Pol111h5: Issues with Native Sovereignty in Canada

University of Toronto
Issues With Native Sovereignty in Canada
Canada in a Comparative Perspective

POL111H5

        For decades, Natives have been seeking independence from Canadian sovereignty.  They have attempted and failed to achieve their desires for a number of reasons. Their views conflict directly with those of the Canadian Government, which could cause great harm to an already established society. In modern society, A Native State cannot exist within a Canadian state according to the lack of clearly defined Native territory, the threat to democracy that exists with allotting independence to one group, and the inability for Aboriginals and Canadians to live in political harmony.    

The majority of the Aboriginal population is in favour of sovereignty, or forming an independent nation separate from Canada.  The Aboriginal public tends to view the Canadian government as a threat, feeling that Canadians are alien immigrants who invaded their territory and imposed tyranny on their people.  They say that their traditional Aboriginal religious ceremonies have been criminalized, and that their ``social, cultural and economic systems`` have been attacked by the Canadian government.  (Townshend, 38).  Their children have been forced to partake in a ``school system where they are separated from families, and prohibited from practicing their religion and culture.``(Townshend, 38)  There have been instances of children being ``physically, sexually, and psychologically abused.`` (Townshend, 38)  Most Aboriginals do not feel an obligation to abide by Canadian law and policy.  In the words of a Mohawk elder to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “You have no right to legislate any laws over our people, whatsoever. Our lands are not yours to be assumed. You are my tenant, whether you like it or not. “ (Townshend, 44)

Those who argue against the case for a sovereign state for natives say that natives did not possess sovereignty even before the Europeans arrived.  There are far too many Aboriginals scattered across the country for them to unite in a way that could be recognized as an independent state. (Flanagan, 45) Their requests would be followed by requests for independence from all other minority groups in Canada.  

Native sovereignty is an impossibility in Canada because there lacks a clearly defined geographical territory occupied by Aboriginals.  Unlike Quebec, Native tribes do not possess a largely concentrated population within a certain land stretch.  Instead, they are scattered throughout Canada. Most of the Natives live on reserves, but many also live within other communities such as Montreal, London, and Vancouver.  There are several hundred thousand non-status Indians, people who are of aboriginal ancestry but have not officially identified themselves under the Indian Act.  Many are integrated into Canadian society, living and working as part of Canadian communities. A government to embrace all the native people would have to somehow include these people.  Unless all of the Aboriginals abandoned their lives in Canadian society and physically relocated to the same spot, a clearly defined territory does not exist to govern.  Setting up their own economy, political system, public and private institutions would prove too difficult a task.  

As Thomas Flanagan states, “the legal equality of all citizens is what makes democracy possible.” (Flanagan, 46) Since they do not belong to a particular geographical area, if Aboriginal communities were granted separate self-governing political control, their system of government would be racially defined.  This would threaten Canada’s status as a democratic environment.  Giving special powers to one group in a country defined by its mosaic of cultures, defies the very notion of democracy itself.  This would set a precedent for every other identifiable group to expect similar treatment.  If all of the visible minorities, gays and lesbians, disabled, group within Canada were given separate, political power, this would be “the end of equality before the law, and ultimately the end of liberal democracy itself.” (Flanagan, 46)