On January 7, 1998, Jane Stewart, Canada's Indian Affairs minister, delivered a "Statement of Reconciliation" at a Parliament Hill ceremony as part of Ottawa's response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, whose report had been issued more than a year previously, in November of 1996. The Government of Canada, after acknowledging the contribution of Aboriginal peoples to the country's development, expressed its "profound regret" for "past actions that resulted in weakening the identity of First Nations, suppressing their languages and cultures, and outlawing spiritual practices." In particular, it said it was "deeply sorry" for the role it had played in the administration of residential schools and acknowledged that assimilation was not "the way to build a strong country." The task now was to renew what had once been a partnership, "to find ways in which Aboriginal people can participate fully in the economic, political, cultural and social life of Canada in a manner which preserves and enhances the collective identities of Aboriginal communities, and allows them to evolve and flourish in the future." ¹ Achieving shared goals was presented as a benefit for all Canadians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike. Backing up this statement of principle, the government announced a $350 million fund for Native-designed healing programs, as well as $250 million in benefits for other initiatives, such as housing on reserves.²

While Phil Fontaine, grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, accepted the apology, other Native leaders were not so accommodating.³ Gerald Morin, head of the Métis National Council, was disappointed that there was no specific mention of the Métis; Marilyn Buffalo, head of the Native Women's Association of Canada, found it so weak as to be insulting; and Harry Daniels, head of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, found it far from adequate, particularly in the amount of compensation offered. Okalik Eegeesiak, head of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, while committing her people to a new cooperative effort, criticized Ottawa for not producing a broader apology.⁴ Others wondered why the Prime Minister had not done the apologizing.⁵ A more conciliatory note was struck by Rod Bushie, head of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. As he saw it, the apology meant that "at least our foot is in the door. You're not going to get 100 percent support in anything, in any society."⁶

This mixed reaction contrasted with the enthusiasm with which the Royal Commission's report had been greeted by the Aboriginal peoples upon its appearance in 1996, when they had hailed it as an "inspiring road map to the future." At the same time, however, a warning was sounded by Ovide Mercredi, who at that time was Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. He called the report Ottawa's "last best chance." There was no question that the report clearly expressed the Aboriginal position; however, it was not so successful in putting that position into the context of Canada as a whole.

Why a royal commission on Aboriginal people?

As you probably all know, the establishment of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) in 1991 was Mulroney's response to the Oka crisis of the previous year. In some ways, this had been a giant step forward. According to Peter Russell, professor of political science at the University of Toronto, it was the first time in modern history that non-Aboriginal people had sat down with Aboriginal people to review where they had been together in the past and to chart a course of where they wanted to go in the future. ⁷ It was a unique social initiative that aroused interest throughout the Americas. It reflected a profound change in attitude toward First Nations that had been developing since the Second World War. More and more people were listening to the Aboriginal voice, as witness its increasing news coverage in the daily press, and the number of books being published on Aboriginal issues. As non-Aboriginals displayed more sympathy and more open-mindedness, Aboriginals felt encouraged to speak out publicly against past injustices. One of the results of this growing assertiveness has been a ballooning in the number of lawsuits demanding compensation for sexual and physical abuse suffered in residential schools; the courts are presently facing an estimated 1,400 cases.

One does not have to look far into the Native situation in Canada to see why RCAP was called for. For one thing, Aboriginal peoples form by far the fastest growing part of the country's population: where in 1960 they accounted for 1.0%, today the figure is approaching 4%, and is growing rapidly. In one city alone, Regina, where the proportion is currently 12%, it is expected to reach 50% by the year 2015 if the present rate of growth is maintained. As a result of this and of a lower life expectancy, the average age is younger than in the general population: 56% are under 24 years of age, compared to 34% for all Canadians. Of those Aboriginals who are under the age of 24, two-thirds are under 15. While there is considerable variation in Aboriginal socio/economic levels across the land, ranging from the very wealthy to the very poor, there is no doubt that on the whole Natives have been marginalized. A recent headline in Toronto's Globe and Mail this past Thanksgiving, 12 October, called life on reserves "Canada's sordid secret", and reported that in this regard the United Nations ranked Canada 63rd in its Human Development Index. Off-reserve Natives came in at about 35th.⁸

Let's look at some statistics.⁹ As of 1990, 28% of Canada's once self-sustaining and independent First Nations were on welfare; on the reserves, the figure today is a whopping 46%. That figure for reserves, incidentally, varies provincially: in Ontario it is 23%, rising to 74% in the Maritimes. Employment figures reveal a worsening situation: where in 1981 16% of Aboriginal peoples in the labor market were unemployed, a decade later, in 1991, the figure had jumped to 24.6%. Of those with earned incomes, 54% made less that $10,000 a year. About 10% reported owning their own businesses or being self-employed. Marginalization is also evident in health statistics: tuberculosis is 17 times more prevalent, and diabetes, three times more than in the general population. The situation revealed by these figures does not make good economic sense: it has been estimated that in the terms of productive goods and services lost to the Canadian economy, not to mention the high level of remedial expenditures, the cost to the taxpayer comes to an estimated $7.5 billion annually. Maintaining a marginalized population is expensive and, as RCAP sees it, the cost can only increase if the status quo is maintained.¹⁰

That the situation called for a re-evaluation of socio/economic policies and practices is only too evident. The problem, of course, is to reach agreement about the solutions.

The Royal Commission investigates

RCAP's original budget of $42 million, already the biggest in Canadian history for such an enquiry, ballooned to $58 million. About half of this was eaten up by public consultations. The commissioners visited 96 communities, heard 1400 witnesses in 178 days of hearings and commissioned 142 intervener studies, of which 128 met the required criteria. The final report, originally scheduled for 1994, did not appear until toward the end of 1996. When it did, it consisted of five volumes (actually six, as volume 2 was divided into two), comprising some 3,500 pages. The report was stunning in its magnitude and the scope of its proposals for Canada.¹¹ It proposed no less than a fundamental re-organization of the country's social and political institutions within the next twenty years. Its basic premise was that Canada's Aboriginal peoples are collectivities of "unique character" whose "inherent right to self-government is an existing Aboriginal and treaty right."¹² Not until Canada reorganized itself to incorporate First Nations as full partners in its confederation would it be on the way to realizing its full potential as a nation- state; the sooner it accomplished this, the better for all concerned. If many felt that the report went too far in its assessments and proposals, there was also acknowledgement that in certain aspects it pointed the way to the future.

In many respects it followed in the footsteps of The Hawthorne Report of the sixties, and the Penner Report of the eighties, and repeated many of their recommendations. But the RCAP report went further in its emphasis on the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people as a central facet of Canada's heritage. It identified four key issues: first, the need for a new relationship; secondly, self-determination through self-government; third, economic self-sufficiency, and finally, healing for Aboriginal peoples and communities. The commissioners made 440 recommendations detailing specific measures to achieve these goals, ranging from the issuance of a new proclamation supplementing the famous one of 1763, to the abolition of the Department of Indian Affairs and the creation of two new departments in its stead: a Department of Aboriginal Relations and a Department of Indian and Inuit Services, each to be headed by its own minister. It also advocated the establishment of a third order of government, an Aboriginal Parliament to be known as the House of First Peoples. On the financial side, it advocated the establishment of economic institutions that reflect Aboriginal values. As RCAP saw it, even if its ambitious agenda for change were fully implemented during the proposed twenty years, that would still only be time enough to reduce the gap in economic and social conditions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians by 50%.¹³ But if all went well, by that time the drop in remedial costs combined with the growth in First Nations' productivity would have gained sufficient momentum to eventually eliminate the gap. The report equated revitalized First Nations with a revitalized Canada.

As to be expected with a work of such sweeping implications, the report raises a number of questions.

For one obvious point, by the very nature of its mandate, the report, in its concentration on the dysfunctional aspect of First Nations communities, did not draw sufficient attention to just how varied the Aboriginal social scene is. In some aspects and in some places it is functioning reasonably well, as the report briefly illustrated with the housing success stories of such communities as Quebec's Ouj‚-Bougoumou and British Columbia's Westbank.¹⁴ However, in spite of its acknowledgement that the onus is also on the Aboriginals themselves to exercise informed leadership, the victim complex is evident throughout. The First Nations consistently blame their dysfunctional societies on the imposition of a foreign and unsympathetic system of public administration, which while certainly largely true, is equally certainly not the whole truth. Responsibility for the unsatisfactory state of affairs in many Aboriginal communities has not been entirely one-sided; First Nations themselves have not always acted in the best interests of their people as a whole.¹⁵ While changes are in order, they must come from both sides in a cooperative effort if the situation is to be fundamentally improved.¹⁶ On the political side, the report did not fully address the problem of shared authority within the Canadian confederation. Concentrating as it did on the Aboriginal point of view, it paid comparatively little attention to the consequences of its proposals for Canada as a whole, although it did acknowledge that the First Nations, with rare exceptions, want to remain within Confederation. Neither did it examine how the multiplicity of the governments it was proposing could be held to account. In spite of the almost naive faith put in them by RCAP, self-government and more government in themselves are no guarantee of good administration.¹⁷ Rather, they could simply substitute existing paternalism with another form of the same thing.¹⁸In fact, it could simply change existing paternalism for another form of the same thing.

Concerning international relations, the report advocated dual citizenship for Aboriginal peoples as First Nations and as Canadians, but did not define how this would work.

Immediate public reaction

Two of the recommendations drew an immediate public reaction: first, the proposal for a $l.5 to $2 billion boost in the annual expenditures of Indian Affairs over the next fifteen years to jump-start welfare-dependent Aboriginal communities on the road to economic self-sufficiency, and second, the proposal for a third order of government, an Aboriginal parliament to be known as the House of First Peoples, whose function would be to advise the federal Parliament and provincial legislatures on matters relating to Aboriginal people. The financial proposal very quickly caught the attention of English-language Canada, and the suggested re-organization of government caught that of French-language Canada.¹⁹

While the argument justifying a huge jump in immediate expenditure was well-reasoned from the Aboriginal point of view, from a general political perspective, it was a non-starter, coming as it did at a time when the public was being asked to accept both government and business cut-backs. Besides, such a large infusion would call for an administrative apparatus within Native communities that for the most part does not exist at the present.²⁰ As well, creating another level of government was not only widely seen as adding to the public's tax burden, but as having the potential for separating Aboriginal peoples even more than they are now from the general body of Canadian citizens. As these reservations imply, such drastic re-organization of the country's institutions would inevitably present some very serious challenges; the ride would likely be a bumpy one. Incidentally, Canada, with its multiple tiers of administration, is already one of the most governed countries in the world.

The nation-to-nation approach advocated by Aboriginal peoples stresses diversity and cooperation; federalism, on the other hand, is also about common standards and a uniform countrywide civic status. Still another reservation concerns the proposed Aboriginal Parliament. Despite the commissioners' claim that Aboriginal nations are not racially defined,²¹ it is difficult to see how that can be avoided in view of the already existing membership codes of some of the bands.

Bouquet for Quebec's hunter support program ²²

One of the few bouquets tossed by RCAP to the present system went to Quebec for its hunter income support programs which were developed as part of its land claims settlements that arose out of the James Bay Agreement of 1975. Negotiated by the Cree and Inuit, these programs were designed to support game harvesting in a direct and systematic fashion. That of the Cree funds individuals according to the time they spend out on the land; in 1992, 3,018 persons benefited. That of the Inuit provides for the purchase of harvested food that is then distributed, free of charge, to Inuit who, for a variety of reasons, cannot hunt. According to the RCAP, the Cree project compensates people for going out on the land, "regardless of what they do with the products of their efforts," while that of the Inuit "encourages hunters to bring food into the communities...[to] share with those who want it." In either case, the programs work. The commission's verdict was that there are no other comparable initiatives anywhere in Canada.

History survey

In its brief survey of Canadian history, RCAP concentrated on the British as well as the post-confederation periods, ignoring the two centuries of the French regime.²³ Its picture of early relationships between Europeans and First Nations as one of partnership, which recognized the sovereignty of the Natives, is only partially true. While Europeans on the scene in the Americas did at first deal with Amerindians as autonomous peoples, that did not necessarily imply that the Amerindians were considered sovereign back at imperial headquarters in Europe. The partnerships that developed in the field were not so much due to imperial policy as to the fact that initially Europeans in the northern fur trade were dependent upon Amerindians for survival and profit. A shortage of both manpower and facilities for setting up colonial governments ensured that Europeans initially avoided interfering in Indian community affairs. At first even their own colonists were often left to govern themselves, a situation which lasted until well into the eighteenth century.

In this connection, it is interesting to look at the royal commissions that authorized the activities of explorers and colonizers in the Americas as well as elsewhere. They were drawn up with imperial expansion in view. For just one example, Roberval, who established France's first colony on the St. Lawrence in 1541, had been commissioned by the French king, Francis I, to do so in lands "uninhabited or not possessed by a Christian prince." The French were perfectly aware that the St. Lawrence was dotted with Indian villages, but justified their actions by resorting to the legal fiction of terra nullius, uninhabited land, on the argument that the Indians had no "settled abodes," since they "ranged the land" as they followed the seasonal availability of food. Such a lifestyle, the French argued, meant that they were not inhabitants according to European law. Not only that, but according to his commission, Roberval was to go "into the said strange countries... enter into them, and put them into our hand", that is, take them over. He was instructed to do this in a friendly way, if possible; but if not, then " by force of arms, strong hand, and all other hostile means...to hold these [people] in our obedience." That was hardly the language of partnership, and it was typical of such commissions. To press the point even further, did RCAP consult the official maps of the contact period to see how the "New World" was depicted? The ones I am familiar with show the "discovered" parts of the Americas dotted with European flags of possession.

RCAP, to its credit, pointed out that in world history, creating empires was not confined to Europeans, but was done as well by various peoples at various epochs in other parts of the world. The Chinese Empire is still in existence. What RCAP's history does not mention is that the largest Stone Age empire the world has ever known was the creation of Amerindians---specifically, the Inca of Peru. The Aztecs of Mexico were not far behind, although the "empire" they created was much less centralized than that of the Inca. One of the milder impositions of the Inca was to insist on the official use of their language, Quechua, in the regions they conquered.

History apart, and on the positive side of the report, Canada has been presented with its first deeply thought-out blueprint for incorporating its First Nations as full partners in its confederation. If the challenges it presents do not allow the luxury of easy answers, it must be remembered that nation building is not a simple enterprise. Very wisely, RCAP did not establish priorities, leaving matters open to be handled according to particular circumstances. How the Canadian public responds will profoundly affect the outcome. The suggested twenty-year period was an optimistic estimate for the restructured relationship to be in place. In any event, whatever solutions are arrived at will not be cast in stone; as RCAP sees it, changing circumstances will call for periodic reviews, which in turn will lead to reformulations and renewals.

The government's position There was much criticism on everyone's part of the slowness of the government's response,²⁴ forgetting (or overlooking) that the RCAP report itself was two years late. Its complexity, and the long-range implications of many of its recommendations, called for careful deliberation rather than hasty action.²⁵ In the meantime, its influence is being felt in subtle ways: the report has already demonstrated that it is a moral force, tempering official approaches and encouraging Aboriginal initiatives.

Even so, there was an immediate government reaction, to some specific points. The then Indian Affairs Minister, Ron Irwin, welcomed its suggestion that for the purposes of self- government, Aboriginal peoples should reorganize themselves into 60 to 80 "nations," rather than the nearly 1,000 units Indian Affairs has to deal with now. As he expressed it, with larger but fewer groupings, "you can get better services."²⁶ Also, within three weeks of the release of the report, a First Nations Bank was ceremonially launched in Toronto, although it did not begin operations until the following spring, in Saskatoon. The establishment of such a bank was one of the report's recommendations. Another consequence, although indirect, was the creation of the post of Counselor on International Indigenous Issues, to which Brian Favel, chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, was appointed.

The government, when it finally apologized this year, also presented a plan that picked up on the four basic issues pinpointed by RCAP.²⁷ These were the renewal of partnerships with First Nations, strengthening Aboriginal governance, developing a new fiscal relationship, and supporting strong communities and economies. Its acknowledgement of the "inherent right to self-government" was not across the board, but only accepted in relation to matters internal to Native communities, integral to their particular cultures, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources. In this, Canada is trailing well behind the United States, which has long espoused the "dependent nation" approach for Native self-government, encouraging Aboriginal peoples to develop their own legal, justice and policing systems. According to RCAP, the Inuit have made the most progress of Canada's Aboriginal peoples toward self-government.²⁸

In Ottawa's view, matters internal to communities that are appropriate for self-government begin with the right to legislate, administer and enforce Aboriginal customary law that is not in conflict with the general law of the land. Other areas within its control will include band membership, property rights, public works, taxation for local purposes, marriage, education and health. Some matters that may go beyond internal interest, such as environmental protection, fisheries and wildlife management, training for employment, and divorce, are open to negotiation. So are national historic sites operated by Parks Canada that commemorate Aboriginal history.

Matters not subject to negotiation include such areas as Canadian sovereignty, defence and external relations, management and regulation of the national economy, maintenance of national law and order and substantive criminal law, national transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications, and the postal service.

It is widely conceded that there is no question of the "one size fits all" paradigm for Aboriginal self-government.²⁹ Practical arrangements will have to take into account the differing circumstances of each case, on top of which the people must be allowed to define their institutions and means of accountability in culturally acceptable ways. With these aims in view, RCAP proposes three models for Aboriginal governments, the first two of which are the national model, on the basis of nations with defined memberships; and public government, which would represent all residents of a particular region or territory where Aboriginal peoples constitute a majority.³⁰ This is the type of self-government that is being worked out for Nunavut, scheduled to come into effect next year. Both of these models would have legislative, executive and judicial powers within their areas of jurisdiction. The third model, called 'Community of Interest Government,' is proposed for urban Indians, who account for about 45% of Canada's First Nations. Even though a minority in any given city, they can include many nations, and so may have a variety of cultural priorities. In spite of this, RCAP still held that a measure of self-government was possible "with voluntary membership and powers delegated from Aboriginal national governments and/or provincial governments." Those powers would relate to health care, education, economic development and cultural protection. They would be administrative rather than legislative or judicial, in contrast to the powers of the first two models.

Those two models will need adequate land bases and control of their resources in order to be self-sufficient. At present, more than 80% of Canada's land mass is in public hands; Aboriginal people own less than 1% of the land south of the 60th parallel. RCAP recommended the establishment of an Aboriginal Lands and Treaties Tribunal to deal with specific land claims and to assist treaty processes. This was in line with its position that settlements should be negotiated rather than fought out in the courts, an approach that is already being developed. At the present time, Indian Affairs is negotiating at something like 80 tables across the country; involving half of the First Nations. Issues include land, self-government, and jurisdiction. It is only too evident that such an amount of negotiations increases the strain on everyone's resources, the government's as well as those of the Aboriginal people.

Good fiscal management means that funding must be arranged through reallocation of existing resources, which will involve taking the interests of other Canadians into account. This will apply to provincial and territorial governments where their jurisdictions or interests are affected. It means that tripartite (federal, provincial, Aboriginal) processes will probably be the most effective. For instance, such a tripartite negotiation marked the recent establishment of Canada's first diamond mine, scheduled to begin production soon in the Northwest Territories.³¹1 RCAP recommends that Aboriginal nations negotiate "government to government" with the provinces, and "nation-to-nation" with the federal authority. In such a set-up, treaties could play a major role.

In Canada, it is a given that self-government must operate within the country's constitutional framework and harmonize with other governments within the Canadian federation. While, on the one hand, laws of overriding federal and provincial importance will prevail, on the other, on matters within their jurisdiction, Aboriginal self-governments and institutions must be accountable to their citizens.³² These points were acknowledged in the RCAP report. As previously noted, however, it neglected to fully consider the equally important shared rule that is implicit in a confederation. Again to repeat a point, if federalism is about diversity, it is also about common standards and a uniform countrywide civic status. It was on these issues that one of the original commissioners, Allen Blakeney, resigned during the hearings. He held that RCAP listened too much, and did not put enough time into developing solutions that took into consideration the general context, not just the needs of the Aboriginal peoples.³³

What is a nation?

All this raises the question of the meaning of the term "nation."³⁴ In regard to First Nations, to use the term in the sense of "nation-state" is simply misleading. First Nations, with their memberships rarely counting even as much as a few thousand, are nations only in the sense of possessing a community of interest, sharing a common heritage and perhaps a common language. RCAP acknowledges as much when it describes their bonds as those of culture and identity. For a nation in the sense of a nation-state, however, a population of 100,000 is considered to be the absolute minimum to support the range of government services that the term implies, and even that is considered tiny. The Cree, numbering a widely scattered 137,000, form Canada's largest Aboriginal group; next come the Ojibway, counting 94,350. Most of the Aboriginal nations as presently constituted count a few hundred members, and some are even less than that.

One can also wonder about the "nation-to-nation" concept itself within the Canadian State.³⁵ RCAP's proposed third order of government is expected to consist of 60-80 more or less self-contained nations with an average membership of 5-7000 each. However, as has been already discussed, Aboriginal nations will not have uniform powers, and their constitutional status will vary from nation to nation. It also bears repeating to point out that until economic self-reliance is achieved, many will be dependent upon external---in this case, federal---funding. In principle at least, such an arrangement has the potentiality of increasing divisions, rather than encouraging unity and harmony. In other words, can a relationship between nations substitute for a community of citizens? Historically, it was their marginalization, the negative outsider status to which the Aboriginal peoples were relegated, that helps explain their ill treatment in the past, both socially and politically. Whether the "nation-to-nation" approach can turn that unacceptable status around, or even be worked out at all in any meaningful way, remains to be seen. In any event, some vision of a common society is essential to support a meaningful togetherness.

Thorny issue of the Charter

Another thorny issue is the applicability of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Aboriginal governments; as matters now stand, many Native leaders are opposed to the charter because of its emphasis on individual, rather than collective, rights. They claim that in the Native perspective, the primacy of the collectivity is central to their traditions. However, there is a serious split on this issue: women, in particular those who are members of the Native Women's Association of Canada favor the Charter because of its support of gender equality. They feel strongly enough about this that they want the Charter to be formally adopted by the First Nations to serve as a guiding principle before they get self-government. During the 1992 Charlottetown Accord debate, NWAC campaigned vigorously against the recognition of Aboriginal self-government as an undefined---and thus unfettered---third order of government within the Canadian State, arguing that gender equality must be established first. Aboriginal leaders took the opposite position---that self-government should come first, after which gender issues could be considered. The women are suspicious of this, convinced that the current male dominance in Aboriginal leadership will only be reinforced if prior measures are not taken to avoid it. They point out that discrimination against women is currently all too evident on reserves, particularly since bands have been allowed to control their own membership. For example, many bands are refusing to reinstate women who lost their status under the old rules when they married out, even though Bill C-31, passed in 1985, now allows them to regain it. The irony of the current subordinate position of women on reserves is that in the traditional way, before the arrival of Europeans, the position of women was separate but equal with that of men. Recognizing this traditional role, RCAP has strongly endorsed the right of women "to participate fully in all aspects of nation building."³⁶ Concerning the Charter, it urges a compromise: that its applicability to Aboriginal governments be recognized, but with the right to resort to the 'nothwithstanding' clause in certain circumstances, most likely to arise in relation to treaty rights.³⁷

Enter the Métis

The Métis are in a unique category, classed as they are but not defined as Aboriginal in the Constitution of 1982. Those of the west, particularly from the Red River area and Rupert's Land generally, consider themselves to be a nation, as a result of their particular history. For one thing, they played a major role in negotiating the treaties that opened up the west to White settlement. Ironically, the oldest Métis settlements in Canada are in the east, specifically Labrador, where they have been in place since the sixteenth century; however, they are not considered to be members of the Métis Nation, although there is a move to change that. On the matter of definition, RCAP has recommended that anyone be accepted as Métis who considers himself/herself to be such and who is accepted by the Métis community.³⁸ At the moment the matter rests there. A national definition remains to be agreed upon by the Métis themselves. Until it is settled, there can be no question of Métis self-government, at least on a national basis. Alberta is the only province that has set aside land for the Métis, in eight settlements scattered through its central region. Nationally, neither do the Métis enjoy the same hunting and fishing rights as do Indians; a Manitoba court recently decided that since they are not Indians, they do not qualify under the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930 which states "Indians have the right of hunting, trapping and fishing game for food at all seasons of the year on all unoccupied Crown lands." RCAP, for its part, has concluded "that Métis people are included in the term 'Indians'" just as the Inuit have been.³⁹ It strongly favors the same rights for all Aboriginal peoples.⁴⁰

Education and training⁴¹

To return to the problems of implementing self-government for a moment, one fact emerges very clearly: it will involve a greatly increased need for qualified personnel. While the past dismal record of Aboriginal attendance in education programs is being improved, particularly as the First Nations have taken charge of their schools, the numbers of graduating students still does not compare with those of the mainstream society, nor are they sufficient to meet the new demands. For example, the new territory of Nunavut, currently in the process of setting up the administrative apparatus for self-government, has encountered grave difficulties in this regard.⁴²

Another area where this lack of qualified Aboriginal personnel has long been evident is in the professions: in medicine, for example, Canada has fewer than 50 Aboriginal physicians and about 300 Aboriginal nurses, in both cases representing 0.1% of the total in those fields. RCAP attributes this failure to cultural factors, and argues that educational institutions---indeed, institutions in general---need to be re-oriented to include Aboriginal perspectives.⁴³ Of major importance would be the establishment of an Aboriginal Peoples' International University.⁴⁴ The problem here becomes one of pertinence: whatever the cultural approach, educational programs must be relevant to the practical needs of the contemporary world. This, of course, is where Elders have played such an important role in the past, and continue to do so today. That said, RCAP's proposal that they be given what amounts to professional status does raise the question of standards and how they are to be applied.

What RCAP did not mention is that very recently there have been major advances in Aboriginal school attendance, as the change in attitude on the part of the general public has opened up professional opportunities that were previously out of bounds for Aboriginals.⁴⁵ Today, 70% of on-reserve students are completing high school, compared to less than half in 1990. Enrolment in post-secondary education has almost doubled since 1987.⁴⁶ However, it is too soon as yet for this upsurge to have had much effect on the employment picture.

A final word: the Royal Commission's report recommends a renewed relationship based on the principles of mutual respect, recognition, sharing, and responsibility. The onus for such a renewal does nor devolve to one side alone; it is the responsibility of all Canadians, Aboriginal and otherwise, as RCAP was careful to point out.⁴⁷ Adaptation and co-operation are needed on all sides, and regional interests must be tempered with a national vision. A strong, thriving Canada is in everybody's best interest. These principles are much easier to pronounce than they are to put into practice

As RCAP warns, Aboriginal control of their own affairs "is not a panacea---self-government is not a magic wand, and it is no guarantee of good results."⁴⁸ Of course, the same thing can be said of any system. In the final analysis, the problem boils down to individual initiative and dedication, to willingness to learn about each other and to share wisdom.⁴⁹ The RCAP report has already had a marked influence: today more cooperation and less authoritarianism is already evident in the relationships between First Nations and government. There may be a long way to go, but at least we are on the way. By pointing to the stars, the RCAP report has made more immediate goals appear more realizable.

Footnotes:

1. The full text of the apology, under the heading "To Aboriginal Canadians: Our profound regret," was published in The Globe and Mail, (January 8, 1998), A21; and in The Ottawa Citizen, under the heading, "Statement of reconciliation," (January 8, 1998), AII.

2. Irwin Block, "New Aboriginal fund hailed," The Gazette, Montreal, (January 7, 1998), A12; Erin Anderssen, "Natives to get $600-million," The Globe and Mail, (January 6, 1998).

3. Hugette Young, "Seul Fontaine a tendu la main," Le Droit, (janvier 8, 1998); Erin Anderssen and Edwad Greenspon, "Federal apology fails to mollify native leaders," The Globe and Mail, (January 8, 1998), A4; "Partial apology to native people is far from adequate¨ The Ottawa Citizen, (January 14, 1998); Jack Aubry, "Peace offering gets mixed reaction," The Gazette, Montreal, (January 8, 1998).

4. "An Inuit leader reacts to Ottawa's apology," The Globe and Mail, (January 29, 1998); Zebedee Nungak, "Apology to Indians soothes and jars," The Gazette, Montreal, (January 28, 1998); Jack Aubry, "Reconciliation divides native groups," The Ottawa Citizen, (January, 8 1998), A3; Jacy Aubry, "Native leaders disappointed, but some see reason for hope," The Edmonton Journal, (January 8, 1998), A3.

5. Rosemary Speirs, "Apology to natives should have come from Chr‚tien," The Toronto Star, (January 8, 1998), A15; Hugh Winsor, "Chr‚tien skipped his share of moment," The Globe and Mail, (January 9, 1998).

6. "Chiefs question Fontaine's response to federal apology," The Globe and Mail, (March 4, 1998), A6.

7. Quoted by Rudy Platiel, "Vast changes sought to aid natives," The Globe and Mail, (November 22, 1996), 1.

8. The inequality of wealth distribution on Alberta's Samson Cree reserve was the subject of a two part series by Peter Cheney in the Globe and Mail, (October 24 and 31, 1998).

9. Most of the statistics given here come from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 5 vols. (Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1996). See also Olive Patricia Dickason, Canada's First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times, (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1997), 410-411, and "Canada Paying the Price," Maclean's, vol. 109 No. 49 (December 2, 1996), 16-19.

10. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 5, 47-49.

11. Dickason, Canada's First Nations, 402-406, summarizes the main points of the report. See also Dan Smith, "A radical vision of native nations," The Toronto Star, (November 22, 1996), A29.

12. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 1, 679.

13. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 5, 79-83; People to People, Nation to Nation. Highlights from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, (Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1996), 142-143.

14. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 3, 396-7; People to People, 78- 81.

15. Robert Matas, " 'Sorry' doesn't mean it's all our fault, Ottawa tells natives,"The Globe and Mail, (February 2, 1998).

16. Michelle Lalonde, "Aboriginals panel listens only to Indians' supporters: MP," The Gazette, Montreal, (May 8, 1993), A4. The article cited Chƒteaugay MP Ricardo Lopez: "You don't see both sides of the coin here."

17. "Why self-government won't help," The Ottawa Citizen, (March 24, 1997), A13.

18. Bruce Trigger makes this point in "Charter for a New Elite?" in the Commission's View of History: Judgment on the past, relevance for the Future, (Montreal: L'Institute D'tudes Canadiennes de McGill, 1997), 17-20.

19. David Gamble, "Natives need $2B yearly to end crisis," Ottawa Sun, (November 22, 1996); Dan Smith, "New deal urged for First Nations," The Toronto Star, (November 22, 1996); Ross Howard, "Close native cash gap now, report to urge," The Globe and Mail, (November 18, 1996), A1; "On propose la cr‚ation d'un parlement autochtone," Le Journal de Montr‚al, (Novembre 22, 1996), 14; Manon Cornellier, "Un ordre de gouvernement pour les autochtones," Le Devoir, (Novembre 22, 1996), 1; Gerald Leblanc, "La commission Dussault-Erasmus recommande un troisiŠme ordre de gouvernement pour les autochtones," La Presse, (Novembre 22, 1996), A1.

20. See, for example, Murray Brewster, "Billion-dollar fund spent on Indian poverty had little effect: study," The Gazette, Montreal, (December 16, 1996).

21. People to People, 26.

22. Idem. vol. 4, 478.

23. See Sylvie Vincent in "La version de l'histoire pr‚sent‚e par la Commission royale permet-elle une meilleure compr‚hension entre autochtones et non-autochtones?" in The Commission's View of History; 26-33.

24. "Natives mark year of silence on royal commission report," The Globe and Mail. (November 21, 1997); "Ottawa misses target on aboriginal report," The Gazette, Montreal, (October 23), 1997.

25. "Federal delay on aboriginal report 'reasonable,' chief says," The Ottawa Citizen, (October 23, 1997), A11.

26. "Concept of Aboriginal 'nations' is one that Ottawa can embrace," The Toronto Star, (November 23, 1996), A12.

27. The government's position was presented by Allan MacDonald, senior policy adviser, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, at a conference on archaeological resource management in a land claims context held by Parks Canada, Ottawa, (January 20-22, 1997). See Dickason, Canada's First Nations, 409.

28. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 5, 2.

29. Dickason, Canada's First Nations, 409.

30. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol 2 part 1, 139-163; Nation to Nation. 28-30.

31. "Ouverture de la premiŠre mine de diamants au Canada", Le Droit. (Octobre 13, 1998), 13.

32. People to People, 55, says that the Aboriginal nations themselves should begin the rebuilding process.

33. Rudy Platiel, "Blakeney quits aboriginal panel," Edmonton Journal, (April 3, 1993); ibid. Dianne Rinehart, "Second report on aboriginal people prompts resignation, condemnation."

34. See, for example, Jeffrey Simpson, "Just what is a 'nation' and how can it work like a province?" The Globe and Mail, (February 27), 1997.

35. Laura Eggertson, "Ottawa elevates natives to 'nation,'" The Toronto Star, (January 7, 1998), A7; Jack Aubry, "Natives to get 'nation' status," The Ottawa Citizen, (January 7, 1998).

36. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 4, 53.

37. People to People, 24.

38. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 4, 202-203.

39. Idem. vol. 5, 126.

40. Idem. vol. 4, 217-219; People to People, 110.

41. On RCAP's view of education generally, see its vol. 3, 433-584.

42. Dickason, Canada's First Nations, 392. For a report on the type of government being planned for Nunavut, see Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 2 part one, 149.

43. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 5, 16-17; People to People, 26.

44. Idem. vol. 3, 530-534; Nation to Nation, 87.

45. An illustration of this was the case of Francis Assikinack ('Blackbird', 1824-1863), who was twice refused the support he needed to become a doctor. Dickason, Canada's First Nations, 226.

46. Jeffrey Simpson, "Aboriginal conundrum," The Globe and Mail, (October 15, 1989), A24.

47. Report of Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 1, 689-691.

48. People to People, 96.

49. Idem. 89.

Back to BOB NEEDHAM'S homepage