`Genocide' debate is hindering reconciliation

Sir John A. Macdonald played a critically important role in founding Canada and in leading it as prime minister for almost 20 years. Over the past few years, however, he has fallen out of fashion. His legacy has come under sudden and severe revisionism as new interpretations of his role have emerged, and monuments in his honour have been defaced across the country. Has the new wave gone too far? In recognition of his 206th birthday on Jan. 11, the National Post is revisiting the Macdonald record with pieces by notable Canadian thinkers, in a series curated by author/academic Patrice Dutil, who has written extensively on Macdonald.

People who casually allege that Canadian leaders have been guilty of “genocide” overlook two important considerations. The first is that there is a need to get agreement on the meaning of the term “genocide” to have a fruitful debate. The second is that it is essential to bring evidence from history to bear on the allegation that Canada's treatment of Indigenous peoples constitutes “genocide” in order to test the validity of the accusation.

Without agreement on the meaning of genocide, commentators end up engaged in pointless semantic argument. There is an internationally accepted and time-tested definition of genocide available in the United Nations' 1948 Convention on Genocide. The UN Convention defines genocide as “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” The definition goes on to specify five ways in which the definition can be applied.

Most noteworthy in the UN definition is that intent and action must both be present for destructive state actions to be considered genocide. The problem in the Canadian case is that, while government policies since Confederation were frequently terribly destructive to Indigenous peoples, those actions were never undertaken with the intent to destroy an Indigenous group.

The goal of such damaging policies as residential schools, limiting Prairie First Nations' food supply in the 1880s, reshaping their economies and systems of governance, and suppressing their languages and spiritual practices was to control their actions, not eradicate them. Canada sought, first, to persuade, and later to compel First Nations to live, work, relate to their gods, and govern themselves as Euro-Canadians did. If Canada had wanted to destroy First Nations, it would not have devoted so much effort to trying to turn them into Euro-Canadians.

Over time, as state policies failed and First Nations continued to adhere to their own beliefs and customs, frustration on the part of politicians and bureaucrats increased. That mounting annoyance led to the application of increased coercion and control by the Department of Indian Affairs and

greater damage to First Nations communities.

The rhetoric federal officials used to explain their First Nations policies revealed their increasing frustration. In 1870, the department responsible for Indian affairs described its policies as “designed to lead the Indian people by degrees to mingle with the white race in the ordinary avocations of life.” By the late 1880s, when it was obvious First Nations were resisting government policies, the federal government said, “The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indians in all respects with the inhabitants of the Dominion, as speedily as they are fit for the change.” And in 1920, an exasperated deputy minister of Indian Affairs told a parliamentary committee, “I want to get rid of the Indian problem … Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic …”

Those official remarks were both offensive and informative. As objectionable as they were, the statements revealed clearly that the government's aim was assimilation, not extermination. No Canadian government statement or unpublished government document has ever been produced that contains evidence of an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” The Canadian record stands in contrast with the action and words of the U.S. government after 1870, which clearly reveal intent to eliminate Native Americans in the West.

While bringing evidence from history to bear on the issue of “genocide” in Canada resolves part of the problem, another remains. Fixating on “genocide” in discussing Canadian governments' actions after Confederation is not helpful. Many Canadians think or sense that use of the incendiary term is not justified historically and tune out. For that reason, using it in discussions of public policy distracts Canadians from supporting action to implement reconciliation rather than just talking about it.

Canadians of good will can hope that, once charges of “genocide” in Canadian policy die down, we will focus on what is important. Continuing controversy over terminology is pointless and distracting. It inhibits necessary action to implement many of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that remain unaddressed five years after it reported.

FIXATION WILL NOT HELP US ADVANCE AS A COLLECTIVE

PEOPLE.