Canadian Politics

A15(a) - Territorial Politics and Canada's Indigenous Peoples

Date: Jun 1 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location: Classroom - CL 418 Room ID: 15735

Chair/Président/Présidente : Christopher Alcantara (University of Western Ontario)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Jerald Sabin (University of Western Ontario)

On the Shores of Anger: Sauble Beach and The Resentful Canadian: Phil Henderson (University of Victoria)
Abstract: The current political moment is marked by a rise of atavistic populism around the world, growing concern as white nationalists organize around the country, and steady advance of reactionary leaders into positions of prominence. This paper considers how Canadian settlers - particularly in predominantly white, rural, and deindustrialized areas - are formed as political subjects invested with an extreme sense of having been injured or made fragile. From this sense of injury settlers engage in a politics of aggression and rancour that regularly targets Indigenous peoples. Developing Nietzsche’s concept ressentiment and Wendy Brown's idea of wounded attachments, I suggest that - in the absence of clearly articulated notions of solidarity and decolonization - Canada’s increasingly neoliberalized settler colonial project produces political subjects who reinvest themselves in the very processes that are the source of their sense of injury. These reflections on settler anger are grounded in a discussion of an ongoing dispute between the Saugeen Ojibway First Nation and the Township of South Bruce Peninsula over ownership of Sauble Beach in Ontario. I highlight the ways in which reactionary populism is used by local politicians to evacuate the emancipatory power of popular unrest by intertwining the legitimate grievances of poor and working people suffering under neoliberalism, with an active reinvestment in processes of colonial dispossession that strive to erase, marginalize, and remove Indigenous peoples.

An Uncertain Welcome on Unceded Territory: The Reoccupation of Parliament Hill on Canada 150: Stacie Swain (University of Victoria)
Abstract: On the night of 28 June 2017, a group of Indigenous and settler activists attempted to enter the Canadian parliamentary grounds to erect a teepee and hold a four-day public ceremony. Refusing to apply for a permit, the group intended to “reoccupy” unceded territory claimed by the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation. Initially held back by police but eventually able to erect the teepee and remain until 1 July, the “Reoccupation” of Parliament Hill took place throughout the main celebration of Canada 150 and even received a visit from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. During this time, the regularly-patrolled public space of Parliament Hill was a heavily secured zone encircled by barricades and strict security measures, emphasizing national security in a highly symbolic moment and space. I begin this paper by reviewing historical Indigenous occupations of Parliament Hill and state responses, then draw upon John Borrows’ theory of civil (dis)obedience to conceptualize Indigenous (re)occupations within the settler colonial nation-state. Through news, online, and social medias, I examine discourse on Reoccupation 2017 through Audra Simpson’s work on borders, security, and sovereignty. Focusing upon the refusal to apply for a permit and emphasis upon the language of ceremony rather than protest, I suggest that the Canadian state’s uncertain welcome of the Indigenous-led (re)occupation of Parliament Hill at the climax of Canada 150 accentuates the uncertainty of settler colonial sovereignty.

The Challenges of Participatory Governance: Reflections on Ontario’s Far North Act: J. Andrew Grant (Queen's University), Dimitrios Panagos (Memorial University of Newfoundland), Joshua McEvoy (Queen's University)
Abstract: As part of wide-ranging efforts to update and revise legislation pertaining to the governance of natural resources, the Government of Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources proposed ‘Bill 191: An Act with respect to land use planning and protection in the Far North’ in 2010. The primary objective of Bill 191 -- the ‘Far North Act’ -- is to enhance the environmental protection of land and promote sustainable development across an area comprising greater than half of northern Ontario. Despite the government touting the Far North Act as a means to boost consultative and participatory governance (since consultations with First Nations must be sought when traditional territories and their uses are at issue), the legislation has been contentious, leading to critiques by wide a variety of stakeholders. Although the Far North Act recognizes Aboriginal treaty rights, including the duty to consult, some observers suggest that pressure to develop the region’s mineral resources will trump such rights. Furthermore, several Aboriginal leaders pointed out that they were largely excluded from the consultations that led to the drafting of the Far North Act -- which undermines the legitimacy of the legislation. Based on primary sources (e.g., in-person interviews) and secondary sources, the paper examines the practical implications of participatory governance as well as assesses the moral claims to territory in the context of land use. This analysis allows us to offer reflections on questions of legitimacy, contentious politics, and moral claims to territory as they pertain to the Far North Act.

1062.Grant.Panagos.McEvoy.pdf