BC Assembly of First Nations Demands Inquiry Into RCMP Surveillance Program

The British Columbia Assembly of First Nations is calling for a formal inquiry into historical Royal Canadian Mounted Police surveillance of Indigenous political leaders, after newly declassified files exposed what the force internally called its native extremism program. The files, released through access to information processes and examined by CBC News, confirm that the RCMP tracked the activities of First Nations political organisations across Canada during the 1960s and 1970s.

The request for an inquiry, issued this week by BC AFN Regional Chief Terry Teegee, has reopened a difficult conversation about how Canadian security agencies treated Indigenous political mobilisation during the decades in which First Nations were building the modern assembly, advancing land claims and asserting treaty rights. The RCMP has signalled that it plans to bring Indigenous leadership to Ottawa for talks with Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the coming weeks.

The story has landed during an already busy season for Indigenous-Crown relations. Federal and provincial governments are working through consultations on major projects, implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and a growing push for revenue sharing on natural resource developments. The revelations set that contemporary work against a longer arc of state surveillance that many leaders say has yet to be properly reckoned with.

What the Assembly is asking for

The BC Assembly of First Nations is calling for a comprehensive public inquiry into the RCMP's historical surveillance of Indigenous political organisations and leaders. The assembly wants the inquiry to examine how files were collected, how they were shared with other domestic and foreign agencies, how long they were retained, and how they affected the careers and safety of the leaders who were tracked. It also wants a clear process for notifying individuals and families whose names appeared in the files.

Regional Chief Teegee has said that surveillance of this kind was never justified by security concerns, and that many of those who were tracked were elected leaders of their nations, legal advocates or organisers of peaceful political campaigns. The assembly has called for any future inquiry to be independent of the RCMP and of the federal government, and to be led in partnership with Indigenous institutions and historians.

The organisation is also asking for policy reforms. Those include changes to how CSIS and the RCMP handle files relating to Indigenous political activity today, strengthened oversight from the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, and mandatory notification to Indigenous governments when their elected officials or staff are subject to security surveillance. The assembly has said that absent such reforms, the risk of repeating historical patterns remains.

The native extremism program files

The newly declassified documents describe what the RCMP internally termed the native extremism program, a stream of surveillance activity focused on First Nations political and cultural organising during the late 1960s and 1970s. Files reviewed by CBC News show that RCMP units gathered information on leaders of the National Indian Brotherhood, on land claims advocates, on the occupants of various peaceful protest sites and on individuals involved in cultural revitalisation efforts.

The program was developed in the political climate of the White Paper era, when the federal government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau proposed the elimination of the Indian Act and a rapid shift of Indigenous people to the status of other Canadians. Indigenous resistance to that proposal gave rise to the modern First Nations political movement, including the documents known collectively as the Red Paper and Citizens Plus. The files show that the RCMP treated that political organising as a security concern.

Historians who have reviewed the files note that much of the activity being tracked was, by any modern standard, ordinary democratic organising. Meetings of band councils, negotiations with the federal Department of Indian Affairs, and the formation of national advocacy organisations were all logged in RCMP reporting. The files also include correspondence with American federal agencies during the same period, raising questions about cross-border information sharing.

RCMP response and offer of talks

The RCMP has confirmed that it is aware of the declassified material and has issued a statement saying it takes the concerns raised by Indigenous leadership seriously. The force has said it will invite Indigenous leaders to Ottawa in the coming weeks for discussions with Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and with CSIS. The RCMP has described those talks as an opportunity to address the revelations and help chart a collective course of action that ensures accountability and rebuilds trust.

The RCMP has also emphasised that its modern policies differ significantly from the practices of the 1960s and 1970s. The force has pointed to oversight mechanisms that did not exist at the time, including the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and CSIS's own review structures. It has said that any allegations of current misconduct will be reviewed under those frameworks.

Indigenous leaders have welcomed the offer of a meeting while arguing that a forum of discussion is not a substitute for a formal inquiry. Several assembly leaders have pointed to the 2019 report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls as a precedent for how Canadian institutions can approach a systemic examination of past failures. They have argued that any new process must have similar scope, independence and public reach.

Historical context of state surveillance

Surveillance of Indigenous political organising in Canada has a long history. Records from the Department of Indian Affairs, the RCMP and earlier forces stretching back to Confederation show that the state closely tracked leaders, traditional governance practices and movements of political resistance. The pass system, which restricted movement off reserve for much of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, was itself a tool of surveillance and control.

The mid-twentieth century brought a specific focus on what officials described as subversion or extremism, categories that were often applied to Indigenous civil rights activities, land defence campaigns and international solidarity work. Archival research has shown that the American Indian Movement's Canadian contacts, occupations such as the one at Anicinabe Park in Kenora in 1974, and the formation of provincial Indigenous political organisations all featured in RCMP reporting during the era.

The newly released files add detail to a picture that Indigenous historians have long described. What they also provide is the first extended internal account of how the RCMP thought about its own work in this area. The phrase native extremism program is itself jarring for many readers, reflecting a mindset that defined ordinary political organising in Indigenous communities as a security threat by default.

Why the revelations matter now

The disclosures come at a moment when many Indigenous communities are engaged in sensitive negotiations with governments and private industry over major projects. Pipelines, transmission lines, critical minerals mines and liquefied natural gas facilities are all under discussion, and consultation and consent are central to the legal framework now in place. Trust is a key ingredient in those conversations.

Indigenous leaders say that revelations about historical surveillance directly affect contemporary trust. If the state was prepared to track political leaders who opposed the White Paper, leaders may reasonably ask whether similar practices continue today. Several First Nations have said they want clear assurances that current security activity is governed by meaningful oversight and respect for the political role of Indigenous governments.

The files also intersect with the broader work of implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP recognises the right of Indigenous peoples to political participation and protection from discrimination. Legal experts say the federal government will need to show that its security services operate consistently with those rights if it wants to maintain momentum on UNDRIP implementation.

How the federal government is responding

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has signalled openness to meeting with Indigenous leaders on the issue. His office has said that understanding the history of state surveillance of Indigenous communities is part of the broader work of reconciliation and that the government is prepared to engage on both accountability and reform. The minister has also indicated that he will consult with the Assembly of First Nations at the national level, in addition to regional leadership, as the conversation develops.

CSIS has also said it is aware of the concerns raised. The agency has pointed to its current policies governing investigations and its obligations to report to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the intelligence committee of parliamentarians. CSIS leaders have said that the agency is prepared to discuss how its modern operations differ from historical RCMP practices.

Opposition parties in the House of Commons have signalled interest in a parliamentary study. The NDP, the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois have all expressed support for some form of formal examination of the issue. The Conservatives have been more cautious, emphasising that any inquiry must be carefully scoped and focused on clear findings and recommendations. Opposition leaders have called on Indigenous leadership to shape the terms of any federal response.

Indigenous leaders' priorities

Beyond a formal inquiry, Indigenous leaders have laid out a series of priorities for the coming weeks. These include full access to the declassified files by the individuals and families concerned, academic and community access to the archival material under clear protocols, and a program of support for those whose lives or careers were affected. Several leaders have also called for an official apology from the federal government and the RCMP.

Women's leadership, youth councils and urban Indigenous organisations are pressing for recognition that the surveillance programme affected more than formal political leaders. Cultural workers, journalists and community educators were also tracked, and many of those individuals are still alive or have living family members. Leaders have emphasised that any reckoning must include a wide range of voices, not just those of elected officials or nationally prominent figures.

Several law schools and research institutions have begun organising seminars and public events on the new revelations. Scholars from the University of Victoria, the University of British Columbia, the University of Manitoba and the University of Saskatchewan have been among those taking leading roles in analysing the files. Their work is expected to shape the public understanding of the programme as further documents are released and analysed in the weeks ahead.

What's next

The immediate next step will be the planned meeting in Ottawa between Indigenous leadership, the RCMP, the Public Safety Minister and CSIS. The date of that meeting has not yet been confirmed publicly. The BC AFN has indicated it will participate and will use the meeting to press for a formal inquiry, for access to files and for policy reforms.

Over the longer term, expect the issue to shape debate over the oversight of national security activity in Canada. Parliament is already scheduled to review several security laws this year, and the surveillance of Indigenous political leaders will likely become a case study in those deliberations. The federal government will also have to consider whether to initiate a formal commission of inquiry or another independent review process.

For Indigenous communities, the revelations reinforce a long-standing argument that reconciliation requires a full accounting of the past as well as new relationships in the present. The newly declassified files are only a part of the archive that remains to be explored. How governments respond to what is already on the record will shape expectations for how they respond to whatever comes next.