Four centuries ago, Samuel de Champlain envisioned a society based on partnerships with native people
Samuel de Champlain dreamed of a society based on partnerships Veteran negotiators viewing today’s impasse between the federal
Ottawa — Every day thousands of motorists travel over the Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau. In the Ottawa region and Ottawa valley, everything from golf courses to hospitals and motels bear Champlain’s name.
Although his name is familiar to any Canadian who brushed past the explorer chapter in school history texts, few Canadians know much about Samuel de Champlain, the 17th-century French courtier, soldier, explorer and cartographer who was the founder of New France.
The statue of Champlain at Ottawa’s Nepean Point overlooking the Ottawa River sets in stone his place in our history, but it tells little of a man whose views on human rights and equality would in many ways fit better in 2013 than in 1613 when he passed through the region.
So much so that, given the stalled progress and escalating tensions between Euro-Canadians and First Nations at this moment in time, many people think the best way to see past the divide is to take a page from a book that Champlain wrote four centuries ago.
In early June 1613, Samuel de Champlain, with a small group of French soldiers and an Algonquin guide, paddled up the Ottawa River past where Parliament Hill now sits.
An envoy of King Henry IV, Champlain was in North America, officially, to establish French control of the trade between the New World and the Old.
But he was also an artist and a storyteller, filling his journals with maps and sketches of the “exotic” animals and plants he saw here and reporting back to the king and court about the bounty ripe for the taking — the furs, the logs and the fish — so they would keep paying for his voyages across the ocean. And while Champlain’s aim in New France was chiefly economic, he had an ulterior motive. He wanted to settle the New World, but not in the manner of some North Atlantic conquistador. Instead, Champlain wanted to create a place where people of different backgrounds and beliefs could work together, teaching and learning from one another for the benefit of all.
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Champlain’s Dream, American historian David Hackett Fischer describes the grand vision Champlain hoped would become reality in what is now Canada. Fischer, who spent four years following Champlain’s trails in France and North America, said the Frenchman dreamed of a society based on partnerships between indigenous peoples and Europeans in which each strengthened and enriched the other.
For Champlain, this project started with a respect for his native allies’ customs. His dealings with what he called Indian Nations always began in their traditional way, sharing tobacco and sitting together to discuss how they could work for a common purpose.
To learn as much as possible about the land and the people, Champlain enlisted young French “truchements” or “go-betweens” who lived — sometimes for years — with various bands, learning their language and customs, reporting back to Champlain about what they saw, and facilitating further trade and friendship.
And so, 400 years ago this month, when Champlain travelled for the first time up the Ottawa River, news of this white man who was well-versed in native customs had already spread through a vast centuries-old trade network; when he met Tessouat at Morrisson Island, the Algonquin war chief had already heard of him. While Tessouat refused to allow the explorer to go further up the Ottawa River — likely suspecting Champlain would try to cut him out as a fur trade middleman — the two shared tobacco and a feast, and made an alliance.
Champlain’s motives were far from selfless. He made friends with the Indian Nations largely because he needed safe passage to secure his economic aims and French settlers needed their help to survive those first Canadian winters.
While he was curious about native customs, he saw his European world view and religious beliefs as superior to the spiritual lives of the indigenous people. As a devout Catholic, he encouraged “les sauvages” he met (literally “forest dwellers,” not savages) to embrace Christianity, bringing French Récollet priests and later Jesuits to the New World.
Nor was he shy about involving himself in the Indian wars, picking sides and using the weapons of war when necessary. Allying himself with the Algonquian-speaking tribes, including the Algonquin, Nipissing and Montagnais (now Innu), among others, he was an automatic enemy of the Iroquois Confederacy with whom the Algonquian had been warring for centuries. Upon meeting the Iroquois in 1609, he shot three of their chiefs at point-blank range during a battle, cementing this enmity, despite later peace missions.
Still, by most accounts, he was honest, respectful and true to his word — and the people he met responded in kind.
By the time of his death in Quebec City in 1635, Champlain had become an expert in navigating both our waters and the delicate art of treaty making.
Four centuries later, it is clear we have strayed far from his course.
What began as a partnership of equals has evolved into one marked by enormous disparities of wealth, health, education, income and social status.
These seemingly intractable problems came to a head last year when, all across the country, indigenous men and women spent the winter months round-dancing in malls, blocking roads and rail lines, all the while carrying signs demanding that Canada “honour the treaties.”
The Idle No More movement, which began in reaction to environmental legislation included in the federal government’s budget bill that many indigenous people interpreted as an infringement of their treaty rights, quickly grew. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people from small towns, reserves and cities across the country began speaking out against the depravations and indignities suffered daily by indigenous people, of which Attawapiskat is only the most recent and best-known example.
And yet, despite their diminished status, First Nations still control vast areas of resource-rich land, and the government needs their co-operation if it wants to develop those areas and cement its vision of the country’s economic future. Is there not, somewhere in this tangled equation, a solution that builds on Champlain’s basic axioms of mutual respect and understanding?
“Whatever the strength or advantages that one side might have over the others, the problems of humanity and justice always are there,” said Fischer from his home on Mount Desert Island in Maine, first mapped by Champlain in 1604.
“What do we have to gain by all of this if (after 400 years) we now have the upper hand? I think that a just and humane and open system can only really flourish if these problems are solved in a way that is equitable.”
Gov.-Gen. David Johnston and Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo — both of whom extol the virtues of Fischer’s book and Champlain’s vision — call the book “a revelation.” Each had assumed the French explorer was like other colonizers at the time, coming into North and South America to enslave the native peoples and claim the territory — and its resources — for a European monarch.
In an interview this week, Johnston said he’d “love the country to emulate (Champlain’s) vision: He had a vision for a new order in the New World, which would be very different from the old order in the Old World.”
Champlain “didn’t see Canada or New France as a place just to be plundered,” Johnston said. “It was a place for people to come and to build new communities. ... He was interested in building Canada and this New World on principles that you and I would hold dear today.”
Johnston said trust is key in making alliances with First Nations. “What I think we need is a more thoughtful, clear discussion with an understanding of history’s evolution, aided by our court decisions and, from that, I think we could make progress in these matters.”
Atleo has cited Fischer’s work and Champlain’s vision in speeches at everything from a conference on education in Nova Scotia to a presentation at the Canadian Club of Toronto. “Champlain set out to create a different society — one of mutual respect and harmony,” he said in Halifax, going on to explain that Champlain laid a foundation for a good relationship between Europeans and indigenous powers, one that we must endeavour to emulate.
To a large extent, the impasse between the federal government and First Nations is less of a dispute than it is a matter of two sides speaking two completely different languages.
Not that there aren’t plenty of grounds for dispute. There is Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, which would stretch across 45 First Nations as it seeks to bring Alberta bitumen to B.C. tidewater. Closer to home, Northern Ontario’s Ring of Fire holds $30 billion to $50 billion worth of diamonds and other minerals embedded in Cree territory.
Some disagreements are already playing out in courtrooms across the country. In British Columbia and Alberta, the Hupacasath First Nation and the Lubicon Cree say the federal government failed in its duty to consult them before moving ahead with an international trade deal with China (in the Hupacasath case) and signing drilling permits in the oilsands (in the case of the Lubicon Cree).
“He was interested in building Canada and this New World on principles that you and I would hold dear today.” Gov. - Gen. david johnston
In one case being heard in Ottawa, the government is accused of consistently underfunding treaty-mandated health services on reserve to the point where conditions became so bad that thousands of children were sent into the child-welfare system.
In every instance, the government says it is partnering with “willing First Nations” to focus on job training, providing individuals with skills needed to work in mines and on projects in their territory. But for many community members, this does not get at the nub of the issue. What they want is for the federal government to deal with them on a nation-to-nation basis, ensuring they are partners in development, not workers on Canadian projects, or welfare-case wards of the state.
The current minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Bernard Valcourt, released a statement this week saying the Conservative government “acknowledges that we must forge a new relationship, one that is based on an appreciation of our shared history, a respect for each other’s cultures and traditions, and an honest desire to move forward together with a renewed
that Canada’s stronger if we build it together.”
But, despite saying repeatedly consults with First Nations
new laws, the government to push forward a suite of water quality, marriage rights on reserve that chiefs
members call paternalistic, and assimilationist. As the complaints, arguments fundamental disagreements some veteran land claims negotiators say that it becomes not less — relevant to revisit model to stem frustration and finally move forward.
It won’t be easy.
“Four centuries is a bloody and the mentalities of 400 and those now are different Euro-Canadians and Native said Harry Swain, who served minister of Indian and Northern from 1987 to 1992, while Brian was prime minister. Still, the Supreme Court
decided in favour saying pre-confederation and Friendship treaties and Proclamation of 1763, which an enduring relationship mutual respect and partnership,
to hold legal weight The government is bound,
and the Constitution, that declaration and those but in practice successive
have failed to do They have characterized final deals, with the indigenous ceding their territory to the for a one-time payment,
and Inuit view treaties an ongoing relationship equal parties, and many scholars native and non-native — more correct interpretation. “I’ve always felt that if
the treaties if, in the language prairie Cree, we could talk spirit and intent, rather than parsing the language treaty commissioner,
get a little farther said.
In September, the federal announced it was changing negotiates treaties and self- agreements with First Nations
together with a renewed understanding that Canada’s future will be
we build it together.” despite saying repeatedly that it with First Nations when drafting laws, the government continues forward a suite of legislation on quality, marriage and property
reserve that chiefs and community members call paternalistic, outdated assimilationist.
complaints, arguments and fundamental disagreements compound, veteran land claims and treaty
say that it becomes more — relevant to revisit Champlain’s stem frustration on both sides
move forward. be easy. centuries is a bloody long time mentalities of 400 years ago
now are different both among Canadians and Native peoples,” Swain, who served as deputy Indian and Northern Affairs 1992, while Brian Mulroney minister. Supreme Court has consistently decided in favour of First Nations, saying pre-confederation Peace
Friendship treaties and The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which established enduring relationship grounded in
respect and partnership, continue hold legal weight today.
government is bound, by court decisions the Constitution, to honour declaration and those agreements,
practice successive Canadian governments have failed to do so. characterized the treaties as with the indigenous nations
territory to the newcomers time payment, but First Nations Inuit view treaties as defining ongoing relationship between two parties, and many scholars — both
non-native — say that is the correct interpretation. always felt that if we could honour treaties if, in the language of the Cree, we could talk about their intent, rather than some lawyers the language of a 19th-century commissioner, we’d sometimes little farther along,” Swain September, the federal government
it was changing the way it treaties and self-government
with First Nations to focus on negotiations “with the greatest potential for success.”
This “results-based approach” is meant to help figure out which treaty talks are likely to be concluded quickly and which will need more time. The current average is 15 years, but some negotiations take twice as long.
Many leaders and independent provincial treaty commissioners are concerned the change will allow the government to walk away from talks where they think First Nations are asking for too much to focus instead on bands that are willing to toe the party line.
Indigenous people are more familiar with the language of treaties than most Canadians and, Swain said, to negotiate effectively with them, the government should keep the original treaties and alliances in mind.
During Mulroney’s time in office, Indian and Northern Affairs successfully concluded agreements with both First Nations and Inuit that stretched across vast areas of Canada’s North, including all three territories.
Swain said the key was having “intellectually first-class” negotiators from the private sector “with a real breadth of historical understanding and sympathy for native peoples.” Hired specifically for their ability to communicate, these negotiators were given broad mandates to come to a mutually agreeable solution, but it was their approach that cemented their success, Swain said.
Similar to Champlain’s hand-picked “truchements,” Mulroney’s negotiators travelled to affected communities to see first-hand the people with whom they were dealing.
“They worked for years in the communities, learned what the issues were, got to know the community members and the leaders,” Swain said from his home in Victoria, B.C.
Today, he said, the negotiators are “not distinguished figures.”
“They are just career mid-level bureaucrats and they have this cookie-cutter deal: Here is what the federal government will accept in the way of a treaty. It’s chapter and verse and it’s all written down. You can have self-government, but it has to be this particular kind.”
Today’s provincial and federal bureaucrats aren’t “allowed any imagination or creativity in finding solutions to real problems.”
Richard Van Loon, a former associate deputy minister for Indian and Northern Affairs who worked with Swain and was responsible for the comprehensive land claims process in the Mulroney government, said the wording in many modern agreements is “not appropriate” as it requires the first peoples to “cede, cease and surrender” their land.
In Champlain’s time, Van Loon said, “the French had no concept of land surrender treaties. ... They weren’t looking to get a surrender of the land or to capture the land. They were just looking to coexist on the land. And, while you can’t transport that completely into today’s negotiations, an aspect of that would be a good thing for negotiators to have in their mind. I mean, what we’re talking about is sharing land.”
While “current First Nations leaders may wish the relationship was more equal, the fact is it’s not. But that doesn’t mean that it has to be as asymmetrical as it is.”
He said a nod from the highest powers can sometimes push a deal forward.
“When we were negotiating parts of the Dené-Métis claim in the Northwest Territories ... Brian Mulroney went with us to Fort Rae, which is about 70 miles northwest of Yellowknife. And he spent a whole day in Fort Rae, and he took his son with him. That’s important too, because it shows you bring your family into this as well.”
By contrast, amid Idle No More protests in Ottawa this winter, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s January meeting with some chiefs, including Atleo, was not widely viewed as respectful. He did say he would ensure his office had “more oversight” on the aboriginal file, but many indigenous leaders and citizens continue to view him with mistrust.
“I don’t think for a minute that Mr. Harper — an intelligent man — doesn’t recognize the necessity of finding accommodation and reconciliation and a way of getting along,” Swain said. “But the machine that he has created where there is no discretion, there is an overwhelming emphasis on form as opposed to substance.”
At his best, Champlain focused on finding commonalities rather than exacerbating differences, and that is what is lacking in today’s relationship with First Nations. Even if his dream is never fully realized or, as a country, we take no more than a few steps down Champlain’s path, his vision and his tactics are still worth remembering, considering and trying to incorporate into the always-evolving relationship.