White paper
Red paper
Impact & Resistance
Historical Context
Discussion & Debate
100

What year was the White Paper introduced?

1969

100

What was the official title of the Red Paper?

Citizen Plus

100

Why did Indigenous leaders oppose the White Paper?

They saw it as an attempt to assimilate Indigenous peoples and erase their rights and identity.

100

Name one major Indigenous rights issue before 1969. →

Residential schools, forced relocations, or the denial of voting rights (which were only granted in 1960).

100

if you were an Indigenous leader in 1969, how would you respond to the White Paper? →  

Encourage students to discuss treaty rights, self-determination, and Indigenous governance.

200

Who was the Prime Minister at the time? →

Pierre Trudeau

200

Who authored the Red Paper? (name one)

Harold Cardinal or NIB

200

What did the White Paper say about the Indian Act? →

It proposed abolishing it, arguing it was discriminatory and outdated.

200

What was the purpose of the Indian Act? →

To regulate Indigenous affairs, often through assimilationist policies that restricted Indigenous rights.

200

What parallels can be drawn between the White Paper and other assimilation policies? →  

Similar to residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, and other colonial policies designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples.

300

What was one of the key arguments made in favor of the White Paper? →

It claimed to promote equality by eliminating special Indigenous status and integrating Indigenous peoples into Canadian society.

300

How did the Red Paper counter the White Paper? →

It rejected assimilation and called for the protection of treaty rights, self-determination, and Indigenous land claims.

300

Name one Indigenous organization that played a role in resisting the White Paper.

The Indian Association of Alberta (IAA) or the National Indian Brotherhood (now the Assembly of First Nations).

300

How did residential schools relate to the White Paper? →

 Both were assimilationist policies designed to erase Indigenous identity.

300

What do you think the government hoped to achieve with the White Paper? →  

 It claimed to promote equality but was seen as an attempt to eliminate Indigenous rights and responsibilities.

400

How did the White Paper propose to change Indigenous rights?

It proposed abolishing the Indian Act, dismantling reserves, and ending special Indigenous legal status.

400

What role did Harold Cardinal play in opposing the White Paper?

He was a vocal Indigenous leader, author of the Red Paper, and a key critic of the White Paper, advocating for Indigenous sovereignty.

400

How did the White Paper relate to broader Indigenous movements of the time?

It galvanized Indigenous activism, strengthening resistance movements across Canada.

400

How did treaty rights factor into the debate? →  

 The White Paper ignored treaty rights, whereas the Red Paper emphasized their importance and demanded their recognition.

400

How does the White Paper still impact Indigenous policy today? →  

Discussions about Indigenous self-governance, land rights, and federal policies still reflect tensions from the White Paper era.

500

What was the Indigenous response to the White Paper? →

Strong opposition, arguing that it was an assimilationist policy that ignored treaty rights and Indigenous sovereignty.

500

How did the Red Paper influence government policy?

The Trudeau government withdrew the White Paper in 1971, largely due to Indigenous opposition led by the Red Paper movement.

500

What long-term effects did the White Paper debate have on Indigenous self-determination?

It led to the recognition of Indigenous rights in the 1982 Constitution and strengthened Indigenous political advocacy.

500

What was one international influence on Indigenous activism in Canada at the time? →  

The American Indian Movement (AIM) and civil rights movements globally inspired Indigenous resistance.

500

in what ways does the Red Paper reflect principles of self-governance and sovereignty? →

It emphasized Indigenous nationhood, treaty obligations, and self-determination rather than assimilation.

M
e
n
u