THE R O Y A L C O M M I S S I O N
ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES:
THE R O U T E TO S E L F - G O V E R N M E N T ?
James S. Frideres
Department of Sociology
The University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2N 1N4
Abstract / Résumé
This paper has two objectives. First, it analyzes the extent to w h i c h the print
m e d i a has covered the actions of the R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n on Aboriginal
Peoples as well as how the Commission has been portrayed. The s e c o n d
part of the p a p e r f o c u s e s on round one of the hearings of the R o y a l
C o m m i s s i o n . A content analysis of the 850 submissions was carried out to
determine how the i s s u e of self-government was characterized in the briefs
presented.
L'article a deux objectifs. En premier lieu, il étudie la manière dont la presse
écrite s'est occupée des m e s u r e s de la C o m m i s s i o n royale sur les peuples
autochtones, a i n s i que la manière dont la commission a été représentée.
Ensuite il examine la première série d'audiences de la C o m m i s s i o n royale.
Une a n a l y s e du contenu des 850 soumissions a été effectuée dans le but
de determiner c o m m e n t la question de l'autonomie politique a été c a r a c térisée dans les d o s s i e r s présentés.
The Canadian Journal o f Native Studies XVl, 2(1996):247-266.
248
J a m e s S. Frideres
Introduction
The Canadian government's policy toward Aboriginal people has foll o w e d the dual goal of protection and assimilation. This m e a n t that Aboriginals w o u l d be protected against negative a s p e c t s of Canadian society while
at the same time e x p o s e d to what were considered n e c e s s a r y social
components w h i c h w o u l d , in the end, allow them to take on the values and
n o r m s of Canadian society and result in their assimilation. However, over
the past half century, Aboriginal people have b e c o m e more "Pan-Indian",
more nationalistic and more militaristic in their q u e s t for finding their niche
in Canadian society. The central component of this movement has been
sovereignty recognition by Canadians and ultimately the recognition of an
Aboriginal nation s t a t e (Samuelson, 1995; Haveman, 1992). As we conclude the 20th century, Aboriginal people find themselves in the m i d s t of a
struggle to determine their own fate, to establish self government in o r d e r
to achieve their own goals and objectives and to develop a more positive
identity and self esteem.
The past failure of the federal government to design and enforce an
Aboriginal policy w h i c h provides for self-government and the general enhancement of Aboriginal quality of life reflects a hidden agenda (Sampson,
1992). This u n s p o k e n agenda includes the attenuation of Aboriginal rights,
particularly in the area of self-government, as well as continued control over
their destiny. As K u l s c h y s k i (1994) points out, Canadian law has acted as
a vehicle of totalization for Aboriginal people. Moreover, politicians have
argued that any self-government by Aboriginals must be b a s e d upon the
principle of "delegated authority" or legislative authority, either of w h i c h can
unilaterally be withdrawn by the Crown. Nevertheless, the federal government established a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples to give them
direction as to how best Aboriginal peoples can be integrated into Canadian
society as we enter the 21st century. The Royal Commission is to be the
c r o w n i n g achievement of the federal government's current Aboriginal policy
and provide the context and "will" to create a structure w h i c h w o u l d integrate
Aboriginals into Canadian society, provide a basis for Aboriginal self-government and allow them to achieve a quality of life e q u a l to o t h e r Canadians.
As the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concludes its w o r k , it
has become clear that t h e r e has been little information presented about its
activities. Even f e w e r studies have been carded out about the material
presented to the Commission. The present p a p e rwill briefly d i s c u s s events
leading up to the creation of the 1991 Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples w h i c h is a b o u t to make its final report. ¹ We will then carry out a
content analysis of the m e d i a treatment of the Royal Commission. Part Two
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
249
of the paper will present the results of an analysis of the submissions to the
Commission in round one of the hearings with regard to Aboriginal self
government. The implications of the results of our analysis will complete
the paper.
The Creation of the Royal C o m m i s s i o n
for Aboriginal Peoples
In an attempt to deal with Aboriginal issues and settle the many issues
raised during the late 1980s and 1990s, the Prime Minister of Canada
requested former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Brian Dickson, to
prepare a report addressing whether or not a Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Affairs should be established and, if so, what the terms of
reference would be. On August 2, 1991 Mr. Dickson submitted his report.
The recommendations of that report were adopted by the government in
their entirety. Mr. Dickson's report noted that while most Aboriginal Canadians were decent, fair, tolerant and compassionate people, they were
deeply frustrated and profoundly disappointed at the way they have been
treated by both the provincial and federal governments. Moreover, he
praised the Aboriginal leadership and praised their dedication, eloquence
and common sense as they tried to deal with government and solve the
many problems that beset Aboriginal communities. Mr. Dickson suggested
that any political restructuring of Canada should not proceed without
Aboriginal issues being an important component of the national agenda.
Given the sweeping terms of reference (see Table 1) given to this Royal
Commission, many have felt that it could be as important and innovative as
the Laurendeau-Dunion report of the 1960s (which led to the creation of the
Official Languages Act) or the Macdonald report of the 1980s (which led to
free trade with the United States of America and Mexico-NAFTA). It was
explicitly noted by the federal government that the Royal Commission was
not established as a substitute for constitutional reform which the government feels is another avenue to address Aboriginal concerns.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was given a mandate to
"deal with an accumulation of literally centuries of injustice." The Commission is headed by George Erasmus (former National Chief of the Assembly
of First Nations and Rene Dussault, Justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal).
Other members are Viola Robinson, Mary Sillett, Paul Chartrand, Allan
Blakeney and Bertha Wilson. However, in 1993, Mr. Blakeney withdrew
from the Commission and was replaced by Mr. Peter Meekison.²
The Commission began its consultations by meeting with the Assembly
of First Nations, the Native Council of Canada, the Metis National Council,
250
James S. Frideres
Table 1: Terms of Reference for Royal Commission
for Aboriginal Peoples
To investigate and make concrete recommendations concerning:
1. The history of relations b e t w e e n Aboriginal peoples, the Canadian
government and Canadian society as a w h o l e .
2. The recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal self-government; its
origins, content and a strategy for progressive implementation.
3. The land base for Aboriginal peoples, including the p r o c e s s for
resolving comprehensive and specific claims, w h e t h e r rooted in
Canadian constitutional instruments, treaties or in Aboriginal title.
4. The historical interpretation and application, and potential future
scope, of s.91 (24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the responsibilities of the Canadian Crown.
5. The legal status, implementation and future evolution of Aboriginal
treaties, including modem-day agreements.
6. The constitutional and legal position of the Métis and off-Reserve
Indians.
7. The specific difficulties of Aboriginal people who live in the North.
8. The Indian Act and the role, responsibilities and policies of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ( D I A N D ) .
9. Social i s s u e s of c o n c e r n to Aboriginal peoples.
10. Economic i s s u e s of c o n c e r n to Aboriginal peoples.
11. Cultural i s s u e s of concern to Aboriginal peoples.
12. The position and role of Aboriginal Elders.
13. The position and role of Aboriginal w o m e n under existing social
conditions and legal arrangements, and in the future.
14. The situation of Aboriginal youth.
15. Educational i s s u e s of c o n c e r n to Aboriginal peoples.
16. Justice i s s u e s of concern to Aboriginal peoples.
the I n u i t Tapirisat of Canada, the National Association of Friendship Centres and the Native W o m e n ' s Association of Canada. The Commission felt
that the realities of life of Aboriginal people needed to be understood by all
Canadians b e c a u s e all Canadians will have to contribute to possible
solutions and s u p p o r t the implementation of t h e s e solutions. T h i s will
require a public education program. ³ The Commission also w a n t e d to hear
the views of all Canadians who wanted to participate in the process to have
R o y a l Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
251
an opportunity, so special telephone lines were put in place. In addition four
Aboriginal languages were used in the Commission and an Intervenor
Participation program was established to ensure that all Canadians would
have access to the Commission.
T h e Role o f R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n s
Royal Commissions are ad hoc advisory organizations transplanted
from Great Britain after Confederation and have been studied by social
scientists for many years. As Bishop (1980) points out, the prefix royal
testifies to the fact that the authority giving origin to the commission is the
cabinet acting in the name of the Queen. The mandate and the terms of
reference, the members of the commission and the powers are listed in the
O r d e r in Council which creates the Commission. It should be noted that the
Government is not obliged to accept any of the recommendations of the
Commission nor to pass legislation upon receiving these recommendations. This has been identified as one of the major weaknesses of such
structures. Moreover, no responsibility or machinery to carry out the recommendations of the commission are in place and as a result, it remains to
third parties or a coordinating agency to convince government that the
recommendations are worthwhile and important.
Doern (1967) and Jackson, Jackson and Baxter-Moore (1986) identify
several purposes in the creation of Royal Commissions. First, they may be
used to secure information to develop policy. In other cases they may
educate the public or be a way of finding out the public's attitude toward a
particular issue. Third, Royal commissions are used to investigate the
judicial or administrative functions of government and fourth, to permit the
voicing of grievances. Finally, they can be used as a "stalling" process to
deal with issues politically embarrassing to the government in the hopes
that the issue will "go away", o t h e r issues will take precedence or more
clear, politically acceptable alternatives become available.
While many individuals have criticized the Commissions for the inability
of implementing legislation or o t h e r forms of change, it is able to present
innovative and radical suggestions for social change. Moreover, the Commission approach allows individuals working within government have some
influence on the outcome of the proposed policy.
In summary, the basic strategy behind establishing a Royal commission
is threefold: to carry out an investigation with regard to a specific issue or
problem, a l l o w for a public discussion of that issue and maintain a process
which retains its ad hoc nature. That is, the process is not part of an ongoing
investigation but rather limited to a specific issue and a specific time.
252
James S. Frideres
Moreover, it involves outside experts and encourages their input rather than
relying upon the w i s d o m of an established public service. 4 D o e r n (1967)
has noted that the appointment of commissioners t e n d s to reflect how much
the commission is concerned with federal-provincial subject matter. Since
1967, nearly f o r t y R o y a l Commissions have been established in addition to
the over 100 Task F o r c e s w h i c h have been created to s t u d y some politically
important i s s u e in Canada. 5
While most of the R o y a l Commissions have provided a p r o c e s s in w h i c h
an orderly review of evidence can take place so that appropriate social
c h a n g e mechanisms can be implemented, they have also played an
obstructional role, allowing for time to pass during w h i c h other i s s u e s
become more salient and thus allow government to take no action. A review
of the outcomes of past R o y a l Commissions s u g g e s t s that the specific role
of any single Commission is dependent upon the issue, the time and the
context. In the present c a s e , t h e r e is some beliefthat the Royal Commission
on Aboriginal Peoples will bring about changes in Native-White relations.
One of the conditions affecting the role of a R o y a l Commission is the
visibility of the members and its actions. One way of assessing this is to
investigate how the Commission is portrayed in the m e d i a and the type of
coverage given to its activities. As s u c h , we will b e g i n by reviewing how the
print m e d i a (newspapers) in C a n a d a have portrayed the Commission.
Methodology
The Canadian B u s i n e s s and Current Affairs 6 made available a listing
of the nations n e w s p a p e r s w h i c h provided coverage on the R o y a l C o m m i s sion on Aboriginal Peoples b e t w e e n 1991 and 1994. Seven n e w s p a p e r s
were included in the present sample. 7 A fifty percent r a n d o m sample of
n e w s p a p e r articles listed in t h e s e n e w s p a p e r s over the time period were
then subjected to analyses. One hundred and one articles were included in
the final analysis. In addition, the Native n e w s p a p e r Windspeaker was also
included in the analysis. Even though the n u m b e r of articles was small, the
results of our analysis of this Native n e w s p a p e r were remarkably similar to
that found for the major non-Native regional papers. 8
Each article included in the sample was subjected to a content analysis
u s i n g a variety of strategies to t e a s e out the core content and theme of the
material. We b e g a n by identifyingw h e r e the article was placed in the p a p e r
and when they appeared. An assessment of the extent of coverage given
to the Commission was then carried out. Finally we subjected the article to
a word count and c a r d e d out a theme analysis of the material.
R o y a l Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
253
Results:
Nearly one fourth ( 2 4 % ) of the articles were published in the Montreal
Gazette while nearly 20% were found in the Vancouver Sun. The Winnipeg
Free Press added an additional 16%. The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and
the Calgary Herald each contributed about 10% of the sample while the
Halifax Chronicle only had four percent of the articles. Nevertheless, the
results show that with the exception of the Maritimes, the regional n e w s p a pers provided some coverage of the activities of the Commission over the
four year period.9
The importance of the i s s u e being covered is usually reflected in the
placement of the article, the s p a c e allocated and, to some extent, the day
in w h i c h it is published. T h i s is particularly true when the paper does not
have to publish the material on the day the e v e n to c c u r s . T h u s , we c h e c k e d
to see what day of the week the article was published. 10 We found that just
under one quarter of the articles were published during "prime time". We
then turned our attention to w h e r e the article was published in the paper.
Our results show that not one article about the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples appeared on the front page of any of the newspapers.
We did find that just over three fourths of the articles were published in the
first section of the n e w s p a p e r . Sixteen percent were included in the s e c o n d
section with the remainder found in the last section of the paper or in the
"letters to the editor" section of the paper.
As noted above, the amount of s p a c e devoted to the article was also
calculated. According to editors, the allocation of more than 50 column
inches of s p a c e or the allocation of the material to a "feature article" w o u l d
indicate that the i s s u e is considered of major importance. Our data show
that nearly 90% of the articles were less than this size. Over one third of
the articles were less than 20 column inches, nearly qualifying them as
"filler" material. Only one newspaper covered the Royal Commission as a
"feature article", filling an entire page. 11 Clearly the results show that the
news media has not considered the Commission important or newsworthy.
We now turn to the content of the articles. T a b l e 2 identifies the specific
word c o u n t w h i c h might give some clue to the focus of the article. We see
that words such as "solution", "relations", "credibility", and "self-governm e n t " were the major focal points. To more fully appreciate the t e r m s , we
need to place the word in context. In the case of "solution", the articles
tended to focuson the lack of solutions being investigated by the Commission and the inability of the Commission to bring about solutions to Native
problems. For the word "relations", the context was in t e r m s of Native-White
relations, both in an historical and current context. The term "self government" was used as the central goal of the Commission and was used in
T a b l e 2: W o r d C o u n t , E v a l u a t i o n of W o r d a n d P r e c e n t of Time W o r d w a s not I n c l u d e d in the A r t i c l e , a N e w s p r i n t
( 1 9 9 1 - 1 9 9 4 ) .a
percent
Words
Self-government
Self-determination
Self-sufficient
Justice
Health
Education
Suicide
Alcoholism
Housing
Relations
Racism
Solution
Land Claim
Compensation
Apology
Unemployment
Social I s s u e s
Economic
Credibility
a
Count
Negative
Neutral
Positive
N of articles
% Omission
56
10
18
14
12
16
28
12
6
46
10
64
12
18
16
6
24
36
57
12
8
7
4
80
12
32
40
22
15
1
43
14
27
4
16
12
23
54
60
33
29
26
8
36
48
52
70
31
19
30
78
61
28
22
71
49
17
28
59
64
70
12
42
20
8
8
54
80
27
8
12
14
6
17
28
29
22
10
10
10
4
12
8
4
4
12
2
18
12
10
12
4
9
10
18
63
92
84
73
84
75
78
78
94
75
98
80
82
86
86
92
88
80
72
Refers to all articles included in the analysis o f the Royal Commission on Abongmal Peoples (N=101).
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
255
both positive and negative w a y s . Surprisingly the term "suicide" was
present in articles more than expected and the context was generally in
reference to the high suicide rates for Aboriginal people. The last term,
credibility, was used to s u g g e s t that the Commission was not f u l l y representing all Aboriginal stakeholders or its results w o u l d not be t a k e n serious
by the federal government.
The a b o v e data must be interpreted by also referring to the last column
w h i c h identifies the percent of time the term was not mentioned in an article.
For example, the term self-government was not mentioned in nearly two
thirds of the articles ( 6 3 % ) . 12 O t h e r t e r m s such as justice, education/schools, suicide, substance a b u s e and economics were used in about
one fourth of the articles. The remainder of the t e r m s were used in 15% or
less of the articles and some t e r m s such as self determination, housing,
r a c i s m and unemployment were only used in less than five percent of the
articles.
We then turned to the analysis of the major t h e m e of the article. Four
major t h e m e s emerged: I n u i t relocation, cost of the Commission, Credibility
of the Commission and self-government. Articles falling within the t h e m e of
Inuit relocation focused on how the Commission could attempt to resolve
the i s s u e s w h i c h have arisen through the historical relocation of I n u i t
communities. A s e c o n d t h e m e focused on the cost of the Commission.
Again and again, questions were raised as to the rising cost (moving from
an estimated $13M in 1991 to an actual cost of $50M in early 1995), the
lack of cap on the budget and the seemingly indifference to c o s t s by the
m e m b e r s of the Commission. However, no references or implications were
made to s u g g e s t improprieties in the actions of the Commission or that
specific individuals or groups were using the Commission to make m o n e y
or direct it to specific clients. Rather it focused on the rising c o s t s and
seemingly lack of fiscal control by the Commission. The legitimacy of the
Commission has been an i s s u e s i n c e the creation of the Commission and
continues to be of c o n c e r n for many individuals. The placement of an
Aboriginal as co-chair raised considerable c o n c e r n for some n e w s p a p e r s
as well as the fact that a majority of the commissioners were Aboriginal.
The fourth t h e m e focused on how self-government is a major i s s u e for the
Commission and how it might be implemented. T h e r e were many other
lesser themes in the articles, ranging from i s s u e s such as restructuring
Native-White relations, suicide, social position of Natives in Canadian
society and the Commission's mandate but t h e s e were ephemeral and did
not sustain themselves over the entire reporting period.
We also investigated the use of words and themes during the four year
period. Not surprisingly, the early articles focused on the mandate of the
256
J a m e s S. Frideres
Commission and tried to provide a descriptive statement about the Commission and its m e m b e r s . Later in 1993 the papers focused on the resignation of Mr. Blakeney and his subsequent replacement. It was at this lime
that negative articles b e g a n to surface and by 1994 a majority of the articles
could be characterized as negative, focusing on the Commissions inability
to bring about closure to the hearings, their inability to curb expenditures
and the lack of taking into account other stakeholders' views, e.g., Aboriginal w o m e n .
Our final task was to assess w h e t h e r the article could be defined as
positive, negative or neutral in content.13 Thal is, did the article characterize
the Commission, its m e m b e r s or its activities in a positive or negative vein.
Over all we concluded that less than half the articles ( 4 2 % ) could be
assessed as positive, w h i l e about one third ( 3 5 % ) were clearly negative.
The remainder were defined as neutral.
R o u n d One of the Hearings of the
R o y a l Commission on Aboriginal P e o p l e s
It is important to note that the first ministers' conferences emerging out
of the Canadian constitutional debut of the eighties focused on Aboriginal
self-government i s s u e s . In some respect, t h e s e conferences influenced the
ethos of both government and Aboriginals as they approached the first
round of hearings at the R o y a l Commission. During the 1991-94 period,
t h e r e were four rounds of public hearings. The strategy for round one was
to describe Aboriginal perceptions of ethnic relations in Canadian society.
R o u n d two f o c u s e d on how to deal with the existing relationships. The third
round was used to hear from the various organizations w h i c h had been
funded through the intervenors program. In this third round of hearings, the
central t h r u s t was to include more issue-specific round tables and g r o u p
discussions rather than just individuals or g r o u p presentations. The fourth
round was to attend to matters that had not been d e a l t with in the previous
rounds as well as to develop a better understanding of the i s s u e s identified
as problematic It w o u l d precede the final writing of the Commissions'
report.
R o u n d one was an "opening" of the Commission's hearings, and
considerable testimony was h e a r d from many Canadians, particularly from
Aboriginals about the social problems facing them and their plans for the
future. The hearings were held in communities preselected by the C o m m i s s i o n e r s . Some of the hearings were attended by all members of the
Commission, w h i l e in other c a s e s the Commission divided into smaller
g r o u p s and only part of the Commission h e a r d the testimony of the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
257
presenters. The intent was to make sure that all communities in the country
would have an opportunity to present their views to the Commission.
The Royal Commission then established a number of round tables on
selected themes, e.g., health, self-government, education, economic development. These meetings brought together academics, Native leaders,
politicians and other interested stakeholders. The format for the meetings
were the same. First, a number of discussion papers were commissioned
to be completed prior to the round table. The focus of the issue to be
addressed in the discussion papers emerged from the first round of public
hearings. At the round table, participants were asked to respond to the
discussion papers regarding the specific questions posed. Other individuals
also were asked to write a report based on the discussions along with
recommendations made by the participants.
The Intervenor Participation Program was created (1992)in order to
ensure that individuals and groups who wanted to appear and make
submissions to the Commission would be afforded the opportunity. As such,
a fund of eight million dollars was set aside in order to enable people to
participate in the hearings. Five national Native organizations were identified as key stakeholders and as such were allocated organizational funds
prior to the distribution of the remaining funds. 14 As such, nearly one-half
of the total funding was allocated to national organizations. 15 By 1994, 96
percent of the intervenors had submitted briefs to the Commission (Intervenor Participation P r o g r a m Report, 1994). The Commission also prepared
a number of public documents which were used both by the Commission
as well as for public dissemination, e.g., summaries of reports by federal
bodies and Aboriginal organizations.
The presentations made at each of the four public hearings were
transcribed and placed onto CD Rom. Round one consists of 850 individual
and group submissions from 36 different communities across Canada. In
late 1992, round two began which added another 600 presenters and 36
additional communities. By the fourth round, over 2,200 groups and individuals had made submissions from more than 112 communities all across
Canada.
Aboriginal Issues: S e l f - G o v e r n m e n t
The present analysis focuses on how Aboriginal self government was
dealt with in round one of the public hearings. As noted above, round one
was to identify Native hopes and aspirations and to identify the salient
issues and problems facing Native Canadians. The importance of this round
of hearing cannot be underestimated as it was used to develop a series of
258
James S. Frideres
specific questions on Aboriginal self-government w h i c h the Commissioners
felt needed to be discussedin the remaining public hearings. 16 These briefs
created the direction for the Commission and spearheaded research efforts
undertaken by consultants in o r d e r to a n s w e r the questions raised or the
i s s u e s identified. Once set in motion, it w o u l d be difficult indeed to change
direction.
We now turn to a brief analysis of the submissions to the Royal
Commission in round one with r e g a r d to the i s s u e of self government. Our
analysis will assess the extent to w h i c h the i s s u e of self-government was
present in the submissions to the Commission as well as how it was
presented. We will also assess the context in w h i c h the presentation was
made. For example, who made the presentation, w h e r e was it made and
to what extent the presenter represented an organization or him/herself.
Results
Most submissions ( 3 6 % ) came from the prairies while surprisingly, only
five percent originated in Quebec. Nearly fourteen percent were from
Ontario, a g a i n reflecting an u n d e r representation when compared to the
total Aboriginal population. Of the 761 submissions analyzed in round one,
we assessed w h e t h e r or not the submission could be characterized as
pro-self government, anti-self government or neutral ( w h i c h included having
no c o m m e n t on the issue). Overall, we found slightly more than 25 percent
in favour with nearly nine percent against. The remainder were neutral or
had no c o m m e n t on the topic. When regional variations were noted, we
found substantial variations in support. T a b l e 3 identifies t h e s e differences.
When presentations were assessed as to w h e t h e r they were individual
submissions compared to organizational o n e s , we found significant differe n c e s . Only 16 percent of individual submissions supported the i s s u e of
self government w h i l e over double that number ( 3 3 % ) of the organizations
e n d o r s e d self government. Ten percent of the individuals were against self
government compared to eight percent of the organizational submissions. 17
For t h o s e submissions for w h i c h we could identify the gender of the
author (N=304), we were not able to discern any differences in sup'port for
self government. 18 Moreover, we did not find any gender differences as to
w h e t h e r the individual was part of an organization or presenting on behalf
of him or herself. On the o t h e r hand, regardless of the gender, when the
author of a submission occupied a specific position of formal authority
( v e r s u s an individual who had no formal position in an organization), we
f o u n d major differences in s u p p o r t for self government. For t h o s e presenters with formal positions, 38 percent were in f a v o u r and eight percent
against (54 percent were neutral or did not mention it). On the other hand,
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
259
Table 3: Level of Support of Self-Government by Region (percent)
BC
Prairies
Ontario
Quebec
Support
30
27
33
13
28
12
Against
12
7
14
0
11
2
Neutral / No
Mention
58
66
53
87
61
86
120
272
103
38
140
86
N =
Atlantic
Territories
for t h o s e with no formal organizational position, only eighteen percent were
in favour w h i l e nine percent were against (72% were neutral). We also
investigated the differences b e t w e e n presenters representing formal institutions and t h o s e acting as concerned citizens. T w e n t y eight percent of
t h o s e representing formal organizations and one third of individual citizens
gave their support. The two g r o u p s did not differ in their rejection--seven
vs. nine percent.
We looked at w h e t h e r the ethnic interest of the group varied in s u p p o r t
of self government. T a b l e 4 reveals the results. Métis organizations were
the s t r o n g e s t supporters of self government followed by Status Indians and
other Aboriginal and Native organizations. Inuit were the l e a s t supportive
of Native organizations and overall, non-Native organizations were the l e a s t
supportive of self government. The s c o p e of the organization was also
assessed to see if self government s u p p o r t varied. We found that organizations of a provincial ( 5 1 % ) or national ( 4 0 % ) level were higher in s u p p o r t
than t h o s e submissions made by a Reserve/Band (18-30%).
The mandate of organizations making a submission were also assessed regarding their s u p p o r t of self government. For t h o s e for w h i c h a
determination could be made (N=213), few differences a m o n g organizations were found. For example, nearly 20% of organizations with a f o c u s
on health and w e l f a r e were in s u p p o r t of self government. T h o s e organizations with a f o c u s on educational or cultural i s s u e s had the same level of
support. Only t h o s e w h i c h were "political" in nature had higher levels of
s u p p o r t ( 3 6 % ) . When we f o c u s e d on t h o s e who did not s u p p o r t self
government a g a i n we found a remarkable level of consistency a m o n g all
different t y p e s of organizations (8-10%).
An A s s e s s m e n t of the Hearings for R o u n d One
What did this r o u n d of discussions produce? And did it propel the
C o m m i s s i o n to take a particular position with r e g a r d to Native self govern-
James S. Frideres
260
Table 4: Ethnic Affiliation of Submission
by Support for Self Government (percent)
Métis
Status
Indian
Inuit
Other
Aborig.
Non-Native
588
38.5
214
373
153
Against
0.0
11,4
0.0
10.0
42
Neutral
41.2
50.3
78.6
52.7
80.6
Pro
N=
51
149
28
110
72
ment? Round one discussions identified that Native people want to become
more a u t o n o m o u s and self sufficient political and economic units. At the
s a m e time they want to retain their culture (language, customs) even though
s o m e may wish to remain on the land while others participate in the w a g e
economy. The overall goal o f Aboriginals is to enhance their quality of life.
These briefs focused on strategies which will have to be developed to deal
with issues such as economics, violence, education, health and other social
issues related to poverty. The presentations at the hearings also dealt with
w a y s of establishing a new relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. Specifically, they focused on how institutional structures
might be put in place to bring a b o u t this new relationship. Furthermore, there
were discussions on how these institutions, e.g., schools, businesses,
churches, might bring about change. Finally, the presentations focused on
what individuals can do to deal with racism and prejudice.
Beyond the general issues above, there were six topics that permeated
the presentations. First, and perhaps most important, was the issue of
Aboriginal self-government. Self-government was viewed as one of the
most important issues facing Native communities today. Moreover, it was
felt that self-government was no longer a debatable issue. What was
debatable, were questions as to which issues Aboriginal governments
would exercise power, e.g., education, taxation, criminal law. Issues such
as funding sources, accountability and the role of w o m e n also were the
focus of concern. For s o m e Aboriginals there is concern that there will be
more inequality within the Indian communities under self-government.
M a n y Aboriginal W o m e n ' s groups felt that if power is devolved to the Band
leaders, it will result in an unfair g e n d e r distribution o f resources. Hereditary
Chiefs, for example, have been criticized for this reason, in that if the
g o v e r n m e n t is to transfer power to the community, then it should be a
process that involves all community members, rather than the federal
g o v e r n m e n t negotiating and dealing solely with an unelected authority
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
261
figure. There is also concern that women's issues will be set back if
self-government is implemented.
Other issues of concern identified were justice (the need for a parallel
Aboriginal controlled justice system), urbanization (the need for control of
public services to Aboriginal people), health (how to incorporate traditional
health practices in the modem health system as well as what organizational
structures should be created), treaties, land and resources (how treaties
should be interpreted and the implications of such documents) and education, language and culture (a revaluing of Aboriginal culture).
The conclusions of the first public hearing resulted in the framing of the
issues in four categories. They are:
1.
Develop a new relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
2. Establish self determination for Aboriginal peoples through the
establishment of self-government although it would have to be
circumscribed in extent and reflect Aboriginal needs.
3. Develop economic self sufficiency for Aboriginal peoples, and
4. Establish ways of healing Aboriginal people and their communities.
Implications for the Future
The results of the present study reveal that the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples has not achieved a high level of visibility for non-Natives
over the past four years. Nor has it acted in a way which raised the issue
of Aboriginal-White relations to a higher level of consciousness for Canadians. On the other hand, it has captured the imagination and interest of
Aboriginal peoples as they view the Royal Commission as the last chance
for bringing about meaningful changes in their lives. It has, to a certain
extent, played an important role in convincing the Assembly of First Nations
to reject the latest offer the federal government has made regarding the
implementation of self government. 19
With regard to the specific issues of self government, the Royal
Commission has spent considerable time and thought on the issue. They
have discovered that the concept of self-government means many different
things to people. For some it may mean a revival of old traditional practices;
to others it may mean the creation of new institutional structures and
linkages. Regardless of the structures of self-government, all agree that it
assumes a strategy of achieving greater autonomy and control over one's
life. From the Aboriginal point of view it assumes that there must be an
Aboriginal initiative and responsibility, cross responsiveness, flexibility and
fiscal stability, and parity (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
262
James S. Frideres
1993a). The debate today then focuses upon how these strategies are to
be employed, how the resultant structure fits into existing Canadian law,
and how the process and structure will meet the needs of people it was set
up to serve.
The federal government, until 1991, employed the contingent approach
which argued that Native self-government was based upon agreements
with the federal and provincial governments. When the 1991 federal paper
Shaping Canada's Future Together was published, the government suggested that "...an amendment to the Constitution entrench a general
justiciable right to Aboriginal self-government" (p.7). However, as the Royal
Commission points out, "Due to the ambiguous language of the document,
it is difficult to determine whether the government of Canada is now
proposing to recognize an already existing, inherent right of self-government in the Constitution, or whether it is proposing to entrench a newly
created right, one conferred on Aboriginal peoples by the federal and
provincial governments" (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
1993:5).
The issues facing Canadians today with regard to Aboriginal selfgovernment focus on the source (inherent or derived), the scope or intent
(circumscribed or distinct constitutional limits) and the status (is Aboriginal
self-government subordinate to other governments or sovereign within its
sphere?). 20
The Royal Commission has taken the position that self-government
should be viewed as inherent in nature, circumscribed and sovereign.
Moreover, they argue that the implementation of Aboriginal self-government has the consent of Aboriginal people, is consistent with section 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982, and should be justiciable immediately. The
Royal Commission has already identified several different approaches that
might be undertaken to implement Aboriginal self-government.
The terms of reference enjoin the Commission to examine all issues it
deems relevant to any or all of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada and make
concrete recommendations regarding a number of issues. Beginning with
an historical analysis, the Commission is to make recommendations regarding the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal self-government; its origins,
content and a strategy for progressive implementation.
Needless to say, other issues to be investigated such as land claims,
treaties, economic and educational issues, will be influenced by the Commission recommendation regarding self-government. The question remains as to whether or not Canadians have moved on to other issues, e.g.,
fishing concerns, Quebec secession, and have lost interest in Aboriginal
issues or has a backlash emerged which will hinder the Governments
implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. All these facts
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
263
may impinge upon the final recommendations. Nevertheless, it is clear that
the increasing numbers, the increasing militancy and pressures to deal with
land claims are combining to produce a major and largely irreversible
d e m a n d for implementing Aboriginal self government. For Aboriginal people, the long-term agenda is clear: the revitalization of Aboriginal peoples
(Samuelson, 1995). However, as the Commission is discovering, it is easier
to p r o p o s e solutions than it is to bring about change.
Notes
1.
B e c a u s e of the implications of the R o y a l Commission's final r e p o r t
regarding self government, it had been suggested that the C o m m i s sion withhold it until the Q u e b e c referendum on secession (scheduled
for the fall of 1995) had t a k e n place.
2.
Mr. Blakeney resigned in 1993 b e c a u s e of differences b e t w e e n himself
and other m e m b e r s of the Commission with regard to cost overruns
and strategies to provide solutions to problems facing Aboriginal
peoples.
3.
To facilitate this p r o c e s s , the Commission created roundtable d i s c u s s i o n s on various i s s u e s of importance to Aboriginal peoples. The
participants were selected in a way to e n s u r e participants from both
the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community. T h e s e individuals were
knowledgeable about the i s s u e being discussed, e.g., education,
health, while at the same time trying to achieve a balance of gender,
age and Aboriginal identification.
4.
It is hoped that this p r o c e s s will retain and expand the democratic need
for outside experts in developing and implementing the policy p r o c e s s .
5.
T a s k forces were introduced in 1963 to gather information on specific
i s s u e s . The early task forces relied totally on outside expertise but
t o d a y both public service employees and cabinet ministers may be
m e m b e r s . They do not have to publish their report nor make accessible
the research carried out.
6.
( C D - R o m 1988-January 1995 M i c r o M e d i a Ltd.)
7.
The Montreal Gazette, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail (Toronto
edition), the Vancouver Sun, the Winnipeg Free Press, the Calgary
Herald and the Halifax Chronicle were included.
8.
However, b e c a u s e of the small n u m b e r of articles (N=19), we are
unable to provide comparative data.
9.
Nearly two thirds of the articles were published in 1993 while 16% were
published in 1992. Only eight percent were published in 1991 w h i l e
the remainder were found in 1994.
264
James S. Frideres
10.
Friday and Saturday are considered "prime readership" days by the
newspapers.
11.
In this one c a s e , the general t h e m e of the article was negative,
focusing on the e x p e n s e s incurred, the lack of f o c u s on solutions and
the inability of the Commission to stay within their mandate.
12.
To provide some baseline comparison, we counted the number of
times the term " R o y a l Commission" (or variant of) was cited. The
results show that it was not mentioned in the text two thirds of the time.
The term was only used in the headlines.
13.
Four m e d i a experts were given the articles and a s k e d to rate the
material.
14.
Five organizations were contacted and provided funds to e n s u r e their
m e m b e r s w o u l d be able to participate in the hearings. They w e r e : I n u i t
Tapirisat ($1.4M), A s s e m b l y of F i r s t Nations ( $ 1 M ) , Metis National
Council ($520K), and the Native W o m e n ' s Association of C a n a d a
($250K). In addition, the National Association of Friendship Centres
received ($100K) ( R o y a l Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1994).
15.
Although eight million dollars was allocated for this fund, requests for
36 million were received.
16.
This round of hearings took place before the Charlottetown Accord
was defeated.
17.
B e c a u s e some of the submissions (9%) were from non-Aboriginal
s o u r c e s , we assessed the role of ethnicity. The distribution of s u p p o r t
for self government showed that non-Aboriginal individuals showed
some s u p p o r t for self government while non-Aboriginal organizations
showed little support.
18. We found that two thirds of the presenters at the hearings were male.
19. The federal government's negotiations for self government with F i r s t
Nations w o u l d see them take over p o w e r s held by municipalities and
provinces, e.g., taxation, land management. It also a l l o w s for sharing
certain p o w e r s with the federal and provincial governments, e.g.,
fisheries, gambling.
20. K u l c h y s k i (1994) argues that Aboriginal rights can be divided into two
t y p e s : property and political. Property rights can be further subdivided
into land and resource rights. Land rights are basic to property rights
and all other rights flow from land rights. R e s o u r c e rights refer to
hunting, fishing, and other resources w h i c h e m e r g e from the land.
Political rights involve a complex set of laws and doctrines. Aboriginal
self-government is the most b a s i c and most prominent but political
rights also e m b o d y a variety of freedoms, e.g., freedom to move a c r o s s
political boundaries, freedom of religion.
R o y a l Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
265
References
Armitage, A.
Comparing the Policyof Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Can1955
ada and New Zealand. Vancouver: UBC Press.
A s c h , Michael and P. MacKlem
1991
Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Sovereignty: An E s s a y on R.
vs. Sparrow. Alberta Law Review 57:498-517.
Canada
1991
Shaping Canada's Future Together. O t t a w a : Supply and S e r v ices Canada.
Bishop, O.
1980
Canadian Official Publications. New Y o r k : Peragamon Press.
C l a r k , B.
1990
Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty: The Existing Aboriginal
Right to Self Government in Canada. Montreal and Kingston:
McGilI-Queens University Press.
Doern, B.
The Role of R o y a l Commissions in the General Policy P r o c e s s
1967
and in Federal-Provincial Relations. Canadian Public Administration 10:417-433.
Doern, G. and P. Aucoin (Editors)
The Structure of Policy Making. Toronto: The Bryant Press.
1971
Dunn, C.
1995
Canadian Political Debates. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
Gibbins, R., S. Arrison and J. S t e w a r t
1993
Domestic Governments and Aboriginal Peoples: The Alberta
C a s e , mimeo. A R e p o r t for the R o y a l Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples, Calgary, Alberta.
G i o k a s , J.
1994 Aboriginal Self-Government. National 3:23-31.
Haveman, P.
1992
The Indigenization of Social Control in Canada, pp. 111-119, in
R. Silverman and M. Nielsen (Editors): Aboriginal Peoples and
Canadian Criminal Justice. Toronto: Butterworth.
H a w t h o r n , H.
Survey of Contemporary Indians of Canada I and II. O t t a w a :
1966
Q u e e n s Printer.
J a c k s o n , R., D. J a c k s o n and N. Baxter-Moore
Politics in Canada. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada, Inc.
1986
266
J a m e s S. Frideres
Kulchyski, P.
1994
U n j u s t Relations: Aboriginal Rights in Canadian Courts.
Toronto: O x f o r d University Press.
Levin, M.
1993
Ethnicity and Aboriginality: Case Studies in Ethnonationalism.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Milen, R. (Editor)
1991
Aboriginal Peoples and Electoral Reform in Canada. Toronto:
D u n d u m Press.
Ortiz, R.
1984
Indians of the Americas. London: Zed B o o k s .
R o y a l Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
1994
Intervenor Participation Program: Final Report. O t t a w a : Minister of Supply and Services
1993
Partners in Confederation. O t t a w a : Minister of Supply and
Services.
1993a
The Right of Aboriginal Self-Government and the Constitution.
O t t a w a : Minister of Supply and Services
Sampson, F.
1992
An Historical Consideration of Ontario Aboriginal Policy, in B.
Hodgins, S. H e a r d and J. Milloy (Editors): Co-Existence? S t u d ies in Ontario First Nations Relations. Trent University, F i r s t
C e n t r e for Canadian Heritage and Development Studies.
Samuelson, L.
1995
Canadian Aboriginal Justice C o m m i s s i o n s and Australia's
'Anunga Rules': Barking up the W r o n g Tree. Canadian Public
Policy 21 (2):187-211.
Satzewich, V. and T. Wotherspoon
1993
First Nations. Toronto: Nelson Canada.
Wilson, V
1971
The Role of R o y a l Commissions and Task F o r c e s , pp. 113-129,
in B. D o e r n and P. Aucoin (Editors): The Structure of Policy
Making. Toronto: The Bryant Press.