WolfWhaleEducation Platform

Chapters Swipe or scroll →

Land Lessons · Voice and self-determination

The Red Paper

Citizens Plus and First Nations leadership

Explore the 1970 response to the White Paper and the continuing question of who decides a community's future.

Start the story Create a lesson →

About 6 minutes · Older students & curious readers

Follow the story

  1. 1969The proposal being answered
  2. 1972Education and local control
  3. 1982Constitutional recognition
Selected moments from the sourced timeline below. This is an editorial diagram, not an archival document.

A question to carry
as you read

How can people seek equal citizenship while protecting collective rights?

Words along the way

Counterproposal
An alternative offered in response to another proposal.
Citizens Plus
The Red Paper's idea that Canadian citizenship and distinct First Nations rights can exist together.
Collective rights
Rights held by a people or group, rather than only by individuals.
Self-determination
A people's ability and right to shape its political, social, cultural, and economic future.

01 · June 1970

Read the response on its own terms

Library and Archives Canada preserves a file titled Alberta — Red Paper, dated 4 June 1970. It contains Citizens Plus, the document commonly called the Red Paper, and associated material.

Start with the date, title, and archive before reading the argument. Ask who created a document, who received it, and why it was kept. These small checks help you place evidence in time instead of treating every statement as a description of today.

Read the sources: Alberta — Red Paper

02 · The central idea

Citizenship could include distinct rights

The Indian Chiefs of Alberta argued that fairness required recognition of First Nations' histories and rights. They rejected the idea that equality required erasing their distinct legal position. Canadian citizenship and treaty relationships could coexist.

That is the central idea behind Citizens Plus. Consider the difference between treating situations identically and respecting an existing obligation. What would each approach ask governments to do?

Read the sources: Citizens Plus — Red Paper, 1970

03 · A long view

Land mattered beyond one generation

The Red Paper connected land, treaties, and future generations. The Chiefs sought greater control over reserve lands while retaining collective protections. They opposed arrangements that could break land into saleable individual holdings.

Their argument separated control from unrestricted private ownership. Read it as their stated position in 1970. Then consider the wider question: how should today's decisions account for people who will inherit their consequences?

Read the sources: Citizens Plus — Red Paper, 1970

04 · Different places, distinct voices

The response was wider than one document

The Red Paper is an Alberta document. In British Columbia, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs issued A Declaration of Indian Rights: the BC Position Paper at its second General Assembly in 1970.

Compare the documents without assuming they are identical. Ask whom each organization represents and what local history a reader needs. Shared opposition can still contain different priorities and perspectives.

Read the sources: Historical Timeline

05 · A connected development

Who should shape children's learning?

In 1972, the National Indian Brotherhood presented Indian Control of Indian Education. Its principles emphasized parents' responsibility and local control, connecting education to community needs, identity, and the future. The document drew on provincial and territorial organizations' work, including Saskatchewan contributions.

This was a separate policy paper, not another name for the Red Paper. Studying it alongside Citizens Plus reveals a connected question: how can First Nations direct the institutions that affect everyday life?

Read the sources: First Nations Control of First Nations Education — including the 1972 policy in Appendix I

06 · Read forward

The story continues in the present

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 later recognized existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. This is a separate legal document, not proof that every demand in Citizens Plus was implemented.

Follow the historical papers with a source from a First Nation today. Compare the decisions people seek to make for themselves. Keep the dates visible so a historical position is not mistaken for a complete account of present law.

Read the sources: Constitution Act, 1982 — section 35

Follow the dates

The story through time.

  1. 1969

    The proposal being answered

    The White Paper sets out the federal government's proposed policy changes.

    Read the sources: Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969

  2. 1970

    Citizens Plus

    The Indian Chiefs of Alberta put forward the Red Paper.

    Read the sources: Alberta — Red Paper

  3. 1972

    Education and local control

    The National Indian Brotherhood presents its separate education policy paper.

    Read the sources: First Nations Control of First Nations Education — including the 1972 policy in Appendix I

  4. 1982

    Constitutional recognition

    Section 35 recognizes existing Aboriginal and treaty rights.

    Read the sources: Constitution Act, 1982 — section 35

Your turn

Build a careful comparison

  1. Choose one Red Paper argument about citizenship, land, or treaties. Explain it in your own words.
  2. Identify the White Paper proposal that it answers and link both sources.
  3. Write one question about who would make decisions under each approach. Add a present-day First Nation or First Nations organization source that could extend the inquiry.

Show what you learned. A short comparison that names the authors and dates, uses two source links, and separates a historical argument from a current claim.

Optional classroom notesFor teachers: Saskatchewan connections

These are suggested connections to specific outcomes. Use the linked curriculum and the scope notes to plan the rest of the learning.

Grade 12 / Level 30 · Law 30

LAW30-FL1

Consider how law serves people and what makes it fair.

Relevant indicators

  • f Compare equality and equity in justice.
  • g Consider Treaties as an influence on Canadian law.
Classroom activity
Read a selected Citizens Plus argument alongside the White Paper proposal it answers. Identify the author, the right or responsibility being defended, and the evidence used.
Evidence of learning
An annotated comparison that attributes Citizens Plus to its First Nations authors and explains why defending Treaty rights differs from endorsing every Indian Act rule.
Scope of this connection
The outcome does not name the Red Paper: the connection is an editorial case-study choice. Students must read primary excerpts and further context. The short lesson cannot represent all First Nations responses or complete the outcome.

Suggested connection · Source checked 2026-09-27

Keep exploring

The 1969 White PaperA government proposal that First Nations challengedTreaty relationshipsPromises that continue in Saskatchewan

The evidence behind the story

Sources & further reading.

Sources checked 2026-09-27.

  1. Citizens Plus — Red Paper, 1970Indian Chiefs of Alberta; transcription in Open History Seminar

    First Nations-authored primary source, especially the preamble and counterpolicy sections 1 and 6. The lesson attributes its arguments rather than presenting them as settled current law.

  2. Alberta — Red PaperLibrary and Archives Canada

    Archival description dated 4 June 1970; provides a second provenance check for Citizens Plus.

  3. Historical TimelineUnion of BC Indian Chiefs

    Used for the separate 1970 BC rights declaration, without treating all regional responses as interchangeable.

  4. First Nations Control of First Nations Education — including the 1972 policy in Appendix IAssembly of First Nations / National Indian Brotherhood

    The 2010 publication reproduces the 1972 paper in Appendix I. Its preface, local-control principles, acknowledgements and references document the 1972 policy and Saskatchewan participation; old statistics are not repeated.

  5. Constitution Act, 1982 — section 35Department of Justice Canada

    Primary legal text; constitutional recognition is distinguished from implementation of every historical demand.

  6. Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969Government of Canada — Indian Affairs and Northern Development

    Original proposal to compare against Citizens Plus; policy proposals are not enacted legislation.

First Nations authorship is attributed to the named Chiefs and organizations. The lessons do not imply that one document speaks for every nation, or that section 35 or the education policy completed every reform. No community review or endorsement is claimed.