As was sharply observed in class, there are make differences between Neo-conservativism and Liberalism. Ideas of social justice and society vary greatly between both paradigms of thinking, which are clearly illustrated in Mullaly's textbook The New Structural Social Work: Third Edition. In specifically the realm of social justice, the Neo-Conservative view is very staunchly individualistic, while also maintaining that there are no "Social Problems", only issues created by individual failings to cope within society. Up until the 1950's, Canada's view to the social welfare state was conservative, but after World War Two, there came a shift in thinking which resulted in a more Liberalist ideal. "However, the dominant paradigm that accompanied the emergence of the post-war welfare state in Canada and the United States, and to a lesser extent Britain, is reform liberalism." (Mullaly, 2007, p.94)
Liberalism still maintains individualism, but also recognizes that social problems are inherent because of a flawed economic model. They do, however, wish to promote equal opportunity, which in turn supports the individual to self-determination and actualisation. However, there is a short-fall in this method of thinking, in that Liberalism does not take into account those having equal opportunity given their social status in society. "Liberals do not consider the possibility that some people in society, because of their social position and resources, may be in a better position to exploit these so-called available opportunities than others." (Mullaly, 2007, p.98)
How does this pertain to Indigenous People?
In 2006, the Liberal Government made a historic attempt to close the gap between Indigenous Peoples and society as a larger whole, with the creation of the Kelowna Accord. If the Kelowna Accord had been seen through to completion, it would have seen significant increases into health, education, essential services like water, and addressed the housing issue.
While Liberalism at first glance seems to provide Indigenous Peoples with the tools necessary to become "A better behaved and socially developed individual" (Nahdee, 1999, p.3), Liberalism does not allow for fundamental social change that would be required. In fact, Liberalism is only a small slide to the left from Neo-Conservativism in regards to social policy and Indigenous Peoples. While needed social change is acknowledged, it is only in small policy changes to fit the existing system that they are willing to make the effort. "Therefore, the response to social problems is not to alter the system dramaicall but to (1) purge it of as many inefficiencies as possible by way of minor social reform; and (2) purge it of injustices by tending to those persons who are hurt by the system." (Mullaly, 2007, p.102)
So is the Kelowna Accord as great as it was touted to be?
Perhaps not. Perhaps its still a band-aid solution to a much wider issue. According to Nahdee, Liberalism paradigms often times were the proponent to changes within the Indian Act and Indian Reform measures, aimed at aiding in many of the assimilation policies such as the residential school system. "Aspects of aboriginality have been based on a liberal ideology which emphasizes the equalization of citizenship and economic opportunity." (Nahdee, 1999, p.2)
There have been other liberal policies as well, aimed at removing the social inequality of Indigenous Peoples. Trudeau tried to introduce "White Paper" in 1969 as a solution to ending Aboriginal treaty rights and special status. While under Liberal paradigm it was seen as a way to remove the inequality in a capitalistic system, it was an ill-fitting solution that proposed to remove the very thing that gave Indigenous People their identity and culture in the eyes of society, and not just mainstream society.
In both the Kelowna Accord and the case of White Paper, it seems the Government was responsible for retracting them, both for very different reasons. White Paper was retracted in the spirit of government fault, while the Kelowna Accord was killed because of an election.
At least in the case of the Kelowna Accord, Indigenous People were consulted, just as they were for The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was done before the Kelowna Accord was proposed, and the RCAP's main goal was a need to change social policy and increase social spending.
Perhaps there was something to be learned from White Paper after all.
~Shauna
Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Dickason, O.P. and Newbigging, W. (2010). A Concise History of Canada's First Nations (2nd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Nahdee, R. (1999). The Liberal Ideal and Aboriginality: Concepts of Citizenship and Self-Determination. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.
A health survey was done in randomly selected reserves to gather data on the health of Indigenous people in Canada. The results of the survey concluded that, on average, Indigenous people’s health quality is much less then the average Canadians. The author states that, “the rates of chronic health conditions were generally higher among First Nations adults compared with the NPHS-O [National Population Health Survey – Ottawa]” (Faries et al., 2003, p.170). With Indigenous people’s health declining, more must be done to help Indigenous people and their health with more access to programs, funding, and institutions. 
