CANADIAN STATE place for them at the constitutional table? MB: As far as relations between the First Nations and the Quebecois are concerned, can we also speak of a setback?
Round Table on Quebecois-First
Nation relations
François Saillant: The ties between the Quebecois and the native nations have not deteriorated as much as has been said since Oka. Beforehand, the First Nations were considered part of folklore. As long as they did not
THE question of the independence of the French-speaking province of Quebec from the Canadian federation is complicated by the presence of tens of thousands of native peoples from various indigenous nations which have become increasingly vocal in demanding their rights and asserting their cultural heritage.
We publish below a round-table discussion between militants in the native people's struggle and the Quebec independence movement. The participants are: Marc Bonhomme, editor of the Quebec magazine Option Paix and a member of the Quebec Coalition for a Public Energy Debate; Ellen Gabriel, whose Mohawk name is
Katsi'tsakwas, one of the demand their rights, they didn't bother anyone. But when they began to do so, things changed. Michel Mill: The impression of a set-back is the result of Quebec political parties using this crisis provoked by the SQ4. These parties want to instill in the Quebecois the notion that
Quebec is the sole reserve of the francophones. This was seen in the Grande Baleine affairs. This spokespersons for the Kanesatake Long House; François Saillant, an activist in the housing movement and the movement in solidarity with the indigenous peoples; and Michel Mill, a revolutionary socialist and independence activist who has specialized in native questions since his youth.
The discussion first appeared in the spring issue of Option Paix.
M
ARC Bonhomme: Ellen, in a recent interview that you gave to the bulletin
Solidarité, you seemed to say that if the Oka crisis! advanced the
Native people's cause in Canada, the situation at Kanesatake is worse than before.
Ellen Gabriel: Only the Band or Tribal
Councils?, which are the only bodies recognized by the government, benefitted from this struggle. They claim to have resolved the problem, when in fact all they have done was to put a band-aid over it. Nothing has changed for the people who demand the type of traditional government that existed well before their land was colonized.
The natives that have benefitted from this situation are the assimilated Canadian
Indians.3 The traditional Indians like the
Mohawks and the west Canadian communities do not even exist in the eyes of the government. The government holds that it is helping the Indians because it pays various native nations for their lands. Those are good Indians according to the government because they do what the government asks them to do. But for us it is not progress, but a setback.
We are a nation, we have our cultural identity, our own language, laws, traditions and government. The natives who accept the formula of an autonomous government under the Indian Act are no different from ordinary Canadians; they are Christians who baptize their children and bury their dead like whites do. If they are not different from whites, why then is their a special
1. The Oka crisis involved an armed conflict between the Mohawk people and the municipality of Oka over the building of a private golf course on land claimed for over 150 years by the Mohawks. For more on the Oka crisis and other incidents involving the repression of the Mohawks of Quebec see International Viewpoint No. 191, October 1, 1990. 2. The Band Councils as they are called in Canada, or Tribal Councils as they are called in the US, were established by the US and Canadian federal governments to administer funds allocated to the native peoples. Less than 20% of the inhabitants of the reserves participate in the elections to the councils. This reflects the opinion that they are alien bodies established as a means of reinforcing federal rule. 3. For example, Ovide Mercredi, President of the Assembly of First Nations, has denied that Quebec is a nation entitled to self-determination.
21
4. The SQ or Sureté de Quebec is the Quebecois police force. July 6, 1992 • # 232 International Viewpoint
CANADIAN STATE strategy could create a favorable environment for the development of a far-right Ku Klux Klan-type of party.
On the other hand, this crisis has forced a series of minority currents within Quebecois society to face up to the problems of the relationship between the structure and functioning of a society of European origin (I don't think we can speak anymore of a white society) and the native nations. MB: It seems that the authorities want to take advantage of any situation to poison the relations between European society and the native nations. We saw for example how the Parti Québecois (PQ) took advantage of the agreement between the Akwesasne community and Hydro-Quebec around the payment of electricity accounts, to accuse the natives of having privileges. MM: In order to resolve these difficulties we have to put forward a global vision. To do so, the goals must be decided and the means elaborated afterwards; not the other way around. There is too much of a tendency to accept the parameters of the debate as set by the government and the official opposition. These revolve around their notion of private capitalist ownership of the land and its products. Without an alternative, most of us accept these parameters as the basis of the discussion. But if we accept this logic of the needs and imperatives of the market, and not of human needs, people will be right in talking of privileges. We have to break with these notions. FS: I work with people who have had their electricity cut off. It is natural that their first instinct is that of frustration. By loo king at just one aspect of the problem it is easy to see how one would accuse the natives of demanding privileges, be it electricity bills, the non-payment of taxes, bingo games or the refusal to allow patrols on their lands. This is how the government can play its racist card. When will there be comprehensive negotiations on territorial rights, the exercise of sovereignty of the native nations, and the sharing of EG: I want to make it clear that I am a person who pays her taxes and I don't like the generalization that the media make in saying that all Mohawks don't pay their electricity bills. The resources used by Hydro-Quebec and other rich companies are on Indian land that has never been conceded. Our culture considers it dishonest to not pay for something that one wants to have in the house. But on the other hand, we are not privileged. We are constantly assaulted by a culture that does not seem to respect the environment.
For us, the land is a living organism that feeds us. Hydro-Quebec and the mining 22 it. Ir is they who are the privileged. You companies enrich themselves by ravaging International Viewpoint # 230 • June 8, 1992 harvest what you sow. The Indians have been exploited enough. The small Mohawk communities have no economic future; the land is not adequate for agriculture and the level of pollution is enormous. Not paying for electricity is a challenge, an act of revenge. I don't condone such acts, but I understand them. MB: The government does not want to deal would like to have social peace if it is not too expensive. It also recognizes that it is electorally profitable since this policy is supported by a large section of the Quebecois population. What is good for them is bad for us. How can this populism which could lead in a far-right direction be MM: Why not put forward the idea that nobody should pay their electricity bill? Hydro-Quebec has no more the right to cut off electricity at Akwesasne and Kahnawake than at Pointe-St-Charles or in east Montreal. It must be explained that if Hydro-Quebec seems nicer with some indigenous peoples it is only done in order to make it easier to tighten the knot around the Cree nation in Grande Baleine. Electricity is not a privilege but a right, like housing. Today one cannot live without electriMB: Isn't it inevitable that such immediate demands will be situated in the framework of the constitutional debate? FS: One might get the impression that the indigenous nations want things that we don't have and that they are against the things that we want, like, for example, Quebecois independence and that they are therefore ready to make an alliance with the forces that we have always fought.
The popular classes have an interest in improving relations with the indigenous populations. We have much to learn from the indigenous nations like, for example, on the question of respect for nature. The land mustn't be the private property of a few individuals. That would favor neither the Mohawks nor the Quebecois. It is no more correct to monopolize the land of the Kanesatake to build a golf course than it is to use the center of Montreal for a parking MM: We must be concrete and clear. Personally, I am pro-independence for Quebec. The independence of Quebec is not the independence of a vague entity that was drawn on a map in 1898, 1912 or 1928 by the Privy Council in London. When the indigenous peoples say that two-thirds of Quebec land belongs to them, we must answer yes. We must have honest and open discussions that are not based on the maps of the Privy Council, the Civil Code or the fact that Hydro-Quebec or others have stolen large parts of their territory. There must be mutual respect. That is the only way to clear the air.
Otherwise, we will continue to see the hypocrisy of the politicians and of many individuals in English Canada who want to come off as very pro-native only to create bad relations between the Quebecois and the first nations in order to crush the historic aspirations of francophone Quebec. This cannot be done if each side refuses to discuss with the other. EG: All around us we see Quebecois talking of separation and Canada of unity.. Any Indian from the east or west will tell you about their native land. Non-Indians ignore them, especially those like [Quebecois bourgeois nationalist leader] Jacques Parizeau who claims to speak for ordinary Quebecois and for whom the native has no rights whatsoever. Are the Quebecois naive enough to accept such things?
The philosophy of our ancestors commands us to share things. This is a commandment that we have always observed. It is thought that we live in a civilized era. We on the other hand see it as a barbaric one because it involves the total destruction of human values as well as the earth.
Montreal will spend 450 million Canadian dollars next year to celebrate its 350th anniversary and they have just closed a shelter for poor people because of lack of funds. Where is the logic of this? The whole planet is functioning illogically. Our philosophy is not materialist. You said earlier that nobody can live without electricity. For us, electricity is a foreign concept. I know lots of people who would have no problem living without electricity.
When you talk of independence and of laws, you impose them on our independence and on our laws. We see the independence of Quebec as being only another set of new rules that will be forced on us. I heard (native American leader) Billy TwoRivers say that an independent Quebec will be even harder for the natives.
People believe this because of the historic relations between the French and the Quebecois. The Hurons and the Montagnais are exceptions, but historically we are enemies and for certain reasons we remained so for centuries. I grew up at Kanesatake and Oka. There are old families there who have been there for over a hundred years and who are very racist. To them we
I grew up with this suspicious attitude 5. The Grande Baleine affair is the struggle against the construction of an environmentally-unsound dam on land claimed by native people. 6. Hydro-Quebec, an energy company owned by the province of Quebec, plans to flood tens of thousands of square miles of indigenous land in order to produce cheap electricity. This has been a source of considerable conflict between the First Nations and Quebec.
towards the French Canadians who think they are superior because they have more money and different values. For us, worth is not measured by the size of our property or our bank accounts. Success for us is to be happy within our family and in the community. The political and cultural conflicts that we have experienced must be resolved by discussions which, even if we don't finish them in our lifetime, must be begun now with young people who want to know what is a Quebecois, what is a
Mohawk or a Cree. It seems as if we are scared of each other. We must work to modify these perceptions.
MM: There are a whole series of myths that must be destroyed. I come from a small community in
Anishnabe country in the center of
Ontario. The small town in which I lived was one third anglophone, one third French Canadian, and one third
Anishnabe. The second language of the Anishnabe was French which made their situation even worse because speaking French in Ontario is bad enough for a French Canadian; imagine what it's like for an
Anishnabe! In fact there was an alliance between the French Canadians and the native people against the others until primary school. Then, the natives were sent to school in the southern reserves.
The true history of relations between
Europeans and indigenous peoples is not at all like it is presented in French or English history texts. These texts are responsible for the myths that provoked the Oka crisis;
the myth of the alliance between Mohawks and the English which is historically inaccurate as is that of Indian torturers. We must demand that such texts be rewritten.
The indigenous people know their own history better than we know ours.
We don't know it because it was written in a way to favour the privileged and perpetuate divisions. How many people know that there are at least 15,000 indigenous people in Montreal - more than in Vancouver where there are 13,000 according to the recent census? How many Quebecois even knew of the existence of the Kanesatake before the crisis? People in Montreal have visited the park and the shops at Oka, but that's all.
MB: The relations between the Quebecois and the indigenous people are similar to those between poor whites and Blacks in
South Africa. The poorer a white is, the more he finds himself in conflict with
Blacks over competition for jobs. Aren't we in a certain sense the Afrikaners of
Canada?
In Quebec the English represent the "top dog", the indigenous peoples the "under dog", and the Quebecois the "middle dog". Not being fully lords of their own manor, the Quebecois feel threatened by the territorial demands of the first nations. As owner of his own manor, richer and more powerful, the English Canadian nation comes off as more "liberal", even more so as the leadership of the Assembly of First Nations accepts a priori Canadian unity.
To avoid this dangerous trap requires in the long term questioning private property as Michel and François have already pointed out, and rebuilding a society around the indigenous concept of the Motherland as Ellen has explained. But we need to think through a strategy for that. MB: The struggle against Northern Energy has provided a meeting point for the concerns of both of us. The Quebecois and Cree people are against this project for environmental, economic or national reasons. The alternative of efficient energy use would meet our energy needs without violating Mother Earth and by creating many more jobs per dollar invested without mas-
This perspective has been put forward by the organization Coalition for a Public Energy Debate, and it serves as the basis for an alliance. Most of the environmental groups like the Montreal blue collar union, CEQ and several citizens groups with Cree, Inuit and Algonquin groups have found themselves around the same table. MM: Another good example is the struggle against private hunting and fishing clubs on the North Coast. Unions in Sept-Iles and
CANADIAN STATE
Port Cartier and the Inuits have made an alliance to root out these clubs which belong for the most part to rich Americans and English Canadians with a smattering of
Quebecois. I remember Michel
Chartan, then one of leaders of the CSN, accompanying Indians all armed with rifles in a small aluminum boat to one of these clubs that were defended by armed security guards who fired upon them.
FS: Even though I am pro-independence, I'll admit that I share some of the fears of Billy Tworivers. The Quebecois nationalists have always been incapable of understanding the plight of the indigenous peoples. Remi Savard has for a long time tried to reconcile the two national questions in the interests of both against the same oppressive Canadian federation. But the nationalists just didn't get it.
The Quebecois has grown to be comfortable with the status of being oppressed. But the treatment meted out to the indigenous peoples conjures up the image of the Quebec oppressor. This is an image that the
Quebecois nationalists have never been able to deal with.
It is said that the nationalist Parti Quebecois (PQ) has been the most open towards the indigenous nations. It is true that the declaration of 85 recognizes the existence of the indigenous nations except that it prohibits complete territorial integrity. The attitude of the pro-independence leaders is scary concerning their statements around
Grande Baleine.
I am afraid not only for the indigenous nations but for the poor Quebecois classes if the Quebec authorities are under the control of Parizeau. We are heading in the direction of a society of bankers without concern for social problems. The pro-independence people who think otherwise are in a small minority and have not been able to make themselves heard.
MM: This is true and false at the same time. The Canadian state was founded from the beginning on the oppression of the people; this is its fundamental characteristic. The rejection of this state opens up the possibility, but not the certitude, of raising the biggest social questions, of breaking the false consensus that holds that Ottawa is the only enemy. It must be made clear that the enemy is also amongst us. It is this possibility and not the formal character of independence that is key.
MB: I don't agree with François. On the
Northern Energy question the federal 23 government tries to put on a good face,
CANADIAN STATE unlike [Quebec premier] Bourassa who has taken clearly anti-Cree and anti-environmentalist positions, and Parizeau who tries to hide but always shows his true face when the going gets tough. However, [Canadian Prime Minister] Brian Mulroney recently showed his true face when he called on the European parliament during his recent trip to Paris to intervene in our affairs. Federalism is no different from Quebecois nationalism when it concerns the interests of the Quebecois people and the indigenous nations.
But Bay Street and the federal government are rich enough to come off well. Northern Energy is Bourassa's latest playing card after the Meech Lake affair?. Whereas for Mulroney, James Bay II [Hydro-Quebec] is one project among others in the framework of the free-exchange agreement with the United States. Worse yet, Ottawa uses the vulnerability of the Quebecois federalists to attack Mother Earth and the First Nations in front of Canadian and international public opinion. At the same time, the Anglo-Canadian bourgeoisie digs oil wells and uranium mines on indigenous lands in the West.
The key argument of the federal government is that the law is the same for all. That of Quebecois nationalism is that of the territorial integrity of Quebec. Together, these two positions negate the right of self-determination. The independence question opens up possibilities if we play our cards right. But how? This has taken several forms like, for example, the Regroupment of Solidarity with the indigenous peoples.
We are a minority but we represent the hope of a nation. The drive towards independence is irreversible. It can only be wiped out by an economic war if not by armed force. The Oka experience and the threats in the Anglo-Canadian press prove that this threat exists. This why an alliance between us and the First Nations is so essential. We confront the same enemy: big capital in Toronto and Montreal, the federalists and the national status-quo. EG: We would not have believed that the armed intervention at Oka would prove us wrong. We, more than anyone else, understand what oppression is. We live through this oppression and our parents had it even worse. I've seen racism practised against French Canadians in western Canada where I lived. It's just as bad for indigenous people there than it is here. We don't distinguish between French and English. For us, you represent the same point of view. You want what the English Canadians have. Are we going to be sequestered onto reserves in an independent Quebec? Whose laws will apply? FS: I agree that independence will open up possibilities and that is why I am for inde224 pendence. But what bothers me is the type International Viewpoint # 232 July 6, 1992 of independence or rather the political sovereignty that the current balance of forces involves. The unions are no longer an opposition force. They are part of the grand national consensus. The ParizeauBouchard current clearly dominates. Political sovereignty with people who want to maintain the social status-quo risks being worse in a situation of economic encirclement by English Canada.
The important question is the balance of forces that will come about. Serious questions must be put to the unions who should help us build a different type of society. MM: There are major gaps in this facade of unity. At the last congress of the Central Montreal Council of the CSN, in the workshop on relations with the indigenous peoples, people learned to their great surprise that one of the full-timers of the shop was a native. The atmosphere at the beginning of the workshop was very tense; there were not only sympathizers with the indigenous people's cause. Nothing was resolved but the questions were correctly and honestly posed.
Michelle Vigeant, a francophone Mohawk from Kanesatake, made an excellent historical presentation. At General Motors at Ste. Theresa, where Mohawks from Kanesatake work and are widely respected, there were many debates in the shop. The same thing occurred in the CLSC union in St. Paul where the workers wound up taking a favorable position on
The policies of tail-ending Bouchard and Parizeau are not always accepted by all the unions. At the last FTQ congress the rank-and-file strongly challenged the support given to Grande Baleine by the top leadership. The mere existence of the Solidarité Regroupement is a huge step forward. While the indigenous struggles did not begin yesterday, the solidarity among Quebecois francophones is quite new. The League of Rights and Liberties is, to their tremendous credit, a trail-blazer. We must continue to overcome the remaining obsFS: Besides the unions, we must also involve the popular classes. It is they who are the biggest victims of Parizeau and company. We have to find a way to infiltrate the social assistance bureaus which are exposed to the first stereotypes, to the EG: We want support with no strings attached. We in our society are trying to resolve the worst problems that the Minister of Affairs has not only not helped resolve but has made worse. We are very suspicious about the support of some people and some groups. During the crisis some religious groups threatened to withdraw their support because they did not like certain things.
They must be made to understand and respect who we are.
The Quebecois and ourselves are following parallel roads which are quite similar. We have to know what you want. Why do you want independence? I can understand it because the federal government is extremely corrupt. Breaking up this state is a very good idea. But at what price? Will there be more oppression of the indigenous peoples? This is a question that torments many people. Like the Grande Baleine project, many indigenous people see the building of economic independence of Quebec as destroying the indigenous people's way of life; the Canadian government is quick to seize on this sentiment in order stoke the resentment of the indigenous peoples towards the Quebecois.
The media has an important role to play. Misinformation is rampant. We are scared of the rise of a police state. In fact, the Mohawks already live under one. But the other indigenous peoples are afraid of one as well. Far from improving, the situation is getting worse. Development projects are being pursued everywhere. One will begin again in Pin's in Oka in March. Do people think that we are going to take this laying down? The Oka Quebecois are afraid of us. If violence occurs it won't only be the indigenous peoples who will rise up. The rest of Canada asks what you are doing to the indigenous people. They too are misinformed. People must be conscience of that. Kanesatake may be a small indigenous community but what happens there will MM: We must give unconditional support to the defense of the indigenous people's rights. Unconditional does not mean blind. I think we have to be much more imaginative in our support for self-determination than before. I don't like the formulation that calls for a Quebec of twelve; that is, an egalitarian association of eleven indigenous nations plus the European inhabitants of Quebec, because except for the Attikameks and the Abénakis, the other First Nations are not confined to the territory of Quebec's borders. We have to stop thinking according to the rigid framework of private property, of lines drawn on a map. We must consider solutions that are not necessarily based on the model of the European Nation State with borders.
We have not yet taken up this problem. We have not discussed among ourselves or with the indigenous peoples. True, this vision of things has a certain utopian ring, but I don't see any other way. * 7. See International Viewpoint No. 191, October 1, 1991.