First Nations Peoples would be incorporated fully into provincial government responsibilities as equal Canadian citizens, and reserve status would be removed; laws of private property would be imposed in indigenous communities.
After fighting in the First and Second World Wars on behalf of the United Kingdom, First Nations peoples returned home motivated to improve their status and living conditions in Canada.
Parliament created a Special Joint Committee in 1946, which, with the help of the Senate and the House of Commons, sought to assess the effects of the Indian Act of 1876.
[2] In 1963, the journalist Peter Gzowski published an article "Our Alabama" in Maclean's, exploring the murder of Allan Thomas (Saulteaux) on 11 May 1963 by nine white men in Saskatchewan.
In 1963 the federal government commissioned anthropologist Harry Hawthorn to examine the social conditions of First Nations people in Canada.
"[5] Hawthorn attributed these conditions to years of bad government policy, especially the Indian residential school system, which failed to provide students with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy.
[5] Hawthorn recommended all forced assimilation programs, such as the residential schools, be abolished, and that Aboriginal peoples be seen as "citizens plus", and given opportunities and resources for self-determination.
[5] The federal government issued the information booklet Choosing a Path and consulted Aboriginal communities across Canada in pursuit of an amendment to the Indian Act.
[9] When presenting the White Paper in 1969, Trudeau and Chrétien proposed it as a definitive means of dealing with First Nations issues.
The Paper said that Indian status was derived from legislation that encouraged separation among peoples, and its benefits occurred too slowly to be efficient and effective.
[5] The White Paper said that these actions would reduce costs associated with the federal government's administration of Indian Affairs and responsibilities under existing treaties.
Both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples reacted quickly with strong opposition to most of the policies and actions proposed in the paper.
Opponents thought that the White Paper proposals failed to meet any historical promises that had been made by the federal government to First Nations people in Canada.
[12] A major First Nations grievance about the White Paper was the sweeping claim that the Canadian state would change their entire status without being allowed any input.
[13] The way that Chrétien had invited First Nations leaders to Ottawa to consult them in May 1969 and a month later introduced the White Paper, whose conclusions were the opposite of what they had wanted, was seen as a betrayal.
[5] Aboriginal leaders were outraged that their demands for amendment of the Indian Act during the consultations had been largely ignored and met with a proposal for abolishment.
[5] The scholar Gordon Gibson noted that many Indians had become accustomed to the reserve system and so attached to it despite its many "defects" and were thus stunned by the news of its proposed abolition, which would mean a complete alternation in their way of life.
However, Chrétien felt that the White Paper was in the best interests of the First Nations and was rather taken aback by the charges made against him of "cultural genocide.
"[17] One prominent critic of the White Paper was Harold Cardinal, a Cree leader of the Indian Association of Alberta, who referred to it as "a thinly disguised programme of extermination through assimilation" in his bestselling 1969 book The Unjust Society, which attacked the premise that a society that treated its Aboriginal population like Canada did could be considered "just".
[18] Cardinal attacked in his book what he called the "buckskin curtain" to convey what he regarded as the indifference shown by Canadian society to First Nations concerns.
"[18] Cardinal ridiculed the claim that Trudeau and Chrétien would "lead the Indians to the promised land" and insisted that the First Nations people had to determine their own fates without the government telling them what to do.
"[5] Though just one part of the overall reason, Citizens Plus played a primary role in the Canadian Government's decision to retract the White Paper.
Many of the groups that emerged from the movement were considered to be pioneers in the organization of indigenous peoples past a locally involved level.
[19] However, the opposition led to the sidelining of the young Red Power militants and reinforced the traditional ascendancy of the band chiefs as the leaders of the First Nations communities.
[20] In November 1969, Rose Charlie of the Indian Homemakers' Association, Philip Paul of the Southern Vancouver Island Tribal Federation, and Don Moses of the North American Indian Brotherhood invited British Columbia's band leaders to join them in Kamloops to build a response to the White Paper.
[21] Many public protests and marches were held opposing the White Paper and demanding more appropriate action be taken to address First Nations issues.
Its main goal was to spread the message that there should be constitutional recognition for the rights of indigenous peoples, including non-status Indians and Métis.
[9] Despite the abandonment, many still feel that the intent of the White Paper and the values of its legislation continue to be held by the Canadian government and that assimilation remains the long-term goal.
The case was lost, but the Supreme Court's final ruling noted for the first time that Indigenous land title had a place in Canadian law.