The Canadian government transitioned to using "Indigenous" as its primary term in 2016, yet debate continues over the most respectful and accurate labels. Various leaders and activists argue that the shift from "Aboriginal" or "Indian" often reflects state power rather than community preference.
The 1982 Constitution Act and the 'Aboriginal' Label
The legal framework of Canada remains anchored in terminology that predates current social preferences. Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act specifically recognizes the rights of "Aboriginal peoples," which the document defines as the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada.. because these rights are legally codified under this specific term, some experts argue that moving away from it creates a disconnect between social identity and legal standing.
Paul Chartrand, a retired law professor and Michif from Manitoba, suggests that the term "Aboriginal" is the only one that accurately refers to the people whose rights are recognized within the Canadian legal system. According to CBC Indigenous, Chartrand believes that the shifting terminology serves government purposes more than it serves the people themselves, noting that the state possesses significantly more political and legal clout in these naming conventions.
The 2016 Pivot to 'Indigenous' and the 2021 UNDRIP Act
In 2016, the Government of Canada officially adopted "Indigenous" as its preferred term, replacing "Aboriginal." This linguistic shift coincided with a broader movement toward international standards, eventually leading to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) Act in 2021. The move was intended to modernize the state's relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis populations.
However, this transition has not been viewed as purely progressive. Paul Chartrand argues that the adoption of "Indigenous" continues the dominance of state power by allowing the government to influence how people identify themselves. He notes a lack of clear explanation from federal institutions as to why the change was necessary, especially since the term does not appear in the Constitution.
Kerry-Lynn Findlay's Denial of the B.C. conservative Directive
The tension over terminology has recently spilled into provincial politics in British Columbia. As reported by CBC Indigenous, an article by Business in Vancouver alleged that the B.C. Conservatives had issued a directive to certain MLAs, instructing them to avoid the term "First Nations." This allegation suggests a strategic, perhaps politically motivated, approach to language that could alienate specific communities.
The claim remains unverified,as CBC Indigenous was unable to independently confirm the existence of such a directive. B.C. Conservative Leader Kerry-Lynn Findlay has explicitly denied that any such instruction was given to her party's members. This discrepancy highlights a lingering unecrtainty regarding how political parties in B.C. are being coached to navigate the complex landscape of Indigenous identity.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and the Right to Self-Identification
Beyond government mandates and political directives, there is a strong push for individual and community autonomy in naming. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs asserts that the right of Indigenous people to determine their own identity is a matter of basic human rights. He notes that many individuals choose to keep the term "Indian" for political reasons, while others prefer "First Nations," "Indigenous," or the specific names of their own nations in their native languages.
This lack of a single, unifying preference is echoed by other community leaders. Clarence Louie, a businessman and chief of the Osoyoos Indian Band within the Okanagan Nation, points out that there is no 100 percent agreement on any one term among Native people. Similarly, Gladys Radek, an activist from Witset in the Wetʼsuwetʼen Nation, expresses skepticism toward the government's history of changing labels, suggesting that the state has yet to figure out what it wants to call them, even as she personally identifies as "Indigenous" because of her connection to the land.
Comments 0