LaFontaine-Baldwin Symposium
2002 Lecture

Mr. Georges Erasmus

Introduction

I am honoured by the invitation to contribute to the Lafontaine-Baldwin lecture series, imagining the kind of Canada we want in the 21^st century. And I welcome the opportunity to reflect with you on the issues that we need to address in order to realize that vision.

To paint a picture of the Canada that Aboriginal people envision I need only turn to the ideals of a good life embedded in Aboriginal languages and traditional teachings. The Anishinabek seek the spiritual gift of "pimatziwin" – long life and wellbeing which enable a person to gain wisdom. The Cree of the northern prairies value "miyowicehtowin" – having good relations. The Iroquois Great Law sets out rules for maintaining peace "Skennen kowa" between peoples, going beyond resolving conflicts to actively care for each other’s welfare. Aboriginal peoples across Canada and around the world speak of their relationship with the natural world and the responsibility of human beings to maintain balance in the natural order. Rituals in which we give something back in return for the gifts that we receive from Mother Earth reinforce that sense of responsibility.

I would guess that most Canadians subscribe to these same goals: long life, health and wisdom for self and family; a harmonious and cohesive society; peace between peoples of different origins and territories; and a sustainable relationship with the natural environment. Canadians would probably also agree in principle with the traditional Aboriginal ethic that our actions today should not jeopardize the health, peace and well-being of generations yet unborn.

If there is such a convergence of basic values between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples, why is communication between us so difficult, so riddled with misunderstandings and tension?

There is a problem of language. A study done for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples examined over two hundred commission and task force reports issued between 1966 and 1991. The researchers pointed out that even when we used the same words, Aboriginal people and government representatives were often talking about different things. The research also traced remarkable consistency in the issues and positions that Aboriginal people were articulating over those twenty-five years. I will return again to the issue of historical continuity in Aboriginal peoples’ priorities. I first want to focus on the nature of discourse between our cultures. By discourse I mean the way we carry on conversations.

Inter-cultural discourse is carried on predominantly in English or French. Since this requires translation of concepts and experience, there is the normal problem of finding words in a second language that approximate the meaning we want to convey. But beyond that, the discourse has been framed in terms that are often fundamentally alien to the way we think about an issue. Take "land claims" for example. Elders in our nations find it strange that younger leaders launch "claims" to lands that have supported our peoples since time immemorial. "Comprehensive and specific claims" are the terms around which the Government of Canada is prepared to engage in legalistic dialogue. Aboriginal people have had to work with the prescribed terms in order to get land questions on the policy agenda, even though the language distorts our reality. The discourse is driven by an imbalance in power, and considerations of strategy. In other areas as well - governance, health, education - Aboriginal people have been required to adopt language that is not quite our own.

I want to take most of this hour to suggest how dialogue with Aboriginal people might be framed in different terms, looking for language that expresses Aboriginal perspectives and also connects with the aspirations of a wide spectrum of Canadians.