Public Administration Questions Relating to Aboriginal Self-Government

L.C. Green is a university professor of political science and an
honorary professor of law at the University of Alberta.

When aboriginal self-government is finally agreed upon and entrenched in the Constitution, a variety of administrative questions will have to be faced and an attempt made to settle them in any constitutional accommodation that may be reached. This Background Paper in the Aboriginal Peoples and Constitutional Reform Series of Queen’s University’s Institute of Intergovernmental Relations seeks to draw attention to some of the most prominent of these.

Professor Franks introduces his paper with an account of traditional aboriginal self-government in which he emphasizes the importance of kinship, a matter still significant among Indian peoples. In this account he also reminds us that aboriginal cultural values are different from those of Europeans and this must of course be borne in mind in any discussion of self-government, for the contents of this concept vary with cultural traditions. Moreover, “aboriginal self-government entities will be of a quite different scale, and face quite different problems to the federal government.... The relationship between politicians and administrators is likely to be difficult to sort out. In the smallest self-governing units [e.g., bands], where there are few positions on the administrative side, power is likely to be ‘fused,’ with elected leaders making many of the decisions which in larger units are made by civil servants.... [Thus,] the development of a band civil service [may be] essential for many purposes of self-government.”

One of the most important issues in relation to a self-governing institution is the methods of policy making and many attitudes to the aboriginal peoples “have been posed in terms of delivery and levels of service [rather] than in terms and types of programme, and programme development,” and there is a danger that this aspect of administration will be unduly emphasized in any system of self-government. So, “for aboriginal self-government to become something more than improved service delivery ... some provision must be made for the functions of programme development.... [However,] the band level is too small to be the appropriate unit to perform this function.” Even the Territories and the Yukon find it difficult to find the needed financial and professional resources.

“Aboriginal self-government is a means, not an end. It is a means for enabling the aboriginal community to perform the functions assigned to it. It is a means of making choices among competing functions and demands,” and both the aboriginal authorities and the federal government must ensure that self-government and self-administration do not result in the catastrophes that have befallen so many newly-independent peoples.