Employment Income $27,952 $43,402 (full time) Government Transfer Payments 31.8% 11.5% Average Income $14,444 $29,964 Median Income $10,631 $22,346 _____________________________________________________________________ Source: Canada, Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, Tabulations 97F0011XCB2001060, Selected Labour Force Characteristics and 97F0011XCB2001062, Selected Income Characteristics. Canadian census are clearly associated with poor economic and social conditions. For example, although Indian mortality rates have dropped considerably since the 1960s they are still high. For Indians under 45 years the mortality rate is three times the national average while for infants under one year it is twice the national average. Indians are also three times more likely than all other Canadians to die violently. Housing on-reserve is sub-standard. Of all on-reserve households, 50% were in core housing need, meaning that the housing failed the test of adequacy, suitability and affordability. Nationally, 4 in 100,000 Canadians die in fires; among First Nations that figure rises to 30 in 100,000. Indians are also six to nine times more likely to contract tuberculosis and two to three times more likely to be hospitalised for it. Another distressing sign of extreme marginalisation is in the incidence of HIV AIDS. Aboriginal peoples constitute 3.8% of Canadas population. Of all aboriginal peoples, 53% are registered Indians (First Nations), on and off reserve, or about 2% of the Canadian population. While over 25% of all HIV AIDS positive cases were from aboriginal peoples it can be safely assumed that the majority of those cases are among registered Indians including many living on-reserve. Among First Nations, suicide accounts for up to 25% of all injuries leading to death. It is the leading cause of death among aboriginal youth aged 10 to 19 years and in adults aged 20-44 years where the figure approaches 38% and 23% respectively. In conclusion, First Nations peoples are clearly at Canadas extreme margins. More than any other groups or communities of Canadians the first peoples of this land, since the creation of the modern Canadian state, have and continue to live in a state of abject poverty or, in short, in a state of peril. Marginalisation as a Function of Actions of the State At the time of confederation in 1867 and for reasons largely related to commonly held racist views of the inferiority and fragility of indigenous peoples (mixed in with an element of fear, given the American Indian wars occurring south of the border at the time) First Nations peoples were not partners in confederation despite their vital role in early Canadian state formation. Thus, First Nations peoples were not accommodated in the institutional and governing structures of Canada rather, they were excluded and infantilised. Before continuing on this line of thought, it is useful to identify and put on a somewhat arbitrary continuum of accommodation vs exclusion various actions of the state including legislation, events and reports that demonstrate what I mean. I will then highlight a few of them to provide a better understanding of this dilemma for First Nations. The continuum of accommodation vs exclusion also carries with it two inevitable outcomes. The first outcome would be absolute accommodation within the Canadian state. It would mean some form of meaningful, self-governing, quasi-independence similar to a province. Some First Nations reject that notion: either they dont want that level of accommodation or they want something quite different outside the parameters of the Canadian state. Probably, its safe to say, the quest for absolute accommodation is supported by the majority that is, some form of quasi-independent status within the Canadian state. The second outcome would be absolute exclusion and would result in their total assimilation into the Canadian state and their complete disappearance as distinct peoples. There may be some individual First Nation persons who hold to this but certainly not very many. Arguably these days if not overtly certainly covertly the federal government still tries to implement policies of assimilation or at the very least, adaptation. Up until the 1970s it did so much more openly that is, pursue policies of assimilation by which First Nations as individuals were supposed to adopt white ways and simply, eventually disappear as collective social and cultural entities. First Nations dogged resistance to these policies, often at great economic and social cost to them, has resulted in the federal and provincial governments having to rethink their traditional understanding of the future of the Indian. The continuum of accommodation vs. exclusion appears as Document 1, below. One clear aspect of the continuum is that there is no linear progression of state policy and actions resulting in the overall betterment and accommodation of First Nations. There have been periods of state progress in addressing legitimate concerns and issues of First Nations followed by very regressive, often repressive actions. It is telling that First Nations are subject to the political whims and will of Canadian institutional state apparatus, a fact that reflects the refusal of the state to acknowledge them as full partners in confederation. Arguably, in the final analysis, progressive measures are minimised and today, as in the past, the full weight of the state continues to subjugate and marginalise them. Document 1 Accommodation vs. Exclusion + Accommodation ! 1983 Jenner Report on Indian Self-Government 1763 Royal Proclamation 1996 Report of Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1992 Charlottetown Constitutional Accord 1984 Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act 1982 Repatriation of the Constitution  Entrenched Aboriginal Rights Undefined 1975 James Bay Cree & Inuit Agreement 1974 Land Claims Commission Established 1973 Supreme Court Nisgaa Land Claim Decision 1973 First Nations Given Control of Education 1970s NIB/AFN Funded Permanently 2005 Kelowna Accord 1966 Hawthorn Report (Citizens Plus) 1997/98 Federal Response to Royal Commission 1951, 1985, Indian Act and later proposed revisions 1876, 1880 Indian Act and Ancillary Acts 1987 Meech Lake Accord 1990 Kanesatake (Oka) Crisis 1867 Confederation Not Founding Partners 1991 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia 1840s to 1970s Residential Schools 1884 Banning of Cultural Practices 1960s Child Welfare Scoop and Beyond 1985 Nielsen Report 1969 White Paper ! Exclusion - In order to understand this last statement it is useful to examine some selected items from the continuum. The Royal Proclamation, 1763 The Royal Proclamation remains as one of the most important documents governing aboriginal-state relations in Canada and as an early appreciation of aboriginal rights. It is directly referred to in the Constitution Act, 1982. Today, most First Nations peoples would argue that it is the central document that assures their accommodation within Canada and the protection and maintenance of their rights. It also accounts for First Nations continuing loyalty to the Crown. Its origins lie in both the fur trade that was the raison dtre of British North America at the time and their vital role in it and, concurrently, in making provision for settlement. It came about as part of the fall out and peace treaties between the French and English following the Seven Years War, 1752-59. Recognising their importance as original peoples and as having made possible the British presence in North America, King George III issued the proclamation with two key purposes in mind: one, the safeguard of aboriginal lands, hunting and fishing rights; two, establishing a just process only by which aboriginal lands could be surrendered for settlement. In an important sense then, the Royal Proclamation provided a guarantee and beginning framework for the protection and accommodation of First Nations within what was then British North America and subsequently became Canada. It implicitly recognised their independence and conceded that the land was theirs although, as Dickason observes, it also assumed the underlying sovereignty of the British. Arguably, and perhaps unfortunately (depending on your point of view) it also set out how land was to be surrendered and thus opened the land for settlement. Settlers and First Nations had very different conceptions of property and land use and once settlement began the pressures from settlers and colonial administrations to acquire land were enormous and the terms of the Royal Proclamation were either paid lip service, circumvented or simply ignored. Given their greater political teeth today, First Nations often return to the Royal Proclamation as a guarantee of their rights and, more recently, the Supreme Court of Canada has generally upheld this contention. In many ways, the Royal Proclamation is both the start and end point of aboriginal accommodation in Canada. Confederation, 1867 The British North America Act, 1867 formally created the new Dominion of Canada. It was a document that had been crafted over several years but it was influenced by several forces including the American civil war, the American Indian wars and the colonial settler society mentality. These latter two influences clearly had an impact on First Nations in Canada. There were essentially two points of view held by the settler mentality: one, Indians were mere savages and it was best that they be annihilated or at the very least, removed from the path of civilisation and ignored; two, Indians were noble but nave to the progress of civilisation. As human beings however, they were capable of development. Thus, they should be treated humanely with the intent of protecting them, civilising them and amalgamating or assimilating them into the new Euro-Canadian society. This was the view propounded by Herman Merivale, the British Colonial Secretary and it was the view that carried forward into confederation. No one wanted a repeat of the American experience where, following the American War of Independence, the Royal Proclamation no longer applied. Nevertheless, First Nations were not to be considered equals, thus they were simply not considered as partners in confederation they were simply to be managed and removed from the path of progress until they were ready to be part of it. In this way, while Canadas treatment of the Indians was to be more benign than in the United States, the objective of confederation was much the same exclude them until they were ready to be included that is, until they were civilised and adopted the European, Lockean understanding of property and the individual pursuit of ones welfare. The Royal Proclamation would be honoured with respect to treaty making and making the west available for settlement but only insofar as it was understood that Indians occupied the land. In British Columbia, for example, the settler mentality there had decided that Indians had no title to the land. There would be no treaties there they would not be necessary! In this sense then, confederation was an act of exclusion. It represented both a continuation of former colonial policy and legislation and it gave rise to the Indian Act and the firm control and management of First Nations. The Hawthorn Report, 1966 I have already discussed much of the impact of the Hawthorn Report earlier in the paper. It still remains a key, early document in favour of accommodation and deserves fuller discussion in terms of what it got right but also how it contained internal contradictions. I earlier referred to the post- World War Two period as the period of citizenship and how it gave rise to more active state intervention in promoting First Nations integration into Canadian society. On the one hand, their treatment was more humane but on the other hand, the goal of assimilation into Canadian society as full and equal citizens remained paramount. Thus, the period remained one of humane exclusion rather than one of accommodation although they had achieved the unconditional right to vote not so much as an affirmation of their unique collective status in Canada as affirmation of their individual rights as citizens. I have already noted what gave rise to the report but what remains impressive about it is its range of subject matter encompassing the context of the lives of First Nations peoples. This subject matter included an examination of the Department of Indian Affairs, the impact of the Indian Act and specific sections of the Indian Act, federal-provincial relations, the constitution, social and economic issues including welfare and economic development in First Nations communities, community development, local government and education. The report made many important recommendations but none was officially adopted by the federal government. It could be argued that some were gradually implemented by stealth but none that really mattered in the important context of their official political status in Canada. Why? Besides producing the first reliable demographic data on the true condition of First Nations in Canada the report recognised and affirmed the important issues plaguing their status in the confederation: unresolved and unattended to land claims, meaningful self-government and an acknowledgment of their unique status within Canada that is, by virtue of their original residency in Canada and the Royal Proclamation they were Citizens Plus; they had rights and privileges within Canada that were unique to them and that must be acknowledged. This position was in the main accepted by First Nations leadership at the time but was rejected by the federal government. Despite its progressive stance, the Hawthorn report was not without some inconsistencies. The chief among these difficulties was its insistence that First Nations should be more fully integrated into their provincial jurisdictions with respect to services such as welfare and so on. This would have had the effect of enmeshing them further into Euro-Canadian society in ways that they may not have wished or found desirable. For example, when the provinces extended their child welfare services on to reserves a few years later the results were disastrous. Similarly, European-like welfare programs generally have not been advantageous to First Nations and have often been counter-productive. By todays standards the recommendations concerning self-government did not really go far enough, nor did the report take a clear stance on land claims. Nevertheless, on balance, it was a clear move towards accommodation rather than exclusion or total assimilation. The White Paper, 1969 The Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969 exemplified not simply Prime Minister Trudeaus aversion to collective rights in a liberal democracy, but the general aversion of the state and perhaps most Canadians at the time to those rights. The White Paper on Indian Policy was a product of its time. Trudeaus new Liberal government, elected partly under the banner of the Just Society, wanted to eliminate what it perceived to be the conditions that promoted inequalities in Canadian society. Trudeau inherited a process to revise the Indian Act initiated by his predecessor, Lester B. Pearson. Pearson, so far as we know, simply wanted to modernise the act and make it more reflective of aboriginal aspirations and desires. Trudeau continued Pearsons extensive consultation with First Nations organisations including the NIB the Native Indian Brotherhood. To their horror and dismay however, his government called an end to the consultations and produced new policy proposals none of which reflected the concerns raised by First Nations during the consultations. The White Paper proposed to do away with the Indian Act, terminate the special relationship between the Canadian people and First Nations, terminate the status of being Indian (any Canadian would simply hang on to her or his own aboriginal identity by virtue of memory and known descent), eliminate the reserve lands indeed, in effect, over a relatively short period of time disperse First Nations as free and independent individuals into the broad Canadian society and body politic. First Nations would be free to maintain their communities and their existing lands as best they could but that would be a matter of their choice. The transition to this completely independent status as free individuals would be generously assisted for about five years but then each First Nation individual would be on her or his own, just like any other Canadian. The rationale for taking this step was that Canadas Indians were disadvantaged because they enjoyed a unique legal status. Consider Millers at times sarcastic and ironic summation of this position: The problems of poverty, high rates of incarceration, political impotence, and economic marginality were not attributable to insensitive government policies or generations of racial prejudice. It was not because Indians lacked control of their own affairs or because they had been systematically dispossessed of their lands that they experienced severe economic and social problems. No. The explanation was that the law treated them differently, that they had special status as Indians. The separate legal status of Indians and the policies which have flowed from it have kept the Indian people apart from and behind other Canadians, the white paper said in part. The white paper proposed that they change course to a road that would lead gradually away from different status to full social, economic and political participation in Canadian life. So, while the White Paper might be seen as a just and bold thing to have proposed in the context of a liberal society and there is an argument that it was, especially in the context of the American Civil Rights Movement at the time it totally flew in the face of the collective rights and unique status of First Nations recognised in the Royal Proclamation. Thus, rather than being an act of accommodation as Trudeau thought it was the most radical proposal of exclusion yet put forward. The response of First Nations leadership, especially from Alberta, was swift: they countered with what they called with bitter humour, The Red Paper, in which they laid out their historically unique status in Canada, their treaty and other rights and their demands as self-determining peoples. Although Trudeau had once opined, We cant recognise aboriginal rights because no society can be built on historical might-have-beens, he met with them personally and, after an extended period, in 1971, announced his governments abandonment of the White Paper. Not long after, in 1973, a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada began to shift Trudeaus views altogether. After nearly 100 years of battling to have title to their land recognised, the Nisgaa people of north-western British Columbia received a final judgment. Six of seven members of the court agreed that they had title. Unfortunately, three ruled that their title had then been extinguished and one ruled against them on a technical point. The Supreme Court in effect had said that aboriginal title to the land existed, a fact that had been consistently denied by legal experts who generally argued from the European (or John Lockes) conception of property, usage and deed to title. The ruling prompted Trudeau to set up and fund an Indian Land Claims Commission bemusedly remarking at the time, perhaps you had more legal rights than we thought you had when we did the white paper. Subsequently, the Trudeau government permanently funded the Assembly of First Nations so that as a collective entity First Nations had a just opportunity to pursue their rights and issues. In 1982, his government entrenched aboriginal rights though they remained unspecified into the Constitution Act. The Trudeau era can be marked as moving from absolute exclusion to finding ways to protect and affirm aboriginal rights and thus to accommodate First Nations within the confederation. The Penner Report on Indian Self-Government, 1983 Following the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the constitution Trudeau convened the first of a series of three meetings of the Premiers and the First Nations leadership in Canada in an attempt to define those rights. Clearly, issues of land and self-government were on the table. The lengthy meeting was unable to agree on the meaning of the right to self-government and what it would imply with respect to the relationship of aboriginal peoples to the Canadian state. Those least in favour of coming to an agreement were the provincial premiers, principally those from western Canada. Shortly after the first of these meetings concluded in 1983 a Parliamentary Committee appointed to study and consider aboriginal self-government reported to the House of Commons. Known as the Penner Report after its chair, the Hon. Keith Penner, the committee produced a far-reaching and extraordinarily progressive document that was widely accepted by aboriginal leadership. The report made 58 recommendations intended to bring aboriginal peoples fully into the context of Canadian confederation. It expanded on the issue of land claims by observing that native lands also formed the basis for self-determination and self-government. First Nations had an inherent right of self-government that is, a right that pre-existed parliament and the Europeans. The committee noted that aboriginal self-government could be attained within the constitution and urged first, that self-government legislation proposed by the Department of Indian Affairs be scrapped since it only delegated powers, it did not recognise inherent authority and, second, that new legislation be enacted that would confer on Indian bands full governing authority somewhat akin to provincial powers set up new administrative arrangements between band, provincial and federal governments and do away with Indian Affairs. Trudeaus government accepted the basic thrust of these recommendations and introduced legislation incorporating many (but certainly not all) of the Penner Committees recommendations. Trudeau, however, stepped down as party leader and PM and under their new leader, John Turner, the Liberals went down to defeat and so did the legislation. The Penner Report has probably only been equalled by the recommendations of RCAP in 1996 in this sense, it stands as the current benchmark for aboriginal accommodation within Canada. The Mulroney Progressive Conservative government that followed floundered badly on the issue of aboriginal rights and most especially on aboriginal self-government and accommodation. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996 and the Federal Response, 1997 First Nations in Canada had, since World War Two demanded a Royal Commission to examine the state of their relationship with Canada. This demand had never been acceded to; instead, the federal government responded by appointing two Joint Parliamentary Committees, one in 1946 reporting in 1948 and a second in 1959 reporting in 1961. While these committees had some impact on furthering aboriginal issues they were, in the main, largely exercises in affirming federal government strategies for pursuing Indian assimilation into Canadian society. Nevertheless, the course of events over the 1960s through to the early 1980s witnessed a major shift in government policy and a willingness to recognise aboriginal rights including that of self-government. The problem was, with the exception of land claims none of these rights had been implemented in any meaningful way. The Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney was anxious to make his constitutional mark and succeed where Trudeau had failed; he wanted to bring Qubec into the constitutional fold as a signatory to the Constitution Act 1982. At first Mulroney was optimistic about resolving the question of aboriginal rights. However, by 1987 when he convened the third and last of the 3 federal-provincial-aboriginal meetings required of the Constitution Act to define and agree upon aboriginal rights he had turned somewhat lukewarm to the idea. The 1987 meetings ended in bitter acrimony especially between First Nations leaders and the western provincial premiers who remained, as always, opposed to aboriginal rights. Several weeks later, Mulroney and the same provincial premiers but not the aboriginal leaders met secretly north of Ottawa at the Prime Ministers summer residence, Meech Lake. There they agreed on a constitutional amendment that would bring Qubec into the constitutional fold. The key to this agreement was the recognition of Qubec as a distinct society with special rights. This did not sit well with aboriginal leaders who stated that while they did not begrudge Qubec its special status they, the aboriginal peoples, the first peoples of the land were the first claimants to having distinct societies and special rights. Why could the provincial premiers not have agreed to that? Their anger carried forward to one aboriginal member of the Manitoba provincial legislature, Elijah Harper. If Meech Lake was to pass, the Manitoba legislature had to approve it unanimously. Harper voted against the motion and the Meech Lake Accord died. It was a significant victory for aboriginal peoples in Canada. Mulroney conceded that this was so. When, in 1990 the Mohawk of Kanesatake (Oka) rose up in armed revolt against municipal and provincial authorities in Qubec who had permitted the construction of a golf course on Mohawk land, Mulroney, who termed Mohawk claims of sovereignty bizarre, sent in the Canadian army to quell the revolt. An armed stand-off ensued. When the situation was finally resolved but with no agreement Mulroney, in part because of Meech Lake and in part because of the Oka crisis, announced a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The commission began its work in 1991 and reported in 1996 long after Mulroney had been out of office. The report was in 5 volumes, 3,537 pages long. Overall the report was concerned with the political, economic and cultural autonomy of First Nations. Central to the report was a proposal for a separate but parallel First Nations parliament as a third order of government (House of First Peoples) that would govern First Nations and advise both the federal and provincial governments on First Nations matters. It would not conflict with Canadian parliament. Nations would be defined as sizable groupings of bands/communities with a shared sense of national identity occupying a certain territory or group of territories. Thus, First Nations would be able to express their distinct identity within the context of Canadian citizenship There was to be a new Royal Proclamation to reaffirm and strengthen the intentions of the original proclamation of 1763, and offer an official statement of regret for past policies that had deprived aboriginal peoples of their lands and customs. The report recommended establishing a Crown Treaty Office both to implement existing and develop new treaties. A new negotiation process was recommended that would ensure First Nations sufficient lands upon which to develop economic self-sufficiency and political and cultural autonomy. In addition to current budgets for First Nations it was recommended that the federal government spend an additional $1.5 to $2 billion annually for 15 years to assist those communities most welfare dependent to become economically self-sufficient. As well, it was recommended that significant amounts be invested in economic development, education and training. Aboriginal family law and approaches to welfare issues including social assistance and child protection should be respected and formally acknowledged. These and many other recommendations were entirely comprehensive and were generally well-received by aboriginal leaders as representing a fair reflection of their needs and aspirations. Nevertheless, the report in many ways was not new and contained many of the ideas first put forward by Hawthorn and Penner. Thus, as an overall position it was highly accommodating. The federal response, Gathering Strength, was not nearly so accommodating. Published in late December 1997 it was not made available until early 1998 over a year following the report of RCAP. The recommendation for a new royal proclamation was rejected. In its place there was a statement of reconciliation and an apology by the Minister of Indian Affairs for the abuses of the residential school system. Many aboriginal leaders while acknowledging the apology and reconciliatory statements were angry that the statement did not come from the Prime Minister. There was to be no parallel parliament or House of First Peoples that was simply rejected, although the inherent right to self-government was acknowledged but carefully circumscribed. The federal government proposed a series of roundtable conferences with First Nations leadership to establish ways to achieve reasonable self-government in matters internal to their communities. This essentially was a return or rather a continuation of the traditional federal approach of fostering municipal levels of government for First Nations. There was no mention of entrenching the right to self-government in the constitution. Indeed, the focus of the federal response was on economic development, education and training initiatives. In these aspects of its statement it was supportive of the RCAP recommendations but remained well within the acceptable limits of current federal policy. It fully intended, in ways less explicit, to integrate or assimilate First Nations into the dominant capitalist system complete with a class structure and all its accompanying liberal, cultural accoutrements. Thus, in the final analysis the federal response was disappointing and in many ways a throwback to the pre-Trudeau era. Despite its rhetoric and window dressing, it was far from accommodating. Conclusion Over the course of this paper I have attempted to show the extent of marginalisation of First Nations peoples in Canada and to demonstrate the ways in which federal policies contribute to and reinforce their marginalisation by failing fully to recognise and act upon their inherent rights. Instead, the government pursues policies intended either to fully assimilate them into Canadian society or, at best, only partially to accommodate their rights. It is tempting upon examination of the data presented earlier to find better ways of ensuring that First Nations peoples of Canada participate fully in the countrys prosperity as full and equal citizens and to do this by promoting their integration into Canadian society. This, however, would be a mistake. To end First Nations marginalisation and to ensure that Canada becomes for them not a place of peril but once again their home and refuge, the Canadian state must recognise and implement their full rights as self-determining peoples. There are two ways of approaching this solution. The first lies outside the Canadian state, the second, within it. I suspect as I opined earlier in the paper that most First Nations currently seek a solution within the state. Others may not. Taiaiake Alfred, for example, rejects the notions of the nation-state and sovereignty as acceding a priori to European understandings of what they mean. In this sense, by engaging in the issues I have put forward in the third part of this paper, First Nations peoples simply pander to the dominant social, economic and political systems. Intellectually, I am drawn to his argument but am not quite sure where it takes us practically. Part of Alfreds argument lies in Bartelsons depiction of the entrenchment of Western power and human relationships as being the unthought foundation of political knowledge. What I take Bartelson to mean is that we all function at a level of false consciousness, that we scarcely understand or have long since repressed the underlying basis of our socio-economic system, so that we accept without questioning what seems to us a simply common sense. Sovereignty therefore is essentially a European construct designed to justify the dominance of a nation of people over a piece of territory and also, by implication, with the power to impose that sovereignty elsewhere as was the case with colonial powers. This concept of sovereignty the idea that land can be claimed and owned means that in relation to the Canadian state, for example, Native communities will occupy a dependent and reactionary position relative to the state. By implication the demand for self-government acknowledges the hegemony of the Canadian state: why should First Nations demand something that they never surrendered? The European notion of sovereignty is foreign to the indigenous relationship with nature and the land. According to Alfred two forms of essential relationships are, in the main, common to the indigenous world-view: human-earth relationships that are shaped by nature and which thus shape our relationship to the earth and human-institution relationships that are socially constructed and which give rise to our taking responsibility for the social world we create. In this sense, he argues, sovereignty is not a natural phenomenon but a social creation. The unquestioned acceptance of sovereignty as the framework for politics today reflects the triumph of a particular set of ideas over others and is no more natural to the world than any other man-made object. The traditional western concept of sovereignty must be rejected and the state must instead find ways of living in respectful coexistence. Further, Alfred argues, Creating a legitimate post-colonial relationship means abandoning notions of European cultural superiority and adopting a mutually respectful stance. So, he sees as the first task to undermine the intellectual credibility of state sovereignty as the only legitimate form of political organization.  The second approach is somewhat different and favours accommodation within the existing state structure but as full and equal partners in it. To come to grips with this it is useful first to summarise the current objectives of Canadian Indian policy. Since confederation, and with varying degrees of success and enthusiasm, the Canadian state has been trying to accomplish three things. First, it is attempting through education and training programs to develop among First Nations a substantial capacity to labour and to socialise First Nations to forms of social organisation conducive to liberal capitalism. Second, the state is trying to establish access to viable labour markets both on and off reserves because without the ability to labour an individuals capacity to labour cannot be put to use. Third, the state is supporting the development of a small Indian bourgeoisie that can, where needed, serve as the proprietary employer and thus control the ability to labour. In effect, the state is trying to recreate capitalist class relations among First Nations both on and off reserves. The objectives of Gathering Strength, for example, are not new: they have simply been re-worked and re-packaged. The federal government has carefully managed the demand for self-government through the organisation of a self-government sector within Indian Affairs and through an artful partnership with First Nations leaders and organisations. To be sure, there have been some social and economic benefits but overall the result has been to reproduce the full weight of state policy and bureaucracy that controls rather than frees First Nations peoples to be self determining. The realisation of this among many reserve residents produces a ground-level resistance to the programs. Some observers, like Flanagan, see First Nations as the problem his argument, stripped bare, sees them as an inferior civilisation their only hope is to forge full steam ahead into the world of liberal capitalism in effect, to capsize as peoples. On the contrary, First Nations provide one of the few extant alternatives to the liberal world view. Usher offers an alternative analysis that might prove more useful in supporting and enhancing socio-economic conditions on reserves. He identified two models that arose during Social Impact Assessments conducted as part of the Mackenzie Pipeline Hearings in the 1970s. The first, the technical model supports the dominant paradigm of modernisation/acculturation; that is, adapting to and integrating into the dominant society while leaving inhibiting cultural attributes behind. In contrast, the political model emphasized social well-being, self-determination, and the centrality of cultural values and social institutions. From this model, Usher argued, emerged a new paradigm that I shall term, the political paradigm that challenged policy-makers to envision social and economic development differently. Returning briefly to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, it made two fundamentally incompatible sets of recommendations: one was intended to liberalise aboriginal economies and bridge them into the dominant economy; the other proposed measures intended to strengthen aboriginal cultures and foster a greater sense of autonomy and independence. Despite the recommendation for a separate House of First Peoples the commission erred by failing fully to incorporate the political paradigm and, in doing so, missed an important opportunity not only to reformulate aboriginal-state relations in Canada but also to explore new possibilities in social and economic organisation. In closing, I propose three basic strategies that would enhance the political paradigm and help restore First Nations peoples as self-determining peoples in their own land. First, the state must allow First Nations to become what they wish to be without hindrance or constraint and provide the necessary resources for genuine social transformation to occur. Second, to avoid the reproduction of class relations ways must be found to re-establish or to adapt traditional, non-hierarchical social relations to contemporary modes of production. This might be akin to Macphersons proposal to harness the technologies of capitalist production to the public good. Finally, implement a block, transfer grant similar to equalisation payments made by the federal government to the provinces and thus recognise First Nations as a third order of government and a rightful partner at the constitutional table. More thought and research are required for each of these strategies but they are, I believe, the basis for ending the marginalisation of First Nations peoples.  For the purposes of this paper the term, First Nations refers to those persons registered as Indians under the Indian Act of Canada.  Alan D. McMillan and Eldon Yellowhorn, First Peoples in Canada, Third Edition, Vancouver/Toronto: Douglas and McIntyre, 2004: 318.  One notable and well-documented exception is Canadas refusal to allow entry to Jewish persons fleeing Nazi Germany prior to and during World War Two. Another exception, prior to the formation of Canada was the British expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia in 1755.  James S. Frideres and Ren R. Gadacz, Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, Seventh Edition, Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005, 190-91; J. R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada, Third Edition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000, 87-90.  Tom Flanagan, First Nations? Second Thoughts, Kingston & Montral: McGill-Queens University Press, 2000. Flanagan is the most recent proponent of this point of view. His argument reflects the traditional assumption that western civilisation is superior to First Nations. Diamond Jenness, the eminent, influential Canadian government anthropologist of the mid-twentieth century, also believed that First Nations should succumb to Canadian society. Robin Fisher, Bruce Trigger and Eric Wolf are among those who critically review this point of view held by many anthropologists and historians not to mention how this point of view reflected and reinforced public sentiment and stereotypes of First Nations.  Peter J. Usher, Northern Development, Impact Assessment and Social Change, in Noel Dyck and James B. Waldram, eds., Anthropology, Public Policy and Native Peoples in Canada, Kingston & Montral: McGill-Queens University Press, 1993, p. 98; Ken S. Coates, Best Left as Indians: Native-White Relations in the Yukon Territory, 1840-1973, Kingston & Montral: McGill-Queens University Press, 1991. Annual Reports of the Department of Indian Affairs during this period made this point from time to time.  See, for example, Hugh Shewell, Enough to Keep Them Alive,: Indian Welfare in Canada, 1873-1965, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.  John A. Cormie, Forgotten Canadians, Social Welfare, December (1937-38), 74-6.  LAC, RG-10, Vol. 6925, File 1/29-1, Part 9, C.N.C. Roberts, Draft document to file, request to Treasury Board for Adoption of provincial or local municipal welfare rates and regulations for Indians, no date, but about December 1963; cited in Hugh Shewell, Enough to Keep Them Alive, p. 313.  See, Hugh Shewell, Rassembler nos forces, ou recourir encore laide sociale? La situation socio-conomique des premires nations avant et aprs la Commission royale, Recherches amrindiennes au Qubec, Vol. 37, No.1, 2007: pp. 45-6.  Ibid., 50-51.  Ibid., 52. While most provinces do not extend their social assistance programs onto reserves the federal government, through a 1964 Treasury Board Minute, provides social assistance on reserves in a manner comparable to each relevant provincial jurisdiction.  Harry B. Hawthorn, ed., A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada, Vol. 1, pp.45-6, 54-5.  Originally I had wished to compare these data with similar 1996 census data. However, the presentation of the 1996 data was sometimes different from the 2001 data making consistent comparisons difficult. Results of the 2006 census are still not available.  C. Roderick Wilson and R. Bruce Morrison, Taking Stock: Legacies and Prospects, in R. Bruce Morrison and C. Roderick Wilson, eds., Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2004: pp. 453-4. Canadian Labour Congress, Statement on 21 June 2004, Aboriginal Peoples Day.  HYPERLINK "http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Aboriginal_Workers/464" http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Aboriginal_Workers/464, p.3 (retrieved 26 May 2006); Frideres and Gadacz, Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, 80; Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Basic Departmental Data 2004, pp. 28-9. TB figures vary depending on the source.  Olive Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times, 3rd edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002, 162-3; J. R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 86-90, 397.  Olive Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 163. The issues related to the proclamation are complex. Another argument maintains that aboriginal rights including title to the land pre-exist the proclamation and colonisation.  John L. Tobias, Protection, Civilization, Assimilation: An Outline History of Canadas Indian Policy, Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology, 6, no.2 (1976): 13-30.  David T. McNab, Herman Merivale and Colonial Office Indian Policy in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, Canadian Journal of Native Studies 1 no.2 (1981). Reprinted in Ian A.L. Getty and Antoine S. Lussier, eds., As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows: A Reader in Canadian Native Studies, 85-103, Vancouver: UBC Press, 1983.  See, for example, Robin Fisher, Contact and Conflict: Indian-European relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890, 2nd edition, Vancouver: UBC Press, 1992; Hugh Shewell, Enough to Keep Them Alive, Chapters 1 and 2.  Olive Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 376-7; Sally M. Weaver, Making Canadian Indian Policy: The Hidden Agenda, 1968-1970, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981 and The Hawthorn Report: Its Use in the Making of Canadian Indian Policy, in Noel Dyck and James B. Waldram, eds., Anthropology, Public Policy and Native Peoples in Canada: 75-97, Montral & Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 1993.  See, for example, Patrick Johnston, Native Children and the Child Welfare System, Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development, 1983. There have been many works since Johnstons but his stands as the major expos of the dangers of a European model of child welfare extended to First Nations communities. See also, Hugh Shewell, Enough to Keep Them Alive.  Olive Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 377-8; J. R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 332.  J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 331.  Ibid., 331-2.  Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, Ottawa: Indian Affairs, 1969, quoted in J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 332.  Pierre Elliot Trudeau quoted in Donald Purich, Our Land: Native Rights in Canada, Toronto: Lorimer, 1988, 52; cited in J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 329.  Olive Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 379.  J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 343.  Pierre Elliot Trudeau quoted in J.R. Miller, Great White Father Knows Best: Oka and the Land Claims Process, Native Studies Review 7, 1 (1991): 38; cited in J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 343.  J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 350-1.  Ibid., 352; Olive Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 401.  J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 361.  Ibid., 374-5; Oliva Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 401.  J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 375-7; Oliva Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 401-2.  Oliva Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 419.  Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Vol. V, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1996: p.1; quoted in Oliva Patricia Dickason, Canadas First Nations, 419.  Ibid., 420.  Ibid., 420-1.  Ibid., 426.  Ibid.  Ibid., 425.  Taiaiake Alfred, Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1999, 63.  Ibid., 59.  Ibid., 62-3.  Tom Flanagan, First Nations, Second Thoughts.  I am grateful to Prof. Robin J. Brownlee for this observation shared in conversation.  Peter J. Usher, Northern Development, Impact Assessment, and Social Change, in Noel Dyck and James B. Waldram, eds., Anthropology, Public Policy and Native Peoples in Canada:IM  * [ f    + ŷ}si}i}_i}iUi}i}_}U}Uh(OJQJ^JhCwOJQJ^Jhb<OJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhrOJQJ^JhIjOJQJ^Jh:JOJQJ^Jho:h l>*OJQJ^Jh*Lho:5OJQJ^Jh*Lh*L5OJQJ^Jho:>*OJQJ^JhIjho:OJQJ^Jho:OJQJ^Jh*LOJQJ^Jho:h*L>*OJQJ^JJKM_Z RSyztu%gdIjgd5#$a$gd*Lgdo:hh+ , 4 : P Q   1 Z 'QR巭{qdWJh*LhCwOJQJ^Jh){56OJQJ^Jh*L56OJQJ^JhIjOJQJ^Jh*LOJQJ^Jh5#OJQJ^Jh OJQJ^Jh:OJQJ^JhPYOJQJ^Jh.OJQJ^JhnTLOJQJ^Jjh@aB0JOJQJU^Jh@aBOJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jh(OJQJ^JjhnTL0JOJQJU^JRS"#$%LUxDo5@B%&yp9ȾȾȾȴȪȠ|r|r|rhhaLOJQJ^JhY(OJQJ^JhFOJQJ^JhqOJQJ^Jjh;0JOJQJU^JhTOJQJ^Jh;OJQJ^JhAxOJQJ^JhHOJQJ^Jhq<OJQJ^Jh:oOJQJ^Jjh&0JOJQJU^Jh&OJQJ^JhCwOJQJ^J$9:BKeqEIJ|}+,  b @S 1:suʰʦʒ{q{hDOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^Jht56OJQJ^JhtOJQJ^JhjXCOJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jjh4{0JOJQJU^Jh){OJQJ^Jh4{OJQJ^JhAxOJQJ^Jh h H*OJQJ^JhaLOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^J) E W !! """!"'"<"G"\"l"##$$%%%%%%&&V&W&&'G'R''(ȾҾȴvlvbvlllXh\OJQJ^Jhd}OJQJ^JhlOJQJ^Jh%~+OJQJ^JhfrOJQJ^Jjh?:00JOJQJU^Jh.OJQJ^JjhWBi0JOJQJU^JhWBiOJQJ^Jh?:0OJQJ^JhMkOJQJ^JhvOJQJ^Jjhv0JOJQJU^JhDOJQJ^Jh38OJQJ^J"%%,,;3<344$4%4V4W4X4x4y4444444^gd=~p^pgd=~ ph^p`hgd=~^gd=~ & F 8  ^ gd=~gdC$a$gd=~gd=~gdIj(((/*;******++,$,%,&,H,----...q/00001P1x11111263wmmmmchef3OJQJ^JhCOJQJ^Jh=&OJQJ^JhfrOJQJ^JhlOJQJ^JhmrOJQJ^JhyOJQJ^JhdVHhdVHH*OJQJ^JhDOJQJ^JhdVHOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhgsOJQJ^Jhb!OJQJ^Jh\OJQJ^Jh\h\OJQJ^J%637383:3<3W3X3\3c34444#4$4%4&4-4/46474;4<4?4A4H4J4O4U4V4X4w4x4y4444 515ǽdzǫzococococohzhC5CJaJhzhCCJaJhChCCJaJhf5CJaJhChC5CJaJh=~5CJaJh=&h=~5h=&hC5h=&OJQJ^JhfOJQJ^Jh=~OJQJ^JhDOJQJ^Jhef3OJQJ^JhmrOJQJ^Jjhef30JOJQJU^J&44444 5 5%5&55565|5555588;gd0gd=~ ^`gd=&gd=& ^`gd=~^gd=~ & F 8  ^ gd=~^gd=~p^pgd=~ ph^p`hgd=~1535455585>5@5W555555"6&6?6747o7z77777L8M8N88888888R9]9ļ{qdZqZhX(OJQJ^Jh=~h=~OJQJ^Jh8OJQJ^JjhC0JOJQJU^JhCOJQJ^JhfOJQJ^Jh `OJQJ^Jh=&OJQJ^Jh=&6CJaJh=&CJaJh=&h=&CJaJh=&h=&56CJaJh=&CJaJhDCJaJhzhCCJaJhCCJaJ#]9;:<:=::::?;b;;;;;;;<<<<>>(?P?R?c?i?k?ȾҴxmeme\x\x\Pxhz0hDg6CJaJhDg6CJaJhDgCJaJh0hDgCJaJhDgCJaJhDg5CJaJhfhDg5CJaJhDgOJQJ^JhfhDg5h8hz0OJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh{OJQJ^JhkOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^Jh'OJQJ^Jjh80JOJQJU^Jh8OJQJ^J;;;;;< <W<<<<<==k=l===>>N>O>>>>@ ^`gdDg`gdDggdDg$a$gdDgk?o?q?u?x?|?~??@-@M@@@@@AABBBCCEEFgFhFF)G*G+G2G3G4G|Góîá×skcWhfhX(5CJaJhX(hD5hX(hX(5jh40JOJQJU^Jh4OJQJ^JhBjOJQJ^JhtFOJQJ^JhyKhyKOJQJ^J hyK5jhyK0JOJQJU^JhyKOJQJ^JhDOJQJ^Jh;,hDgCJaJhDg6CJaJhDgCJaJh hDg6CJaJ"@@BB*G+G3G4GGGGGG=H>HHHHHIIiIIIJ ^`gdX(`gdX(gdX($a$gdX(gdyKgdIj|GG=H>HHHHiIIIJJJ J$JJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKKKLLûïûwwwg]]]w]h"g7OJQJ^Jjh40JOJQJU^JhBjOJQJ^Jh4h4OJQJ^JhDOJQJ^Jh h CJaJh h 6CJaJhz0h 6CJaJh CJaJh 6CJaJh CJaJh#CJaJhX(CJaJhX(OJQJ^JhX(CJaJhX(5CJaJ#JJLQQSQQQRR'R(RlRmRRRR7S8SSSS`gd otgd ot ^`gd ot$a$gd ot $da$gd otdgd0Sgd0SgdBjgdIjLLLLLL3LBLFLGLbLfLrLzLLLLLLM(M)M0M4MpMqMMMMMOOOOOOO PPEPPPPPQQQ;QRQSQtQuQQQQQQQQշhBjh ot5 h&5h@J0h0SOJQJ^Jh0SOJQJ^JhKKOJQJ^JhBjOJQJ^Jh4h4OJQJ^J h{h4h"g7OJQJ^Jh4h"g7OJQJ^J:QRR R'R(RHRNRYR_RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSS'S)SSS[SiSmSSSSSSSSSTT&T+T4TzTTJUKULU\U㹮h@J0h@J0OJQJ^Jh otOJQJ^J h oth otCJOJQJ^JaJh oth otCJaJh oth ot6CJaJh otCJaJh h otCJaJh h otCJaJ hh othh ot>*h h ot5>*CJaJ2ST4TzTKULU\\\\E`F`ffSi^i_i{i|i~iij^jj & Fgdm;t$a$gdm;t  gd0Sgd0S  gd otgd ot`gd ot\UhUUUVVWWWWWWWWXX!X&X1XXXXX,Y-Y/Y3YEYJYaYqYrYYYYYYYYYYsZtZZZk[\\\^^j_ŻŻŻŻŻŻű߱h|EOJQJ^Jh0SOJQJ^Jh0Sh&56OJQJ^Jh&OJQJ^JhbOJQJ^Jh=wOJQJ^Jh#OJQJ^Jjh#0JOJQJU^Jh/OJQJ^Jh@J0h@J0OJQJ^Jh@J0OJQJ^J3j_l_____` `e`g`````"a#abbbbbcccc2fRfUfufvf}f~ffgggBhOhhhhhiQiSi_imiॺ~hm;thm;t5>*CJaJ hm;t5hL1OJQJ^JhfpOJQJ^Jh51{OJQJ^Jh|E6OJQJ^Jhm;tOJQJ^JhMch0S>*OJQJ^Jh|Eh0S>*OJQJ^Jh|EOJQJ^Jh0SOJQJ^Jh0S6OJQJ^J.mioi{i|iJnNnoooDpEpFpbpcpep|pprrruu v˽˳vlbllRlH;Hh"u<h51{OJQJ^Jh51{OJQJ^Jjh~0JOJQJU^Jh4/OJQJ^JhL1OJQJ^Jh4/hL1>*OJQJ^Jh~5OJQJ^Jh~h~OJQJ^Jh~OJQJ^Jh|Eh0SOJQJ^Jh|EOJQJ^Jhm;thm;t56CJaJhm;thm;t5CJaJhm;t5OJQJ^Jhm;thm;t5>*CJaJhm;thm;t56>*CJaJjjPkk&lLltllllm,mYmmmmm*nrnnoJorooooo$a$gdm;t & Fgdm;t & Fgdm;tooEpFpdpeptyuyyyۏ܏]^GHKL  ^gdz  gd ot  gd0S vhvivjv9x?xlxqxysytyuyyyyy||}}~}3~6~ȾȰțȋȋȁqgYggOh`OJQJ^Jh4/h2c>*OJQJ^Jh2cOJQJ^Jjh"u<0JOJQJU^Jh"u<OJQJ^Jjh(t0JOJQJU^Jh4/OJQJ^Jh4/>*OJQJ^Jh4/hB ?>*OJQJ^JhKKOJQJ^JhB ?OJQJ^Jh~OJQJ^Jjh 0JOJQJU^Jh51{OJQJ^Jh OJQJ^J-8Ldeo(*rsEIΎώЎڏ܏<}hWOJQJ^Jh>.OJQJ^Jh4/5OJQJ^Jh4/h4/>*OJQJ^Jh4/h[>*OJQJ^Jh[OJQJ^Jh`;OJQJ^Jjh`;0JOJQJU^Jjhhjg0JOJQJU^Jh`OJQJ^Jh2cOJQJ^J0 \^DEFGHLMϛ՛؛ۛܛ,1۾ۭ~~nddddZdh OJQJ^Jh$ OJQJ^Jjh$ 0JOJQJU^JhiG"OJQJ^J hzhzCJOJQJ^JaJ'jh$ 0JCJOJQJU^JaJ hzh[CJOJQJ^JaJjhz0JOJQJU^Jh[5>*OJQJ^JhzOJQJ^Jh[OJQJ^Jjh(0g0JOJQJU^J#֞͝͞TUVWX[t֟ןPb}_`as6T\JL~줮욌h4/hef>*OJQJ^JhefOJQJ^JhWOJQJ^JhP:OJQJ^JjhP:0JOJQJU^Jh>OJQJ^Jjh>0JOJQJU^JhiG"OJQJ^Jh[OJQJ^Jh$ OJQJ^J1LIJlmde89uvef89-.klgdbTTgd>.gdef~"efΧϧHJެ߬45vku?@AHݹݹݯݟݯ瑃ݯݯݯݯݯsݯjhz0JOJQJU^Jh h4/>*OJQJ^Jh hef>*OJQJ^Jjhuh0JOJQJU^JhuhOJQJ^JjhZST0JOJQJU^JhZSTOJQJ^Jh>.OJQJ^JhefOJQJ^Jh4/OJQJ^Jh4/h4/>*OJQJ^J,׹۹ ƻѻݻ-.ce89: 79MOȮȮ줔줔jhO40JOJQJU^JhO4OJQJ^JjhirW0JOJQJU^JheOJQJ^JhirWOJQJ^Jjhz0JOJQJU^JhuhOJQJ^JhefOJQJ^JhzOJQJ^J4Oabcij FGH Yy),stvƶƬƶƢƬƢƢƢƢƢƢƢƬƢƢƘh h 56OJQJ^Jh[OJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhHxOJQJ^JjhHx0JOJQJU^JhefOJQJ^JhO4OJQJ^JheheOJQJ^JheOJQJ^Jh ,he6OJQJ^J2>La(+Ekden"'1غغذ싰wwhZOJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jjh2R0JOJQJU^Jh2ROJQJ^Jh*6OJQJ^Jh*OJQJ^Jh ,OJQJ^Jh-OJQJ^JhHxOJQJ^Jh\(OJQJ^JhPeOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^Jh2cOJQJ^J.%',-34;`abc`acd2345689~;óҟhnhbTT5OJQJ^JhnhbTTOJQJ^Jh ,OJQJ^JhbTTOJQJ^JjhZ0JOJQJU^JhZhZ0JOJQJ^JhZOJQJ^Jjh0JOJQJU^Jh OJQJ^JhOJQJ^J4[]b;&*-M *+6;||o|eoh!wOJQJ^JhXhbTTOJQJ^Jjhk0JOJQJU^JhkOJQJ^J h{hbTTh ,OJQJ^Jh ,6OJQJ^JhD=hbTT6OJQJ^JhD=hbTTOJQJ^JhD=hbTT5OJQJ^JhnhbTTOJQJ^JhnhbTT5OJQJ^JhbTTOJQJ^J'pqr#$<jkl 2AK"cxz{jlqvx!  ŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŮߣŮ߮߮ߓ߮jhU@+0JOJQJU^JhbTT5OJQJ^JhU@+OJQJ^JhyhbTTOJQJ^Jh(OJQJ^Jjh!w0JOJQJU^JhbTTOJQJ^JhXhbTTOJQJ^Jh!wOJQJ^J7l"ux_ O'8gd(tgd#gd4gdyKgdbTTBYB<=G!"#KYtuvwHj htFh"Th"TOJQJ^J hCh"T hmrh"T h?:0h"T hWBih"T hMkh"T h;h"T h@aBh"T h"T6h"Tjh"T0JUh hbTTOJQJ^J>45|}~ MiNjwxy^_`   o)NOPq&h"u<h"TH* h(th"T h h"Thhjgh"TH*hhjgh"T6h h"T6 h#h"Th#h"T6h$h"T0Jjh"TUjh"TU h"T6jh"T0JUh"T7&'(BXafrO589Sbirs<X^_`z: O w         hefh"T h>h"T hzh"T h(0gh"T hP:h"Th[h"T6 h`;h"T hhjgh"T h"T6h"Tjh"T0JU h"u<h"TD_   E   /     & 4     N EhShhhhhgdZgdP:      " > D E F n           ( / 0           & ' 4 5 G {             N O    hEhFhShThfhhhhhhhhhhhhhjhz-Uhz- hU@+h"TU hkh"T h2Rh"T huhh"T h"T6h"Tjh"T0JUK 98-130, Montral & Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 1993.  Ibid., 112.  C.B. Macpherson, The Real World of Democracy, Toronto: Anansi, 1965.     PAGE  PAGE 2 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgdbTTh]hgdk &`#$gd"Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hbTTOJQJ^Jhz-hmv0JmHnHuh"T h"T0Jjh"T0JU5 01h:pk. A!"#$% uDyK :http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Aboriginal_Workers/464yK http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Aboriginal_Workers/464yX;H,]ą'c@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List>@> b< Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ b<Footnote ReferenceH*H+H 4 Endnote TextCJaJmH sH tH >*!> 4Endnote ReferenceH*6U@16 # Hyperlink >*B*ph4 @B4 kFooter  9r .)@Q. k Page Number+P" 6+L0;29g>CPhk{r s wZЏ?bZj˫~Ŵ8NPuJFL  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012 ?  p r x:CS$7=e`n~%4d LnJKM_ZRSy z tu$$;+<+,,$,%,V,W,X,x,y,,,,,,,,,,, - -%-&-5-6-|-----00333334 4W4444455k5l55566N6O666688::*?+?3?4??????=@>@@@@@AAiAAABBDIISIIIJJ'J(JlJmJJJJ7K8KKKKL4LzLKMLMTTTTEXFX^^Sa^a_a{a|a~aaaaa b4babbbc/c]c~ccccdBdYdvdddd e1eEeVeXebedefeeeeeoooo/x0xKxLxgh~ӏԏ01ךؚ ՞֞23ĺź `a*;]#(',*X/aqB#U&[~6CR%&()+,./12;<=HIMh0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h00h0000 h00h00@0h00@0h00@0h00h00x :h00h00@0h00h00 $$$'+ R9(6315]9k?|GLQ\Uj_mi v~O& hh%4;@JSjoLlhhh  '!!% X8@0(  B S  ?[l> \lr ]!^l _t^ ` a4 bv cD!dl"eDա f glJ h|%!ib!j<ݮ ?|ݮ @ݮ Aݮ B<ޮ C|ޮ Dޮ Eޮ F<߮ G|߮ H߮ I߮ J< //tty++))11   OO}yy " ""##%%}(}(,,---- 434E4E46 7 7777777u8u888::????AA&B9BKBeBeBIILLLLQQSSVVbbbccMdMdRdjddd_f_fIgIg hgiik?k?knnxpxpvv~~JJkkJJSSssEEvv| MM>>YY&&yy**33Aoonn@@IIP00ZZss  M      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~55x11//88   UU  "*"*"##%%%%((,,----&494K4K47&7&7777777{8{888::????AB,B?BQBkBkBIILLLLQQSSVVbbbccQdXdXdmdddefefOgOg"htii&kEkEknn~p~pvvPPrr ZZÛÛYYyyKK{ĮĮSSDD__1111=HHuuttGGOZZ@@cc yy  ##M  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ 9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplaceB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate?v*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags stockticker;*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet  2004216DayMonthYearvRY+ 1 4";"L"V"eXgXaa9b@bccccGdLd^dhdjdmdddkkrruu۔*1ܚ"JPƣ̣v{gl &Xa,8FN[aw~z~6=4;>HILUWX`hijpqxDckpv;CX_{kqxKPZbHMW_15CJ%&&(())+,./12:=GJMS-U-}--------444467;7I8K8SI^IIIUM_MfD%&&(())+,./12:=GIJM3333333333338DLL%&&(())+,./12:=GMD%&&(())+,./12JMvY1-jVuIXp&D|D^`5o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH1VuI&D|                                    k>T(qgs$ DZd; g r;Cwkl ; yKL1&)-~ iG"#C%'}%=&X(Y(\(i*J*U@+%~+ ,;,z-D./4/?:0@J0ef34 6"g7838{8P:o:"u<B ?bK?@aBCjXCtGHHdVH4J:JKKnTLaL OTOoO5RJR|RS0SZSTbTTWirWiFXPYZ)`bPeef g(0gDghjghWBiBjMk l Ym%6n tofrm;t otkuvvmv!w=wAxHx){51{d}=~a0kAY"Tf{['/b<axl.U~l5#IjtF:o1guhtF c  ? cg+C2RPy\|Y 0\|EOZ`?b!=&72zD4{'\t>.'yk qz0:mrO4e(t&t.h'#-`;y2c z.*q<*L (fp `zK[*M aJ$aJ$@M LabdeLp@pjp@pnp@p@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hW*fW*ff "t "t 4d2QHP ?Ij2EStrangers in Their Land: First Nations and Canada as a Place of Perilv1hshew1v1stemp    Oh+'0(< LX x   HStrangers in Their Land: First Nations and Canada as a Place of Peril v1hshew1 Normal.dotv1stemp2Microsoft Office Word@@-@U,,@U,, "՜.+,D՜.+,< hp  Desktop Servicest FStrangers in Their Land: First Nations and Canada as a Place of Peril Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA=:http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Aboriginal_Workers/464   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ Root Entry F K,Data 1Table:rWordDocument7nSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q