First Nations leaders remain annoyed with Indian Affairs name change

The federal government’s quiet move to change the name of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada certainly didn’t go without notice. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his new majority government Cabinet, John Duncan, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North, maintained the post he held pre-election, but with the swapped out word with Aboriginal replacing the word Indian.

There was an immediate backlash with First Nation leadership demanding to know what the change meant. Others wondered if the change meant an erosion of rights, while the National Métis Council and the Congress of Aboriginal People welcomed the name change and applauded the government for it’s more inclusive language.

Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee was quite vocal with his criticism of the name change. He said, “It’s not reflective of who we are, we’re Anishinabek, just like the Métis are the Métis and the Inuit are the Inuit. They’re not just Aboriginal.”

Madahbee doesn’t like the sweeping name change because he says Indigenous peoples have been wrongly identified since the arrival of the Europeans.

He says the debate about identity is not a new one. Madahbee remembers the constitutional talks in the 80s,
“That’s where the name First Nations came into play. Names were being tossed around about how we should be referred to. Indigenous was too international, Native was too generic.” He says Aboriginal was also mentioned and was shot down because First Nations are original inhabitants, and didn’t like the negative connotation of the word.

Policy analyst Dr. Micheal Posluns says the name change has been on the way for a number of years. “The government, back to Mulroney, has had a minister called the Interlocutor for Métis. When Duncan was first appointed last year, he was also given that post as well as Minister of Indian Affairs.”

“So, from the government’s point of view, that giving him a shorter title will all fit onto one business card.”

Posluns still wonders the same thing as some First Nation leaders.

”What’s worrisome,” he said, “is that it’s not clear what the ministry’s responsibility it has to each group.”

Posluns says the primary duties of the minister to First Nations arise out of the department of Indian Affairs statutes and out of the many Supreme Court rulings, where the court has talked about the government’s fiduciary responsibility for First Nations.

Posluns points to the ministry’s Web site and says “It’s interesting the department doesn’t mention anything about its duty and legal obligation to First Nations in it’s opening paragraph about the name change.”

Instead focus is put on the inclusive nature of the name change. Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister John Duncan writes in the second paragraph of the statement: “This change better reflects the scope of my Ministerial responsibilities with respect to First Nations, Inuit and Métis. The title is more up to date and inclusive, and is consistent with our Government’s focus on moving forward in our relationship with Aboriginal peoples.”

Guy Lonechild, Grand Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations has similar concerns as Posluns and Madahbee about the name change. Plus, he worries about the treaty relationship that most First Nations have with the Crown.

Lonechild was also not happy that they weren’t consulted about the name change in Saskatchewan. That’s a substantial omission on behalf of the government. Posluns says the lack of consultation is a very valid point because the duty to consult has been the most emphasized by the court.

Also like Madahbee, Lonechild doesn’t like the generic approach to the name. He says, “We prefer to have a distinct mention and recognition of First Nations people because of the treaty relationship, and the Constitution maintains that First Nations are distinct with inherent and treaty rights and rights to self government and land. We prefer not to use the word Aboriginal, and it’s not something that’s widely used in Saskatchewan.”

Lonechild says, “It’s not a step in the right direction, in terms of lumping us together as ‘Aboriginal’.” He also hopes the name change is not a change in policy direction.

Lonechild doesn’t want the treaty relationship to get lost in the blanket term.

”There needs to be a good understanding and appreciation of our history,” he said.” Treaties are important and a bridge to the future, and treaty relationships should be strengthened and respected.”

Lonechild suggests the modernizing of a departmental name change should reflect a treaty relationship.
“If we could look at a Treaty Relations Secretariat or a Treaty Relations Office in Canada, that would be a step in the right direction.”

In addition to treaty relationship with government, Madahbee also discussed the importance of treaties as nation-to-nation legal agreements.

Not only is the name change unwelcome, Madahbee also sees the move as a harbinger of more change. He says, “it’s an attempt like the governance act to municipalize and minimize our standing in this country.”