Survey: Aboriginal Self-Government
Reader Mode
Public Opinion Survey: Reconciliation
Organizational Membership
This section deals with organizations with which you have been officially registered or affiliated.
Your Registered Affiliations
Question 1. Are you currently or have you been a member of any of the following types of organizations. For the purposes of this survey, ‘member’ means any kind of official affiliation, for example, as an employee, a student, a registered client, or any other form of registered affiliation. Please check any of the following which you believe apply.
- high school
- college
- university
- municipal government or municipal organization
- provincial government or provincial organization
- federal government or federal organization
- for-profit business
- non-profit organization
- aboriginal or indigenous organization
- aboriginal or indigenous community
Registered Affiliations
The purpose of this question was to begin to pick up some organizational identifiers which might prove useful for further research.
It may be worth re-iterating that the selection methodology for this survey was the survey administrator’s email contact list. This may explain the high rate of university affiliations in the responses.
However, that the university responses outnumber the high school responses by about 15% may reflect some misunderstanding about the question, given that high school graduation is typically a prerequisite for entering university.
Testing for self-conscious affiliation with municipal, provincial and federal levels of organization is largely meant to anticipate the nature of the policy areas which form a major part of the Aboriginal self-government rights questions coming later in the survey.
Along with the high rate of university affiliation, a fairly high rate of non-profit affiliation may prove interesting when cross-tabbing with for-profit affiliations on rights and sovereignty issues.
Heritage Results
Amongst the Registered Affiliations for the “Heritage Results” the only remarkable observations are the large similarity across the Heritage categories. Again the methodology (survey admin’s email list) may account for this.
I will use the word Indigenous (generic) with the term ‘generic’ in brackets to refer to the collection of labels: Aboriginal, First Nation, Indian, Indigenous, Métis, Native.
The only marginal discrepancies are the lack of affiliation of Indigenous (generic) respondents with municipal and provincial organizations.
Or the lack of non-Indigenous (generic) affiliation with Indigenous organizations and communities.
The only other significant observation is the high number of respondents affiliated with universities. Again, the methodology may account for this.
Your Heritage
This section deals with questions of your heritage and identity.
List A
Question 2. Please note the list of items for this question will be used in the next question and will be called List A. Based upon your understanding of the following terms, with which of the following, if any, would you self-identify in the Canadian context? Please check any of the following which you believe apply.
I self-identify as…
- Aboriginal
- First Nation
- Indian
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Métis
- Native
List A
List A was constructed as much to allow for various labels of self-identification without necessarily looking for significant distinctions that would manifest across other survey questions.
For example, if we compare Aboriginal, FirstNation, Indian, Indigenous and Native, we may simply be observing the drift in preferred language usage over time which people use to self-identify without drawing a significant distinction regarding beliefs and attitudes.
We should be able to see in our more advanced reporting how many survey participants self-identified one or more of the terms offered here.
Of course, legally speaking, according to Canadian references, Aboriginal includes Indians, Métis and Inuit, however, from the vantage point of “self-identification”, usage may be more complicated, fluid or flexible than that.
All of these possible implications would need to be drawn out by research which explores such issues more deeply than anything we’ve done in this survey.
Heritage Results
The List A heritage question perhaps unsurprisingly indicates that Indigenous (generic) respondents selected First Nation, Indigenous and Aboriginal more than Indian or Native as a term of self-identification.
A small portion of French versus no British self-identifiers selected Indigenous (generic) categories of self-identification.
Unfortunately, we had no respondents who responded by selecting the Inuit heritage category.
Ancestry
Question 3. This question refers back to the previous question’s list of choices, labelled List A. Based upon your understanding, consider the following. Please check any of the following which you believe apply.
- both your parents have ancestry from List A
- only one of your parents has ancestry from List A
- all your family ancestors have ancestry from List A
- only some of your family ancestors have ancestry from List A
- none of your family ancestors have ancestry from List A
Ancestry
The Ancestry questions are meant to distil something of the depth of First Nation versus Métis heritage. Again, this would require a more detailed set of questions than what is provided here to draw more significant determinations.
However, part of what’s going on in these self-identification questions, is to address how the survey participants perceive their ancestry, more than what the factual record might demonstrate.
Furthermore, we are attempting to tease our way out of the colonial legal definitions towards self-identification perceptions which the colonial discourse has not created.
Again, we must repeat, such questions would require a more detailed analysis of such issues. For us, here, in the more detailed results may begin to suggest there could be significant distinctions buried here which warrant further study.
Once again, there are some anomalies. For instance, 6 respondents indicated a single parent has List A ancestry, while only 3 respondents selected that some of their ancestors come from List A. Why did not all 6 see themselves as having ancestors from List A. This may indicate issues with the questions themselves and how clearly they were presented.
Heritage Results
Only 3 of all 37 respondents declared List A heritage from both their parents. This would suggest that almost all the List A self-identifiers are ‘culturally’, if not ‘legally’, Métis.
Only one respondent selected “all your family ancestors” have List A ancestry.
Curiously, there is an unclear discrepancy between the responses to the questions “only one of your parents” has List A ancestry and “only some of your family ancestors” has List A ancestry. One would have thought these would have elicited largely identical responses. In fact, they are dramatically different.
Immigrant Heritage
Question 4. For the purposes of this survey, a G1 immigrant is a Canadian citizen who was born and emigrated from outside Canada*. Please check any of the following which you believe apply.
- you are a G1 immigrant (i.e., born and emigrated from outside Canada)
- both your parents are G1 immigrants to Canada
- only one of your parents is a G1 immigrant to Canada
- all your family ancestors in Canada descend from G1 immigrants
- only some of your family ancestors in Canada descend from G1 immigrants
- none of your ancestors in Canada descend from G1 immigrants
Immigrant Heritage
This set of questions was intended to draw out the perception by respondents of their immigrant heritage and how conscious it is they may be of their immigrant ancestors.
We will have to see if there are any deeper patterns which might flow from this immigrant heritage and ancestry.
Heritage Results
The results for the Immigrant Heritage self-identification has some curious results. Only 3 of 37 self-identified as having “all your family ancestors” in Canada descending from “G1” (born and emigrated from outside Canada) immigrants.
This would seem to suggest that all the other 34 respondents self-identify as Métis of some kind or other. However, of the 37 respondents only 2 of 14 non-Indigenous (generic) identified as Métis.
Similarly, to the response “none of your ancestors in Canada descend from G1 immigrants”, 3 respondents who had selected French as a self-identification, indicated no G1 immigrant ancestors. (Figure 4.6) How could someone identify with “French Canadians” but have no ancestors born and emigrated from outside Canada, which is, in essence, the definition of a non-Indigenous (generic) person.
However, this may simply indicate some confusion about the question.
Arrival of Eldest Immigrant Ancestor
Question 5. Regarding your G1 ancestors (Canadian citizens born and emigrated from outside Canada), given your knowledge of your family history, which of the following dates would best indicate the earliest arrival date, for your oldest G1 ancestors? Please select one only*.
- your earliest G1 ancestors to Canada arrived during the 2000s
- your earliest G1 ancestors to Canada arrived during the 1900s
- your earliest G1 ancestors to Canada arrived during the 1800s
- your earliest G1 ancestors to Canada arrived during the 1700s
- your earliest G1 ancestors to Canada arrived during the 1600s
- your earliest G1 ancestors to Canada arrived during the 1500s
Arrival of Eldest Immigrant Ancestor
Probably no great surprises here.
Most participants with immigrant ancestors had their earliest relatives arriving in the 20th century.
Nevertheless, it may prove interesting that some are aware of arrivals reaching back as early as the 18th and 17th centuries. One would expect that those with first arrivals in the 1600s would most likely be of French ancestry, given the history of European settlement in Canada. But we will have to wait and see.
Heritage Results
The heritage breakdown regarding the era of arrival of immigrant ancestors, only British respondents arrived in the 1900s. With a modest portion arriving in each earlier century back to the 1600s.
This question was meant to garner a sense of the respondents self-conscious sense of being part of the longer history of Canada and, perhaps, the longer historical context in which the current concerns about reconciliation might be placed.
We do not pursue these ramifications in this report.
List B
Question 6. With which of the following groups, if any, do you self-identify in the Canadian context? Please check any of the following which you believe apply.
I self-identify with…
- British Canadians
- Canadian Citizens
- Colonial Settlers
- Colonizers
- Founding Peoples
- French Canadians
- Immigrants
- Indigenous Rights Activists
- Indigenous Rights Allies
- Mainstream Canadians
- Permanent Residents
- Temporary Residents
List B
This list of self-identifications is intended to anticipate later questions on heritage, rights and sovereignty and the general issue of reconciliation which we are exploring.
For the most part, we have a relatively even distribution of survey participants regarding British and French identities, for example. However, currently the sample numbers remain very small, so generalizing will need to be very cautious and tentative.
Some distinctions are perhaps worth noting, 4 respondents self-identified with colonial settlers but only 1 self-identified with colonizers. The term “colonizer” may simply be a more controversial term with stronger negative connotations than “colonial settler”. It would be interesting to explore further what exactly might be going on here. However, we can only speculate based on this survey.
The terms Permanent Residents and Temporary Residents were meant to pick out any recent immigrants who had yet to become Canadian citizens or people who have temporary work or study permits. However, this was not stated clearly in the survey anywhere, and so the 5 respondents who self-identified as “permanent residents” were possibly indicating a general descriptive perception rather than a legal status regarding their residency in Canada. As a result, we should probably not infer from these results to any patterns regarding attitudes about reconciliation according to such criteria. These variables would need greater clarification in future research.
Heritage Results
Nothing too remarkable here.
A fairly even distribution for those identifying as Canadian Citizens (Figure 6.2) and for Founding Peoples (Figure 6.5).
More respondents self-identifying as French also self-identified as Indigenous (generic) than did respondents who self-identified as British (Figure 6.1)
Although based upon a very small sample, more than double of the British than of the French respondents identified with Immigrants. (Figure 6.7) What this might mean, would require more detailed research than what we have here.
Similarly more (a small portion) of French respondents than British respondents identified with Indigenous Rights Allies and Indigenous Rights Activists. (Figures 6.8 and 6.9)
Interestingly only the British and French respondents self-identified as mainstream Canadians. (Figure 6.10) What that might mean, if anything, remains to be determined.
Reconciliation
This next section explores some basic questions about reconciliation. The current federal government has set a mandate for reconciliation between Indigenous Peoples and Canada, in this context, please answer the following questions.
Your Evaluation of the Policy of Reconciliation
Question 7. Which of the following best describes how you assess the importance of reconciliation between Indigenous Peoples and Canada, by completing the sentence below. Please select one only*.
I consider reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous Peoples to be…
- very important
- somewhat important
- not very important
- not important at all
Your Evaluation of the Policy of Reconciliation
Well, having drawn a relatively diverse sample, despite the small sample size, regarding Indigenous and Settler ancestry, it is interesting to note the very high rate of results for seeing reconciliation as very important. Almost 80% of all participants believe reconciliation is very important. And when we combine that with those who selected somewhat important, we have almost 95% of all respondents.
This might be a good place, however, to reconsider our methodology.
Approximately 130 email invitations were sent out to individuals on the survey administrator’s email contact list. Of those 130, 37, so far, have completed the survey. We should keep this in mind when speculating on the significance of any of our results.
For example, people who believe that reconciliation is simply not important at all, might simply have expressed that attitude by not completing the survey at all. It is entirely possible, that survey completion was itself an indicator of a particular set of attitudes and self-identifications. However, given that those non-respondents did not complete the survey, we have no factual basis upon which to identify their attitudes and self-identifications.
Nevertheless, such caveats need to be emphasized whenever we are inclined to see significant patterns within the data our survey has generated.
Our survey methodology simply does not allow generalizing reliably to a larger population.
Heritage Results
No major distinctions here. The very important and somewhat important responses are fairly evenly distributed across the heritage categories.
Policy Areas
Question 8. If reconciliation between Indigenous Peoples and Canada occurs, which of the following government policy, programming and department areas at any level in Canada do you believe might be affected*. Please check any of the following which you believe apply.
- citizenship
- culture
- economic
- education
- environment
- governance
- health
- housing
- justice
- natural resources
- official languages
- social and foster care
- taxation & revenue
Policy Areas
Overall a fairly consistent set of results.
However, it is interesting that, whereas most policy areas range between 75% and 85% as to the perceived likelihood of being affected, there are 3 areas which fall 15% to 30% below those levels of perceived likelihood.
Citizenship, official languages and taxation and revenue are seen to be less likely to be affected by reconciliation. Why?
Unfortunately, this survey does not explore why such distinctions might be occurring. Are such policy areas not seen as part of the reconciliation process? Remember, a vast majority of our participants see reconciliation as somewhat or very important. However, those same participants do not see citizenship or official language being significantly affected.
Is it because reconciliation is not perceived as likely to affect the citizenship status of many people? Recall we introduced the concept of reconciliation in the context of a “nation-to-nation” relationship.
The same for Indigenous languages. Why would reconciliation not be seen as changing the role of Indigenous languages in Canada?
And why would reconciliation not involve a significant shift in taxation and revenue flows?
Once again, we need to emphasize, this is an exploratory study and as such results may indicate either i) confusion regarding unclear questions, or ii) real distinctions in participants attitudes, or iii) something else we have yet to consider.
In any case, this might be an interesting topic to seek further clarification and research, if results continued to elicit similar patterns of responses.
Heritage Results
Generally, the results for the various policy areas are evenly distributed across the heritage categories.
It would appear that if particular policy areas are going to generate different responses based upon heritage categories, more detailed research would be needed than what we have undertaken here.
Aboriginal & Treaty Rights
According to the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, “aboriginal and treaty rights” are “recognized and affirmed”. As noted already, the current federal government has indicated it seeks reconciliation between Indigenous Peoples and Canada. This section explores some basic questions about those rights if reconciliation occurs.
In past discussions and negotiations the following rights have been under consideration for Aboriginal Peoples:
- land, resources and environment
- collective self-determination or self-government
- citizenship in aboriginal nations or communities
- economic development, employment & training
- hunting, trapping, fishing, harvesting, gathering
- customary law and enforcement;
- language, culture, religion
- fiscal relations and arrangements
- education, health & social services
For the purposes of this survey the terms Aboriginal and Indigenous are meant to be used interchangeably to refer to the same peoples.
Special Rights & Reconciliation
Question 9. Do you believe Indigenous Peoples in Canada have special rights different from all other Canadians? Please check only one*.
- Yes
- No
- Not Sure
Special Rights & Reconciliation
Again, for those who chose to complete the survey, a very high response rate (80%) perceive special rights for Indigenous Peoples.
However, just to remind ourselves again, only 37 out of approximately 130 invitees completed the survey.
Often in polling contexts where real random sampling occurs, non-respondents are divided up according to the same proportions as respondents regarding the characteristics or attitudes in question a survey.
However, given the biased nature of the respondent selection process (the survey administrator’s email contact list), we should not expect that a more general population would likely reflect these numbers, given that the administrator tends to move among the ‘converted’. However, if we bear that in mind, we can still assert that the results obtained are what they are and not something else.
Another way of putting it, there is a group of people out there, for whom reconciliation is very important and for whom special Indigenous rights are recognized. The question which might come next is: how large is this group? Unfortunately, this survey, given its methodological limitations, will not provide the answer to that question. However, further research might.
Assessing the value of the data in front of us, ultimately, depends upon our goals. If the goal of the survey was to assess the perceptions of the people on the survey administrator’s contact list, then we may, indeed, have collected valuable and actionable information.
Heritage Results
Curiously the only noticeable differences here are that only about 30% of Aboriginal and Métis respondents selected “special rights” for Indigenous Peoples, different from all other Canadians. (Figure 9.1)
Now does this indicate a belief about potential rights or simply about actual, currently existing rights. Again, we would need to do follow-up research to see if these proportions indicated a significant difference in attitude or belief here.
Key Conditions of Reconciliation
Question 10. In order for you to support reconciliation, which of the following are key conditions. Please check any of the following statements with which you agree*:
- Everyone in Canada must have the same equal rights including Indigenous Peoples.
- No group of people in Canada should have unique and distinct rights not available to all Canadians.
- The unique and distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples must be protected.
Key Conditions of Reconciliation
This, of course, was a bit of a ‘trick’ question, insofar as it presents seemingly opposing, if not contradictory, statements each of which are represent widely expressed values.
A value of equality of rights is represented affirmatively and negatively (denial of special rights) as is the value of the unique and distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples.
This question was deliberately asked after asking respondents to consider whether Indigenous Peoples have special rights.
Thus, it is perhaps interesting to note how low the response rate (27%) is to the statement about equality of rights in Canada. Without the contextualization of having already asked about unique Indigenous rights, would equality have scored higher? It would be interesting to compare our results with those of surveys which have addressed equality attitudes in Canada. Again, however, that is for another day.
Overall, however, the results here suggest that further research may be useful to unpack what respondents are asked to balance or compare in this question.
Heritage Results
Fairly even distribute regarding equality, even if that is surprisingly low, roughly 20–30%. (Figure 10.1)
Curiously, roughly 40–60% of heritage respondents agreed that no group should have “unique and distinct rights” not available to all Canadians. (Figure 10.2) However, 40–80% believe “unique and distinct” Indigenous rights need to be protected.(Figure 10.3)
However, when we look at the heritage breakdown, curiously more Aboriginal and Métis seem to choose equality over special Indigenous rights. Respondents who identified as First Nation had the highest rate of agreement with protecting Indigenous rights. However, we should not British respondents were close behind.
Again, only more detailed research could unpack what this means if, indeed, such distinctions were to survive more penetrating research.
Citizenship & Reconciliation
Question 11. How will a Nation-to-Nation reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous Peoples affect citizenship*? Please check any of the following statements with which you agree*.
- Canada should have its own citizenship requirements for becoming a Canadian citizen
- Aboriginal Nations should have their own citizenship requirements for becoming an Aboriginal citizen
- All Aboriginal peoples in Canada should be automatically citizens of Canada
- All Canadians should be automatically citizens of Aboriginal Nations
- There should be a process for any Aboriginal person to become a citizen of Canada
- There should be a process for any Canadian to become a citizen of an Aboriginal Nation
- Canada should control the process of becoming a Canadian citizen
- Canada should control the process of becoming an Aboriginal citizen
- Aboriginal Nations should control the process of becoming an Aboriginal citizen
- Aboriginal Nations should control the process of becoming a Canadian citizen
- Canadian citizenship should be conditional upon swearing allegiance to treaties with First Nations
- Canadian citizenship should be conditional upon disavowing colonial authority over First Nations
Citizenship & Reconciliation
Now, given that citizenship got the lowest score for all the policy areas perceived to be likely affected by reconciliation, this section specific to citizenship & reconciliation raises an interesting set of questions.
Generally, the answers were organized to provide equal treatment of “Canadian citizens” and “Aboriginal citizens” on the various policy points raised.
The responses themselves raise some curious questions.
Curiously, only 51% appear to believe that Canada should have its own citizenship requirements for becoming a Canadian citizen. This seems strangely low, since controlling citizenship is one of the standard elements of a modern nation state. And one would assume, especially given the high rate of university affiliation in the group of respondents, that the survey participants would have reflected that. So, again, there may be something to be unpacked here that is largely unclear at the moment, for example, about how participants perceived the question.
Given the relatively low rate of 50% for Canadian citizenship requirements, the lower rate of 35% for Aboriginal citizenship may not be that surprising. But what it means remains a question.
Regarding automatic enrolment of Canadian and Aboriginal citizens on each other’s citizenship rolls, the discrepancy seems statistically significant (keeping in mind the biased methodology here), 54% to 0%. What does this difference represent about the nature of Canadian and Aboriginal citizenship? Again, this difference suggests a possible interesting topic for further research.
Concerning the question of whether there should be a process whereby a Canadian or Aboriginal citizen can acquire the alternative citizenship, the response rate is curiously low in both cases. Perhaps less curious for becoming an Aboriginal citizen, if it is assumed that Aboriginal citizenship is tied to ancestry and is not voluntary. Why Aboriginal persons are not perceived as requiring a process to become a Canadian citizen, remains unclear. Is it because respondents believe they are already, automatically Canadian citizens? Or something else?
Regarding who controls becoming a Canadian or Aboriginal citizen, roughly 50% see each national entity controlling its own citizenship process. Although 11% believe Canada should control Aboriginal citizenship, but 0% going the other way. How would these numbers fare, if we conducted a random sample of the wider Canadian population?
Finally, we asked about treaties, colonial authority and citizenship. Remember the importance attached to reconciliation and the special rights of Indigenous Peoples by our respondents in earlier questions.
Only 27% of this group believe Canadian citizenship should be tied to treaties with First Nations. Again, why? What’s going on here regarding how participants perceive this question?
Are treaties not the very heart of the nation-to-nation political relationship. Do these results indicate a very low requirement on the part of survey participants regarding the criteria for achieving reconciliation? Or do they simply indicate a lack of education, remember the university results for our respondents, regarding these issues?
Even fewer, 16%, believe Canadian citizenship should disavow colonial authority over First Nations. What’s going on here? Recall, only 11% of respondents self-identified as colonial settlers and even fewer, 3% self-identified as colonizers, so with such numbers, why would the respondents not wish to see disavowing colonial authority over First Nations as a part of the reconciliation process?
For all these questions, our survey does not give us the means to answer them. Nevertheless, from an exploratory point of view, they seem to point towards some suggestive possibilities for further research.
Heritage Results
Some curious, if conclusive, results for Citizenship & Reconciliation.
Indigenous (generic) respondents almost completely did not select Canada having its own citizenship requirements. (Figure 11.1) Whereas support, while support for Aboriginal Nations having their own citizenship requirements was spread fairly evenly between 20–50% across the heritage categories. (Figure 11.2)
Similarly, support was evenly distributed, roughly 20–60%, for all “Aboriginal peoples” being automatically Canadian citizens. (Figure 11.3) While no one thought Canadians should automatically become Aboriginal citizens.
There was little support, fairly evenly distributed, for a process for Aboriginal persons becoming Canadian citizens. With greater, again evenly distributed, for Canadians to become Aboriginal citizens. (Figure 11.6)
Largely, only British and French thought Canada should control becoming a Canadian citizens, while a few British and French thought Canada should control Aboriginal citizenship. (Figures 11.7 and 11.8)
There was wider and greater support across heritage categories for Aboriginal Nations controlling Aboriginal citizenship. (Figure 11.9) No one thought Aboriginal Nations should control Canadian citizenship. (Figure 11.10)
Finally, there was modest support for swearing allegiance to treaties and disowning colonial authority over Indigenous Peoples by British, French, First Nation and Métis respondents. With no response from other heritage categories. (Figures 11.11 and 11.12)
Self-Government & Reconciliation
Question 12. Which of the following levels of Indigenous self-governance do you believe is sufficient and acceptable in achieving reconciliation between Indigenous Peoples and Canada? Please check any of the following statements with which you agree*.
Self-government for Indigenous Peoples would be acceptable as…
- the current chief and band council system administered under the Indian Act
- Indigenous municipalities (within the Canadian federation)
- Indigenous provinces (within the Canadian federation)
- Indigenous territories (within the Canadian federation)
- a unique 3rd Order of Indigenous government (within the Canadian federation)
- an independent sovereign federation of Indigenous Nations
Self-Government & Reconciliation
Given that this topic, Aboriginal Self-Government, is the original topic around which this research project was initiated, it is interesting to note the results here.
Perhaps the remarkable points at this stage: i) the current system is not favoured by many, ii) a unique 3rd order of Indigenous government (within the Canadian federation) gets the highest response, although municipalities, and provinces are not too far behind. And an independent sovereign Indigenous federation gets a respectable nod. Curiously, Indigenous provinces are almost as unpopular as the current band council system.
Again, how these responses would translate to a wider population would be interesting to explore.
These numbers may suggest that an appetite for change is high among those who reflect the survey administrator’s sample.
It may also reflect that no clear break-out solution is widely supported across the board.
In fact, it may indicate that reconciliation requires first and foremost, education of the public regarding just what the favoured alternatives are.
Heritage Results
This question goes to the heart of our topic of Aboriginal Self-Government, the results do not appear to suggest any great divide along heritage categories.
The support for the current “chief and band council system” is fairly low and evenly distributed. (Figure 12.1) Curiously Native respondents recorded the highest rate of support of all heritage categories at 50%.
The same is largely true for Indigenous municipalities, provinces or territories. Support is low and evenly distributed. (Figures 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4)
A modest differential appears in the results for a “unique 3rd order” of Indigenous government (within the Canadian Confederation) versus an “independent sovereign federation” of Indigenous Nations. (Figures 12.5 and 12.6) The former has more support, by roughly 20%, among non-Indigenous (generic) respondents versus Indigenous (generic) respondents.
However, we must remind ourselves that the percentages are based upon such small samples that any suggestion of a tendency among larger populations of the heritage categories used here, would be highly unreliable.
Self-Government & Indigenous Territories
Question 13. What would be acceptable to you if the expression Indigenous Territories were used to describe the territories covered by reconciliation, Indigenous self-government and Indigenous self-determination? Please complete the statement below about Indigenous Territories with reference to your preferences*. Please check any of the following statements with which you agree*.
The expression Indigenous Territories would be acceptable when considering Indigenous self-government if it referred to…
- the current system of Indian reserves administered under the Indian Act
- treaty territories negotiated in the future between Indigenous Peoples and Canada
- the traditional territories of Indigenous Nations
- all the territory currently claimed by Canada
Self-Government & Indigenous Territories
Another interesting question, insofar as a number of ongoing negotiations see identifying a land base as a key step in the process of reconciliation.
A small minority here, 14%, see the current system of Indian reserves as acceptable.
Roughly 50% see either future negotiated territories or traditional territories as acceptable references of territories covered by reconciliation.
However, only roughly 25% see all Canadian territory as a suitable reference for “Indigenous Territories”.
Again, how could we unpack these perceptions in future research?
Do half the respondents who selected “traditional territories” believe that “all the territory currently claimed by Canada” represents different territory than “traditional territories”?
Again, perhaps public education and further research is necessary to clarify these distinctions.
Heritage Results
There is virtually no support for the current system of Indian reserves. (Figure 13.1)
There is modest and evenly distributed support across the heritage categories for future negotiated territories. (Figure 13.2)
However, we see significant differences when speaking of traditional territories. (Figure 13.3) British support is at 20%, with French support at 38%. Whereas Indigenous (generic) support ranges between 50% and near 70%. This might suggest a possible issue of conflict if these numbers were replicated over a larger population.
However, almost somewhat contradictory, allowing Indigenous territories to refer to “all the territory currently claimed by Canada”, received relatively even support across the heritage categories, from 25–50% with the Métis respondents coming ing at 67%.
It remains unclear how a split over Indigenous territories referencing traditional territories would not reproduce itself if it reference “all the territory currently claimed by Canada”.
Again, this may simply reflect some confusion around the meaning or wording of the questions and response options in the survey.
Decision-Making Within Indigenous Nations
Question 14. Who should decide what form of government will operate within Aboriginal Nations? Please select one only*.
- Only the Canadian federal government
- Only Canadian federal and provincial governments
- Only the Canadian federal government and Indigenous Nations
- Only Canadian provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Federal and provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Only Indigenous Nations
Decision-Making Within Indigenous Nations
Some interesting splits here.
A fairly even split between tripartite decision-making, 38, and Indigenous only, 41, regarding decision-making within Indigenous Nations.
What does this mean for reconciliation?
What does the nation-to-nation relationship mean if one nation gets to decide the internal operations of the other? In other words, how dependent or independent is the nation-to-nation relationship perceived to be in the context of reconciliation?
Heritage Results
The distributed among the heritage categories is fairly even on decision-making within Indigenous Nations.
Only a very few non-Indigenous (generic) respondents believe the federal government should decide such issues. (Figure 14.1)
A significant but small number of Indigenous (generic) respondents see this as a federal & Indigenous decision area, whereas only 1 of 14 non-Indigenous (generic) respondent would agree. (Figure 14.3)
A tripartite decision process is garners fairly even, 20–50% spread support across the heritage categories. (Figure 14.5)
“Only Indigenous Nations” was spread between 25–67%, however, the Indigenous-non-Indigenous (generic) distinction was not dramatic. (Figure 14.6)
Decision-Making Between Indigenous Nations and Canada
Question 15. Who should decide what form of government will operate between Indigenous Nations and Canada? Please select one only*.
- Only the Canadian federal government
- Only Canadian federal and provincial governments
- Only the Canadian federal government and Indigenous Nations
- Only Canadian provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Federal and provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Only Indigenous Nations
Decision-Making Between Indigenous Nations and Canada
Clearly, either the dual-partite or tripartite solution covers 75% of the respondents.
Again, clarification of what the questions mean or entail, would likely help clarify the meaning of the participants’ responses.
One possibility not considered here, would be a semi-independent arbitration tribunal, much like deals with issues involving trade agreements between national entities, for example, NAFTA, WTO, etc.
The idea here was to have the exact same set of possible responses for each of the different policy areas in order to see if there were any differences based on the policy context. And indeed there are.
Heritage Results
In this context, dual-partite (federal and Indigenous) and tripartite decision making are the clearly supported choices with fairly even distributions across the heritage categories. (Figures 15.3 and 15.5)
Land, Resources, Environment
Question 16. Who should decide how land, resources and the environment are managed within the Indigenous territories of Indigenous Peoples? Please select one only*.
- Only the Canadian federal government
- Only Canadian federal and provincial governments
- Only the Canadian federal government and Indigenous Nations
- Only Canadian provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Federal and provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Only Indigenous Nations
Land, Resources, Environment
Here again we see the dual-partite and tripartite options taking roughly 65 of the results. Although 1 in 4, see this as an Indigenous only area of consideration.
How does this break out across other questions? Is there a particular heritage group who shows up here? Are they on one side of the reconciliation / treaty table?
Heritage Results
While in each of the policy areas considered in the survey regarding what forms of government should be the decision-makers, typically, tripartite decision-making is fairly evenly and widely supported, nevertheless, some distinctions do occur.
In the are of land, resources, environment, the tripartite is favoured more evenly, but the only Indigenous Nations response has a roughly 20–67% spread of support and generally with Indigenous (generic) respondents at the high end, whereas non-Indigenous (generic) respondents are at the lower end. (Figures 16.5 and 16.6)
Questions of land rights, of course, are arguably at the heart of the entire history of colonialism, so there should be no surprise to see that it may be showing up here.
Language, Culture, Spirituality
Question 17. Who should decide how official languages, cultural practices and spiritual traditions are practiced and organized within Indigenous Nations and within the Indigenous territories of Indigenous Nations? Please select one only*.
- Only the Canadian federal government
- Only Canadian federal and provincial governments
- Only the Canadian federal government and Indigenous Nations
- Only Canadian provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Federal and provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Only Indigenous Nations
Language, Culture, Spirituality
Here we seem to have hit a break-out question.
Roughly 75% see this as Indigenous-only subject matter and only 20% see it as an area for tripartite consideration.
The question we might ask is, how do these results relate to the responses to the question about decision-making “within” Indigenous Nations, where the response for an Indigenous-only solution was only 41%. In other words, by what institutional mechanisms do respondents believe that language, culture and spirituality could be practiced and controlled by Indigenous Nations without the involvement of Canadian governments?
Again, only further research is likely to draw out the details here.
Heritage Results
Here, control by Indigenous Nations is widely and evenly supported across the heritage categories. (Figure 17.6)
The tripartite governments solution is now lower but still fairly evenly distributed across the heritage categories. (Figure 17.5)
The dual-partite (federal-Indigenous) decision-making solution gets modest support, although largely only on the Indigenous (generic) side of the heritage categories. (Figure 17.3)
Education, Health & Social Services
Question 18. Who should decide the content of and how education, health and social services (ex., foster care) are practiced and organized for Indigenous Peoples, within Indigenous Nations and within the Indigenous territories of Indigenous Nations? Please select one only*.
- Only the Canadian federal government
- Only Canadian federal and provincial governments
- Only the Canadian federal government and Indigenous Nations
- Only Canadian provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Federal and provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Only Indigenous Nations
Education, Health & Social Services
It is interesting to note here, we have fallen back to the somewhat more standardized ratio of responses, falling largely between the tripartite solution, 51%, and the Indigenous-only solution at 32%.
How is this policy area different, for respondents, from language, culture and spirituality?
Is there a presumption of structural interdependence between Canada and Indigenous Nations in play in the context of education, health and social services that is not seen to be in play in the context of language, culture and spirituality? If so, why, how, and what?
Heritage Results
Here the dual-partite (federal-Indigenous) solution gets no meaningful support. (Figure 18.3)
As a result, all support is divided between the tripartite solution and the Indigenous-only solution, with the tripartite getting strong support among French and some Indigenous (generic) respondents, but weak among British respondents. (Figure 18.5)
An Indigenous-only solution gets fairly strong Indigenous (generic) support, however, non-Indigenous (generic) support ranges between 25% and 40% at the low end.
Fiscal, Revenue & Taxation Arrangements
Questions 19. Who should decide how the fiscal, revenue and taxation arrangements are organized and administered for Indigenous Peoples, within Indigenous Nations and within the Indigenous territories of Indigenous Nations? Please select one only*.
- Only the Canadian federal government
- Only Canadian federal and provincial governments
- Only the Canadian federal government and Indigenous Nations
- Only Canadian provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Federal and provincial governments and Indigenous Nations
- Only Indigenous Nations
Fiscal, Revenue & Taxation Arrangements
We are back to a split between dual-partite, tripartite and Indigenous-only, with tripartite roughly double the response of the other two.
Roughly 75 do not see financial resources and decision-making within Indigenous communities and territories as Indigenous-only matters.
Recall that the 4 questions dealing with specific policy topics are all addressing how these policies should be administered within Indigenous Nations and and within Indigenous territories.
How do these responses relate to the “colonial” nature of the historic relationship with which the process of reconciliation is meant to deal?
In other words, for some or many respondents, or for the Canadian public at large, is reconciliation another word for completing the project of colonial assimilation or is it a rejection of that project?
These are some of the questions we will attempt to deal with in our evaluation of the overall results of the survey. However, for the most part, this exploratory survey does not supply sufficient data at this point for clear results.
Heritage Results
Once again, the tripartite solution is the clear winner among respondents gaining the support of roughly 2 out of every 3 respondents within the heritage categories (only 1 of every 2 among all respondents.) (Figure 19.5)
However, the other 1 of 3 respondents in the heritage categories we are considering, typically chose the Indigenous-only solution. (Figure 19.6)
However, the tripartite solution was strongly supported by the Indigenous (generic) respondents suggesting that in this policy area, independent sovereignty is not a clearly held Indigenous (generic) objective among the survey respondents.
Reconciliation and Nation-to-Nation Relationships
The current federal government (2015) has mandated reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples based upon a Nation-to-Nation relationship. How will this Nation-to-Nation relationship emerge given the history of Canada? In this section, we consider some basic questions regarding nations and legitimate forms of authority.
History, Stories, Legitimate Authority
Question 20. Do you believe Indigenous Peoples and mainstream Canadians share the same history and creation stories about how legitimate forms of authority came into being in Canada? Consider the following statements and whether you believe they represent valid events in the creation of legitimate authority in Canada. (‘Treaties’ refer to treaties between a European Crown and Indigenous Nations.) Please check any of the following statements with which you agree*.
- The French Crown was defeated by the British Crown creating an exclusive authority in Canada.
- The French and the English are the two Founding Peoples in Canada.
- The government of Canada acquired all its authority from the British Crown. The government of Canada is the exclusive sovereign power in Canada.
- After ‘The Conquest’, French Canadians became British subjects without distinct rights.
- The French-Canadian Nation in Canada remains a distinct society.
- The French-Canadian Nation in Canada has unique and distinct rights to language and culture.
- The French-Canadian Nation in Canada has unique and distinct rights to political and economic self-determination.
- Treaties extinguished Aboriginal rights and surrendered Aboriginal territories to the Crown.
- Treaties only gave colonial settlers the right to share the land with Indigenous Nations.
- Treaties did not give colonial governments exclusive authority over Indigenous Nations or Indigenous Lands.
- The creation stories of Indigenous Peoples are foundational stories of legitimacy and inherent rights.
- The French and the English are not the only Founding Peoples in Canada.
- First Nations have founding stories of legitimacy prior to those of the English and the French.
- First Nations in Canada have never been conquered.
- First Nations in Canada remain distinct societies with inherent rights.
- First Nations in Canada have inherent rights to language and culture.
- First Nations in Canada have inherent rights to political and economic self-determination.
- Indigenous Nations have never given their consent to the Confederation governments founded in 1867.
- The legitimate authority of the Canadian Confederation requires the consent of Indigenous Nations.
- Indigenous Nations retain the inherent right to form a confederacy of sovereign Indigenous Nations.
Histories, Stories, Legitimate Authority
This set of responses perhaps hides as much as it reveals.
The statements are interdependent in ways that need a fair deal of explanation and unpacking which, of course, does not happen here. As a result, the responses must be handled with a great deal of caution and tentativeness.
Regarding the existence of an “exclusive authority in Canada” based on the British defeat of the French in North America, the response is a tepid 19%. Difficult to unpack what that might mean in the context of reconciliation, however, it certainly suggests an opportunity for more research.
The “two founding peoples” vision of Canada certainly has a weak response, 11%, with this group of respondents.
Only 35% believe the government of Canada acquired all its authority from the British Crown. What other sources are there in the minds of our respondents? The French tradition? The Indigenous tradition? Only 35% felt comfortable answering the question?
Only 24 believe that the government of Canada is the “exclusive sovereign power in Canada”. This is very interesting, insofar as that would certainly seem to be the position of the Canadian state when it enters into international fora on the world stage. Are respondents interpreting the word “exclusive” in some more flexible way? Again, unpacking this would require more research.
Statements regarding the “French Nation in Canada” certainly seem to favour the perception of “distinct rights” (95% seem to recognize them.) However, language and culture rated higher responses, 62, than did political and economic self-determination at a mere 19%.
Treaty interpretation, as involving extinguishments and surrenders, gets roughly half, 22, that of sharing and the rejection of exclusive colonial authority at 41. Are such proportions likely to hold in the wider Canadian population?
Generally, the recognition of Indigenous creation stories, legitimacy and inherent rights get responses ranging roughly between 50% to 75%. Like the “French in Canada”, respondents appear to be more likely to recognize language and cultural rights than political and economic self-determination. What is at stake in this distinction?
1 in 3 or 1 in 2, agree that First Nations have not been conquered and they have not given their consent to the Confederation arrangements of 1867, respectively.
However, less than 1 in 3, believe that such consent is required, or that a confederacy of sovereign Indigenous Nations is an inherent right.
Again unpacking the significance of these distinctions for reconciliation remains an open set of questions. However, they certainly seem to open up possible lines of questioning for further research.
Heritage Results
This section of the survey covers a broad range of related issues. By and large, there is no overall dramatic trend line running through all the responses according to our heritage categories.
Nevertheless, some observations can be made.
The idea of the British Crown defeating the French Crown and creating an exclusive authority in Canada has significantly strong support among British respondents compared to all other respondents. (Figure 20.1)
Only British and, much fewer, French respondents believe the “French and the English are the two Founding Peoples in Canada”. (Figure 20.2)
There appears to be fairly wide and even distribution of respondents who agree that the “government of Canada acquired all its authority from the British Crown”. (Figure 20.3) The British lead the pack at 60%.
Only the British at 40% and fewer French at 25% believe the government of Canada is the “exclusive sovereign power in Canada”. (Figure 20.4) This could be a major difference if it held up across a larger population. But only more research could demonstrate that.
Only a few British respondents believe that French Canadians are British subjects without distinct rights. (Figure 20.5)
There is more non-Indigenous (generic) than Indigenous (generic) support for the view that the French Nation in Canada “remains a distinct society”. (Figure 20.6)
There is wider and strong support for the view that the French Nation in Canada has “unique and distinct rights to language and culture”. (Figure 20.7) This support is much stronger among non-Indigenous (generic) than Indigenous (generic) respondents, suggesting perhaps that Indigenous (generic) respondents do not identify the linguistic and cultural aspirations as related to those of French Canadians.
Regarding the unique rights to “political and economic self-determination” on the part of French Canadians, curiously, there appears to be more support. (Figure 20.8) The Métis are most supportive at 67%, suggesting perhaps that the Métis see a stronger connection, not surprisingly for historic reasons, between the aspirations for political and economic self-determination of themselves and French Canadians.
Interpreting treaties in terms of extinguishment of rights and the surrender of land by Indigenous Peoples is not strongly supported but is fairly evenly supported. Curiously, it’s the French respondents who entirely disagree here. (Figure 20.9) However, we have little time and space to get into how these questions might have been interpreted by respondents which may account for some of the curious results.
There is moderate and evenly distributed support, 30–50% for the view that treaties were about sharing land. (Figure 20.10) And similarly, that treaties did not give colonial governments exclusive authority over Indigenous Peoples and lands. (Figure 20.11)
30–50% of respondents, within the heritage categories, support the view that Indigenous foundational stories provide legitimacy and inherent rights. (Figure 20.12) Similar agreement exists, 30–75%, that French and English are not the only “Founding Peoples in Canada”. (Figure 20.13)
There is very strong and evenly distributed support for the view that First Nations founding stories of legitimacy are prior to those of the English and the French. (Figure 20.14) Although, support is weakest among French respondents at 38%.
Curiously, non-Indigenous (generic) respondents are somewhat more in agreement with the idea that First Nations in Canada have “never been conquered” than non-Indigenous (generic) respondents. (Figure 20.15)
There is significant, 30–50%, and evenly distributed support across the heritage categories for the view that First Nations remain distinct with inherent rights. (Figure 20.16)
There is wide and fairly evenly distributed support, 30–88%, for First Nations having “inherent rights to language and culture”. French respondents top the list at 88% (ignoring heritage categories with only one respondent.)
Regarding First Nations “inherent rights to political and economic self-determination”, we find a significant distinction. Only 20% of British respondents support such rights. Whereas 50% of French respondents and Indigenous (generic) respondents registered 60% support or more. Again, whether such numbers would persist among a larger population remains to be seen upon the gather of more reliable data.
There is strong, 50–100%, and evenly distributed support among the heritage categories for the idea that First Nations have “never given their consent” to the Confederation arrangements of 1867. (Figure 20.19)
There is weaker support, 20–50%, but fairly evenly distributed support among the heritage categories, that such consent is required. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the British and the French are at the low end of this range. (Figure 20.20)
Finally, on this question, there is a very similar distribution of support for the inherent right of Indigenous Nations to form a “confederacy of sovereign Indigenous Nations”. (Figure 20.21) Again the non-Indigenous (generic) respondents are at the low end, 20–25%, while Indigenous (generic) respondents range from 33–50% support.
Reconciliation or Irreconcilable Conflict?
In this final section, we will consider the current government’s stated mandate to achieve reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous Peoples.
Reconciling Claims of Sovereignty
Question 21. Is Canada on the path to reconciliation or is Canada on a path of irreconciliable conflict? Given the competing claims to sovereignty in Canada by the Canadian Crown, French sovereignists, and Indigenous Nations, please consider the following statements. Please check any of the following statements with which you agree*.
- The Canadian governments, federal and provincial, can not accept any limits on their exclusive claim to sovereignty.
- The French-Canadian Nation in Canada has the right to self-government and self-determination.
- Indigenous Nations in Canada have inherent rights to self-government and self-determination.
- The French-Canadian Nation can only achieve self-determination through a relationship of sovereignty-association with Canada.
- Indigenous Nations can only achieve self-determination through a nation-to-nation relationship with Canada.
- The above sovereignty claims are irreconciliable and will likely lead to civil war.
- The Riel Rebellions were early symptoms of this civil war between the forces of colonialism and de-colonization.
- The Oka Crisis (Mohawks) and the October Crisis (FLQ) are more recent outbreaks of this ongoing civil war.
- A new form of federalism is needed to reconcile the competing claims to sovereignty and independence in Canada.
- Reconciliation requires a form of federalism which fully respects the rights of the French-Canadian Nation in Canada.
- Reconciliation requires a form of federalism which fully respects the inherent rights of Indigenous Nations in Canada.
- The current federal system is fine, there is no need for any substantial changes.
Reconciling Claims of Sovereignty
There does not appear to be a large appetite for an exclusive claim to sovereignty by the Canadian federation within our respondent group at a mere 14%.
Interestingly, there is a much more significant preparedness to recognize Indigenous self-government and self-determination, 54%, than for the “French Nation in Canada” at a mere 14%.
Similarly, 54% are prepared to consider a nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Canada versus a “sovereignty-association” relationship, 22%, between the “French Nation in Canada” and Canada.
Statistically speaking, no one, 5%, seems to see the contending sovereignty claims as “irreconcilable and likely to lead to civil war”. Although closer to 1 in 3 acknowledge the Riel Rebellions, the Oka Crisis and the October Crisis as “symptoms” or outbreaks of “this ongoing civil war” between the “forces of colonialism and de-colonization”.
What do these results suggest about how such events get interpreted within the historical consciousness of the various cultural and political groups sitting around the reconciliation table? Do different actors within the reconciliation story interpret events through significantly different cultural, historical and political lenses? More research would be necessary to unpack these questions.
Finally, reconciliation and federalism. No one, 3%, seems to think “the current federal system is fine”. Curiously, within this group of survey respondents, only 16% believe respecting the rights of “the French Nation in Canada” is required for reconciliation, whereas 65% believe that the rights of Indigenous Nations is required.
Now, is this simply because the term “reconciliation” is solely associated with the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Canada? Or does it reflect the belief that the latter relationship can be dealt with without considering the rights of the French Nation in Canada at the same time? Who do the respondents believe will be sitting around the ‘reconciliation table’ when the negotiations occur. First Nations, Métis, Inuit? Who are the Métis? When the Riel Rebellions broke out, who self-identified with the warring sides? Do folks recall or know about the course of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown negotiations?
All these questions require more research to explore more deeply what might be going on here.
Heritage Results
Support for the view that the “exclusive claim to sovereignty” on the part of Canadian governments is unacceptable, is very weak, and the handful who support it are non-Indigenous, with one exception. (Figure 21.1)
There is modest support more or less evenly distributed across the heritage categories for French rights to “self-government and self-determination”. (Figure 21.2)
By contrast the same rights applied to “Indigenous Nations” has significant support from 25–67%. (Figure 21.3) Curiously British respondents were at the high end, 60%, whereas French respondents were the low end, First Nations respondents were the high end (again, ignoring one respondent categories.)
Again, support was weak for French sovereignty-association with Canada and especially among Indigenous (generic) respondents with the exception of modest support, 33%, among the Métis. (Figure 21.4)
And again, by contrast, the same kind of rights applied to Indigenous Nations, garnered support ranging from 38–67%. (Figure 21.5) With French respondents at the bottom and most Indigenous (generic) at the top of the range.
There was little support for the idea of civil war due to irreconcilable sovereignty claims. (Figure 21.6)
However, there was significant support among the British, French and Métis respondents in seeing the Riel Rebellions as “early symptoms of this civil war between the forces of colonialism and de-colonization”. (Figure 21.7) This may suggest a significant difference in historical perceptions by Indigenous (generic) and non-Indigenous (generic) respondents, the Métis curiously caught, once again, perhaps, in the middle.
There is modest and somewhat evenly distributed support for a new form of federalism to “reconcile the competing claims to sovereignty and independence” in Canada. (Figure 21.9)
There is weak support for reconciliation involving French rights in Canada. Again this support is exclusive to a small handful of French respondents, and one Métis, and one British respondent. (Figure 21.10)
By contrast there is strong and evenly distributed support for Indigenous rights being reconciled with Canada. Indigenous (generic) support ranges between 67–100%, while non-Indigenous (generic) support is 60–63%. (Figure 21.11)
Finally, there is virtually no support, one British and one French respondent, for the view that the “current federal system is fine” and no changes are needed. (Figure 21.12)
~ End of Survey ~