Citizenship as Individuals:
Nations within the Nation State
For most of the years since the first
Indian Act was passed in 1876 being Aboriginal or "Indian"
was perceived to be incompatible with being a Canadian
citizen. When the option of enfranchisement, trading Indian
status for voting rights, failed to attract individuals,
more coercive measures were enacted, enfranchising Indians
if they lived away from their reserves, joined the military,
obtained higher education, or, in the case of women, if they
married a non-Indian. The object of policy, baldly stated in
1920 by Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent of Indian
Affairs, was "to continue until there is not a single Indian
in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic
and there is no Indian question and no Indian Department".
The same object was reflected in the 1969 White Paper which
proposed, in the language of democracy, to make Indians
"citizens like any other". The response of Aboriginal
peoples to all these attempts to "break them into pieces"
has been consistent resistance. Aboriginal proposals for a
nation-to-nation relationship have proven problematic in
attempted dialogue with governments and with Canadians at
large. I want to spend a few minutes re-framing the
discourse on nation identities.
My first point is that Aboriginal peoples
have maintained our identities as nations since time
immemorial. As nations we made treaties with one another,
with European emissaries and the Crown in right of Canada.
As nations we have successfully asserted our rights before
Canadian courts to enjoy benefits from our traditional
lands. In negotiations leading to the failed Charlottetown
Accord on the Constitution we won reluctant acknowledgment
from Canadian governments that Aboriginal self-government is
an inherent right, not a privilege granted by other
authority.
It seems to us that the continuing
existence of Aboriginal nations is a political and legal
reality as well as an historical fact. How that reality is
accommodated in relations with the Canadian state and
Canadian people is a matter for negotiation. I would simply
say to you that we can’t begin a dialogue on building a
future together if the conversation starts with a unilateral
declaration "You are not who you say you are!"
My second point is that most of the
thorny issues raised as impediments to nation-to-nation
relations have been confronted and resolved in the treaty
concluded in 1998 by the Nisga’a Nation, Canada and British
Columbia. The treaty secures to the Nisga’a control of a
portion of their traditional territory and a share of
natural resources in other areas. It frees up vast areas of
Nisga’a homelands for use and development by Canada, British
Columbia and commercial interests. The treaty deals with
Nisga’a legislative powers, government-to-government fiscal
transfers, and taxation. I’m not proposing that the Nisga’a
treaty should be a template for nation-to-nation relations,
but it does provide an example of how a practical agreement
can be put in place without undermining the integrity of the
Canadian federation.
My final point on nation-to-nation
relations points to the practical benefits to Aboriginal
people and Canada of recognizing and accommodating the
authority of Aboriginal nations. Stable Aboriginal
governments with recognized jurisdiction, resources to
implement decisions, and legitimacy in the eyes of citizens
can achieve social and economic renewal more effectively
than federal and provincial governments have been able to
do. The evidence is in.
The Harvard Project on American Indian
Economic Development reported in 1992 on research in fifty
projects over a five-year period. The project attempted to
determine why economic ventures is some tribes succeed and
others fail. The findings, confirmed in subsequent studies,
were that effective governance is a critical factor in
fostering economic development. The characteristics of
effective government were identified as: 1) having power to
make decisions about their own future; 2) exercising power
through effective institutions; and 3) choosing economic
policies and projects that fit with values and priorities,
that is, the culture of the community.
The findings on economic development in
American Indian tribes are mirrored in a World Bank study of
1998 that found a negative correlation between foreign aid
and growth. The study raised doubts about the assumption
that injections of capital from abroad would be the main way
of achieving significant social and economic benefits in
developing countries. Having effective government
institutions at the community level, that support sound
economic policies and inclusive social policy is far more
influential than previously understood.
Recognizing nations and establishing
institutions to implement the inherent right of
self-government are important but they are not sufficient to
enable Aboriginal people to thrive in Canada. The Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples pointed out that political
gains will be hollow without the economic means to sustain
them. The economic base for many Aboriginal nations is to be
found in the potential for wealth standing on, lying under,
or flowing through their traditional territories.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee
took up the theme of lands and resources in its 1999 review
of Canada’s compliance with the UN Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The Committee challenged Canada in these
words:
With reference to the conclusion by RCAP
that without a greater share of lands and resources
institutions of aboriginal self-government will fail, the
Committee emphasizes that the right to self-determination
requires, inter alia, that all peoples must be able to
freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources and
that they may not be deprived of their own means of
subsistence. The Committee recommends that decisive and
urgent action be taken towards the full implementation of
the RCAP recommendations on land and resource allocation.
|