Forms of Aboriginal Self-Government

Ashley Thomson is a full librarian at Laurentian University and co-editor or co-author of nine books, most recently Margaret Atwood: A Reference Guide, 1988-2005.

This paper expands upon a theme touched on by Professor Noel Lyon in the first paper in this series — namely, the institutional arrangements that could be concocted to meet aboriginal demands for self-government. Interestingly, while Lyon defines self-government as the “power of decision,” for Boisvert it is “any institutional arrangement designed to secure greater aboriginal participation in the public process” (p.5). Unlike Lyon, Boisvert also emphasizes the ways in which aboriginal self-governments could be constituted and their authority recognized.

In examining the forms of self-government, Boisvert reviews various institutional arrangements that have been created abroad or have been proposed by native Canadians. Given their different definitions of what constitutes self-government, it is not surprising that Boisvert departs from Lyon in his conclusion that “it is possible to conceive of a form of aboriginal government that would not be attached to a land base” (p.13). Indeed, it is Boisvert’s view that “The distinguishing characteristic of aboriginal governments is not... that they would be tied to a land base on a reserve, but that political rights would be predicated on membership in the aboriginal community” (p.32).

Whatever forms of self-government are decided upon (and Boisvert acknowledges that there may be several), he argues in the second part of his paper that by conventional wisdom, implementation must be either by constitutional amendment or by legislation, and that the method chosen will be a function of the form proposed (p.43). Both methods have problems associated with them; where these exist, it is Boisvert’s view that they could be overcome were existing Canadian governments to turn over management of their own affairs to native peoples gradually but irrevocably, using a procedure Boisvert identifies as “devolution” (p.12).

In this reviewer’s opinion, the first part of Boisvert’s paper is not as strong as the second. No native that I am aware of would accept without reservation his definition of self-government. As a professor of political studies at Queen’s University, Boisvert may have gotten carried away with such a theoretical approach. On the other hand, the author is also a former adviser to the federal and provincial governments on constitutional reform, and this may help explain why his ideas on implementation seem more grounded in reality.