electoral electoral · elections canada is the non-partisan agency responsible for the conduct of...

ELECTORAL ELECTORAL

VOL. 5 • NO. 3 • NOVEMBER 2003

www.elections.ca

Aboriginal Participation in Elections


Contents VOL. 5 • NO. 3 • NOVEMBER 20031 Chief Electoral Officer’s Message

2 Aboriginal People’s Electoral Participation in the CanadianCommunity Alan C. CairnsElectoral participation can complement their quest for self-government

10 Aboriginal Participation in Canadian Federal Elections:Trends and ImplicationsDaniel GuérinWhile their 2000 turnout was lower than that of the overall population, thereare variations across the country

16 Aboriginal Voter Participation in Nova Scotia and New BrunswickDavid BedfordA comparison of turnout at federal, provincial and band elections

21 The Alienation of Nation: Understanding Aboriginal ElectoralParticipationKiera L. LadnerWhy many Aboriginal people have decided not to participate at the ballot box

27 Exploring the Issues of Aboriginal Representation in Federal ElectionsAnna HunterThere must be an increase in their numbers in Parliament and greater inclusionof Aboriginal values, cultures and traditions

34 The Participation of Aboriginal Women in Canadian ElectoralDemocracyManon TremblayWhy so few Aboriginal women have served in Canada’s Parliament and legislatures

39 Representing Aboriginal Interests: Experiences of New Zealandand AustraliaKeith ArcherProcesses these countries have developed for representation and involvementof their Indigenous peoples

46 The Effect of Expansion of the Franchise on TurnoutMichael Kinnear Comparing the Canadian Aboriginal experience with franchise expansions inthe United States, Great Britain and Germany

51 Mary Two-Axe Earley: Crusader for Equal Rights forAboriginal WomenWayne BrownThis Quebec Mohawk woman campaigned for legislation to end discriminationagainst thousands of Aboriginal women and children

EditorF. Leslie Seidle

Publications ManagerFrancine Dalphond

Managing EditorWayne Brown

For more information, contactElections Canada:Telephone: 1 800 463-6868

www.elections.ca

© ELECTIONS CANADA 2003ISSN 1488-3538EC 91828

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDPRINTED IN CANADA

Eleanor Milne, Chris Fairbrother andMarcel JoanisseThe Vote (1979–1980)Indiana limestone, 121.9 x 182.8 cm, House of Commons, Ottawa

The base stone of The Vote, a sculptureon the east wall of the House of Commonschamber, shows four heads with flowinghair whose mouths shape, in song, thefirst syllables of Canada’s nationalanthem, “O-Ca-na-da”.

Cover photos: Fred Cattroll

Elections Canada is the non-partisanagency responsible for the conduct of federalelections and referendums

Electoral Insight is published by Elections Canadathree times a year. It is intended for those interestedin electoral and related matters, includingparliamentarians, officials of international anddomestic electoral management bodies, electionofficers and academics. The opinions expressed arethose of the authors; they do not necessarily reflectthose of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Submissions of articles and photos that might beof interest to Electoral Insight readers are welcome,although publication cannot be guaranteed. If used,submissions will be edited for length and clarity asnecessary.

Please address all contributions and letters toWayne Brown, Managing Editor, Electoral Insight,Elections Canada, 257 Slater St., Ottawa, Canada K1A 0M6 ([email protected]).

This special issue of Electoral Insight is devoted to the important questionof Aboriginal electoral participation. It presents analyses by a number ofacademics and researchers who have studied Aboriginal involvement at thefederal, provincial and band levels in Canada and elsewhere. The research showsthat, on average, Aboriginal people vote in federal elections at a lower rate thanother Canadians. However, there are significant variations across provinces andterritories, with some cases of participation at higher levels than the Canadianpopulation as a whole. There is also evidence of lower turnout rates for Aboriginalvoters in urban centres.

Our authors offer a number of explanations. These include, at least for a part of theAboriginal population, mistrust of federal and provincial governments and a beliefthat pursuing self-government for their own communities is more important thanvoting in parliamentary or legislative elections. Some Aboriginal people in Canadawere not given the right to vote until 1960, and this has not been forgotten. Inaddition, because most Aboriginal people are not concentrated geographically, it is

difficult for them to capture the attention of political parties or win nominations as candidates. In turn, what some see asthe lack of meaningful debate about issues that matter to Aboriginal people discourages them from voting.

What can be done to encourage more Aboriginal people to exercise their right to vote? Some of our authors advocate aform of guaranteed representation in Parliament. Others claim it would be more beneficial for Aboriginal people to workwithin the existing political system, and press for improvements, rather than opting out of the federal electoral process.

Elections Canada has undertaken many initiatives aimed at sensitizing Aboriginal people to their right to vote andmaking the electoral process more accessible. We have consulted many Aboriginal communities in preparing ourinformation campaigns for recent elections, and in developing our liaison officer and elder and youth programs.

We are renewing our efforts in preparation for the next general election. We will expand the Aboriginal liaison officerprogram, hire more Aboriginal people as election officers and develop new information and advertising campaigns. Iam also consulting Aboriginal leaders and youth about other possible measures, including ways of reaching the growingAboriginal population in urban centres.

I am open to readers’ suggestions about how to enhance the involvement of Aboriginal people in the Canadian electoralprocess.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley


Jean-Pierre KingsleyChief Electoral Officer of Canada

Chief Electoral Officer’s Message

November 2003 1

2 Electoral Insight

My purpose in this introductory article is to set the issue ofAboriginal electoral participation in a larger context – tostep back from the particulars of voting turnout, for example,and explore the relationship of Aboriginal peoples to theoverall Canadian community. To focus only, or even primarily,on electoral behaviour – its presence or absence and itsnature – is to exclude the larger set of meanings derivedfrom history and from relations to the constitutional order asa whole that individuals bring to the decision to participateor not.1 I have not attempted a comparison among FirstNations, Inuit and Métis peoples (the ‘Aboriginal Peoplesof Canada’) or between on- and off-reserve members ofFirst Nations, or among the varying situations in thenorthern territories and the 10 provinces. Although thediscussion primarily focuses on Status Indians, it is relevantto the larger enterprise of understanding voting and notvoting by Canada’s Aboriginal people.

Constitutional stigmatisation

A widespread diffuse alienation from the Canadian consti-tutional order crops up again and again in the literaturedealing with Aboriginal issues and concerns. Elsewhere Ihave argued that the historical treatment of Aboriginalpeople is appropriately described as “constitutionalstigmatisation.”2 The anthropologist Noel Dyck noted the“unvarying and unceasing message” aimed at First Nationspeoples, pointing out the unacceptability of the way theylive and that “to become worthwhile as individuals” theymust follow the dictates of their “current tutelage agents.”

Not surprisingly, the First Nations reciprocated with negativeevaluations of government. The leading theme in FirstNations discourse, according to the sociologist Rick Ponting,is “the ‘untrustworthiness of government.’ The federalgovernment ... was repeatedly portrayed as betraying trust,being deceitful, lying, not dealing in good faith, and beinginsincere or hypocritical.”3

Historically, government policy on Aboriginal matters wasan education in not belonging, in outsiderness. Residentialschools were instruments to socialize the young into thevalues of the larger society, and out of identification withand allegiance to Aboriginal ways of life. This culturalassault included a prohibition on the use of Nativelanguages by students.

More generally, of course, the Indian Act placed First Nationspeoples in the position of wards who needed custodial carewhile they were being prepared for admission into the largersociety. From Confederation to the federal government’s1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, the official goal wasassimilation. First Nations peoples were subject to a specialact of Parliament (the Indian Act), were geographicallyseparated from the majority population by the system ofreserves, were under the authority of Indian agents whoadministered the Act, and with a few exceptions weredeprived of the franchise until 1960. The policy of enfran-chisement, the giving up of legal Indian status to becomea standard Canadian citizen, presupposed the two wereincompatible. Enfranchisement, of which few Status


Aboriginal People’sElectoral Participation inthe Canadian Community

Alan C. CairnsAdjunct Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Waterloo

November 2003 3

Indians took advantage, was a policytool for assimilation. Overall, federalpolicy reinforced the separatenessof First Nations peoples that it wassupposed to be overcoming.

Constitutional alienation

Not surprisingly, this experience wasnot a recipe for a positive allegiance toCanada. The Mohawk scholar PatriciaMonture-Angus responded to thishistory of humiliation with theassertion that “as part of my personalcommitment to ‘unlearn’ colonizationI refuse to think of this land as Canada,Ontario, Quebec, and so on. When Itravel I think in terms of whose territoryI am visiting – the Cree, the Algonquin,the Dene and so on.”4 Elsewhere, shedenied Canadian citizenship, as haveanother Mohawk scholar, TaiaiakeAlfred, and Matthew Coon Come,former National Chief of the Assemblyof First Nations (AFN) (2000–2003).5

Remarkably, three of the six candidatesfor National Chief at the 1997 AFN

leadership conventiondenied they wereCanadian.6

While overt denial ofCanadian citizenshipis almost certainly aminority position, theremainder are capturedby John Borrows’ phraseas “uncertain citizens.”7

Not surprisingly, theattitudes that underliethe phrase “uncertaincitizens” cast a shadowof illegitimacy or atleast questionable statusover other fundamentalinstitutions. Althoughadoption of theCanadian Charterof Rights and Freedoms

was strongly supported by the NativeWomen’s Association of Canada,it was roundly condemned by theAssembly of First Nations, andby Mary Ellen Turpel, a leadingAboriginal scholar,8 as an aliendocument whose values were deemedincommensurable with Aboriginalvalues. Overall, the debate about theCharter was deeply divisive withinFirst Nations communities.9 In sum,“uncertain citizens” had an ambivalentresponse to one of the central symbolsof contemporary Canadian identity.Some of the opposition was directedagainst the Charter’s political purposeof strengthening Canadian identity.

First Nations peoples have idiosyncraticattitudes to federalism. Provincialgovernments, often with good reason,are viewed suspiciously as unsympa-thetic to First Nations. Forty yearsago, the Hawthorn report noted the“strong link ... and special emotionalbond with the federal government”of Indian peoples, contrasted with

“suspicious and hostile attitudes tothe provincial governments.”10 In thecontemporary climate of Indigenousnationalism, however, there is a strongdistrust of the federal government, seenas a colonial government administeringan Indian Act virtually devoid ofdefenders. The Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples (RCAP) repeatedlydenied the legitimacy of all Canadiangovernments.11

RCAP’s partial and selective view of areconstitutionalized federal Canada toreflect its multinational nature viewedfederalism almost entirely in terms ofself-rule, and paid almost no attention tothe shared rule dimension. A proposednew third chamber of Parliament wasgiven the task of protecting the interestsof the Aboriginal Nations it was torepresent. RCAP’s massive reportdisplayed no, or at least negligible,appreciation that shared rule in the

Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent met with Chiefs of the BlackfootCouncil in Calgary, Alberta. During St. Laurent’s term(1948–1957) and many prior decades, Status Indians could notvote in federal elections unless they gave up their status.

Phot

o: N

atio

nal A

rchi

ves

of C

anad

a, C

-172

20

In 1996, the Royal Commission on AboriginalPeoples recommended that “the federal govern-ment, following extensive consultations withAboriginal peoples, establish an Aboriginalparliament whose main function is to provideadvice to the House of Commons and theSenate on legislation and constitutional mattersrelating to Aboriginal peoples.”

4 Electoral Insight

federal capital involves Canada-wideconcerns, and that representatives inone of their roles should think and speakand act for the country as a whole.Federalism was overwhelmingly viewedin terms of the escape offered by a thirdorder of government, and minimallyin terms of the dimension of sharedparticipation in governing Canada.

Attitudes to electoral participationpartly derive from negative assessmentsof Parliament. The establishment ofthe Royal Commission on AboriginalPeoples suggested that the normalprocesses of democratic politics andparliamentary government were inade-quate to meet the policy needs ofIndigenous peoples. The Commission’sreport confirmed that rationale. Itdevoted distressingly few pages toparliamentary representation (8 pagesout of more than 3,500), and itsattitude was dismissive. It wrote ofthe “inherent ineffectiveness of thedemocratic political relationship asseen by Aboriginal peoples ... suchrepresentation, when cast in termsof conventional democracy, is itselfregarded as illegitimate. Aboriginalpeoples seek nation-to-nation politicalrelations, and these cannot be achievedsimply by representation in Canadianpolitical institutions.”12 In the mostexhaustive examination ever undertakenof the relation between Aboriginalpeople and the Canadian State, theRoyal Commission’s discussion ofParliament has all the appearance ofan afterthought, included because of abelated recognition that to say nothingwould be a public embarrassment.

The RCAP critique was not surprising,given that Commission Co-chairGeorges Erasmus had previously givena devastating critique of the incapacityof Parliament to advocate Aboriginalrights and concerns.13 A few years

later, Ovide Mercredi, who succeededErasmus as AFN National Chief,repeated Erasmus’ critique: “the oneperson one vote foundation for elec-toral power only translates into whitemajority rule, and … we are theobjects of governmental decisions ...”14

This litany ofcritiques suggeststhat Aboriginalvoting turnoutwill be below theCanadian average.Part of the explanation is practical.Many urban Aboriginal persons movefrequently, have low literacy levels, areunemployed, are disconnected frommainstream society and are distancedfrom the discussion process that attendsfederal elections. It is, accordingly,difficult for political parties to catchtheir attention. Malloy and Whiteobserve that “natives do not place ahigh priority on voting in Canadianelections.”15 According to many, votingfor candidates and membership inlegislatures “gives unwarranted legiti-macy to non-native governments.”Roger Gibbins, another keen studentof elections, observed that if electionparticipation measures a community’spolitical health, “in the case of Canada’saboriginal peoples, the vital signs areoften distressingly weak.”16

It would be wrong to suggest thathostility to the Charter, faultyappreciation of federalism, antipathyfor Parliament, distrust of the federalgovernment, suspicion of the provincesand weak participation in elections areuniversally distributed throughout FirstNations communities and among non-Status Indians, let alone throughoutthe larger Aboriginal peoples categoryin the Constitution Act, 1982 whichincludes Inuit and Métis. After all,there are defenders of the Charter,

Aboriginal members of Parliament andof provincial and territorial assemblies,and Aboriginal voters. Nevertheless,especially among First Nations peoples,there is obviously a culture of suspicion,distrust and less than whole-heartedbelonging to Canada.

Who speaks for Aboriginalpeoples?

A crucial factor often overlooked inanalyzing Indigenous-State relationsis the special role in the politicalprocess of the Assembly of FirstNations and the other major organiza-tions speaking for the Inuit, the Métisand Aboriginal women (the NativeWomen’s Association of Canada).The predecessors of the contemporaryorganizations were initially financiallysupported by the federal governmentfollowing the withdrawal of the 1969White Paper. The clear rationale forfederal support was to enhance theAboriginal voice, on the groundthat the Aboriginal population wastoo small, scattered and financiallyweak to have a parliamentary voiceproportionate to its needs. Thecontinuing political role of country-wide Aboriginal organizationssuggests a relative incapacity ofParliament to speak for Aboriginalconcerns.

Native organizations constitute anadmittedly erratic rival system ofrepresentation to that of Parliament.They play a special advocacy rolefor Aboriginal peoples/nations, whichelevates them above the interest/

The AFN and the other pan-CanadianAboriginal organizations are more thanstandard interest groups.

November 2003 5

pressure group category. Representativesof national Aboriginal associationsparticipated in the four special consti-tutional conferences (1983–1987) todefine and flesh out the Aboriginaltreaties and rights in section 35 ofthe Constitution Act, 1982 and in theintergovernmental meetings that ledto the 1992 Charlottetown Accord.Three of the four Aboriginal commis-sioners in the seven-member RCAPhad held high executive office inAboriginal associations. GeorgesErasmus, Commission Co-chair, hadbeen National Chief of the AFNfrom 1985–1991.17

The AFN and the other pan-CanadianAboriginal organizations are morethan standard interest groups. Theirexistence and prominence constitutesomething between a supplement andan alternative to parliamentary repre-sentation of Aboriginal people. Theyhave an ambiguous constitutional status.They are recognized as speaking for theAboriginal nations of Canada, althoughintermittently their representativenessis challenged, as was the case for theAFN under the recent leadership ofMatthew Coon Come.

For the AFN, Parliament and thefederal government pose a fundamentalcontradiction. On the one hand, FirstNations people vote for candidates forParliament, occasionally get elected,and may attain Cabinet status. On theother hand, the federal government,through the Department of Indianand Northern Affairs, administers anIndian Act universally held to be ananachronism surviving from a colonialpast. From this perspective, the federalParliament is the legislative arm of acolonial power that can most effectivelybe challenged by external pressure fromthe political leadership of a nationalistmovement. Participation in electoral

and parliamentary processes carries atinge of consorting with the oppressor,especially when party discipline mufflesdissenting voices.

The federal government derivesauthority over “Indians, and LandsReserved for the Indians” from TheConstitution Act, 1867 (s. 91(24)). Thiswas the constitutional justification forthe Indian Act, the legislative arm ofa system of internal colonialism thatadministered the lives of First Nationspeoples. The post-1982 Constitution,by contrast, embodies an emancipatoryvision by declaring that “the existingaboriginal and treaty rights of theaboriginal peoples of Canada arehereby recognized and affirmed.”

(s. 35) In the clash between thesetwo visions, the federal governmentis saddled with trying to update orshed anachronistic legislation whileAboriginal people and those who speakfor them focus on the emancipatorypossibilities of section 35.

The coexistence of rival claims tospeak for Aboriginal nations – thefederal government, acting on theauthority of section 91(24), and nativeorganizations, especially the AFN,focusing on section 35 and seeking toenergize a stalled decolonization process,may be a transitional phenomenon,an eminently justifiable departure fromstandard constituency representationin Parliament. Even if this is the case,

Percentage of Aboriginal Population by Census Division, 1996

The map Percentage of Aboriginal Population by Census Division shows the percentage of thetotal population who identified themselves as Aboriginal in each census division. The data are fromthe 1996 census and are based on responses to the question: “Is this person an Aboriginal, that is,North American Indian, Métis or Inuit (Eskimo)?” The map is divided into six classes with lightyellow colours being used for census divisions having a low proportion of Aboriginal people, andmauve being used for census divisions having a high proportion of Aboriginal people in theirpopulations. The Atlas of Canada. © 2003.

0 – 4.95.0 – 19.920.0 – 39.940.0 – 74.975.0 – 84.985.0 – 94.0

6 Electoral Insight

the fact remains that we are left witha constitutional incoherence whichpresupposes and strengthens the thesisthat Parliament has limited legitimacyand capacity to speak for Aboriginalpeople.18 The logical consequence ofthese rival systems of representationis that elections have diminishedsignificance, which reduces theincentives to vote.

Nation-to-nation

The ambivalence towards Parliamentis reinforced by the widespreadexpression of various themes, perhapsbest described as pre-theories, whichattempt to capture from an Aboriginal,especially First Nations, perspective,the future toward which we shouldbe heading. Two are of specialimportance. By the time RCAPreported in 1996, Indian bands wereadding “nation” to their titles at arapid rate. By the turn of the century,nearly 200 bands had done so. Thatsame current of thinking led MaryEllen Turpel to suggest that Indigenous

members of legislatures should bethought of as “ambassadors or interna-tional representatives.”19 To RCAP,“nation” was the fundamental unitof analysis, and the relation betweenAboriginal peoples and the CanadianState was to be nation-to-nation.Canada was to become a multinationalfederation in which interactions wouldbe among nations, not citizens.

“Multinational”Canada may havebeen little morethan a starting pointfor constitutionaltheorizing, but thephrase as employedby RCAP clearlyrejected the idea ofCanada as a coast-to-coast communityof citizens, and simultaneously rejectedthe idea of the House of Commons asrepresenting individual citizens dividedinto several hundred constituencies.The Royal Commission did not seeits task as incorporating Aboriginal

individuals into the Canadian commu-nity of citizens, but as incorporatingself-governing Aboriginal nations,through their governments, into theCanadian system of governments.The nation-to-nation thesis repudiatesthe representational basis of the Houseof Commons and the electoral processthat produces it. The dominantinterpretation of the Two RowWampum thesis,20 which describesFirst Nations and White peopletravelling in separate boats down theriver of life, stresses the separatenessof the two societies, and thus addssupport to the nation-to-nation thesis.

Colonialism

The adjective “colonial” attaches itselfalmost automatically to the analysis ofpost-Confederation relations betweenAboriginal people and the CanadianState. After all, the treatment ofmembers of First Nations as wards,their marginalization, and the premisethat they needed to be governed bysuperior others who were the vanguardsof the future differed little from thepremises that informed the colonialrelationship in the overseas territoriesof the European empires.

A colonial interpretation of the past,especially when it leads to an anti-colonial nationalism, acts as a barrierto seeing citizenship as an instrumentof emancipation. Escape from a colonialpast is normally seen as an act of

This demonstration for land rights outside the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa onJune 21, 2001, illustrates the demand of many Aboriginal groups in Canada for recognitionas self-governing nations. The hundreds of blankets represent land and security.

Phot

o: C

P (T

om H

anso

n)

The Royal Commission did not see its taskas incorporating Aboriginal individuals intothe Canadian community of citizens, butas incorporating self-governing Aboriginalnations … into the Canadian system ofgovernments.

November 2003 7

collective empowerment or emancipa-tion of a nation, not as an aggregationof individual citizen memberships inthe community that previously keptone’s people out as lacking theappropriate credentials. Anti-colonialnationalism increases the socialdistance between its adherents andnon-Aboriginal Canadians. It focuseson the maximum autonomy possiblefor self-governing Aboriginal nationsand deflects attention from the sharedrule dimension of federalism. It leadsto a weak conception of Canadiancitizenship, and to a limited empathyfor electoral systems that accordprimacy to individual voters.

The nation-to-nation image and acolonial analysis both lead in the samedirection – to a relative delegitimationof Parliament as presently constituted,to antipathy for pan-Canadian citizen-ship, to a stress on difference andotherness, and to separate goals forAboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.I do not know how pervasive theseperspectives are, but that they expressone version of a spirit of the times isundeniable. In the absence of contraryincentives that reduce their salience,they contribute to a relative lack ofinterest in Parliament, with predictableconsequences for voter turnout.

Self-government versusparticipation in the wholeof Canadian civic life

Brief mention of an occasionally heardthesis that self-government may be intension with participation in the wholeof Canadian civic life – includingelections – will round off this discussion.It is true that much more attention,academic and other, is lavished onself-government than on electoralparticipation and representation inlegislatures. Self-government has a

higher priority for theAFN than participa-tion in elections.The scant attentionpaid to Parliamentand elections in themassive 1996 RoyalCommission reportis an additional indica-tion. The limitedattention of the schol-arly community isanother. Moreover, anysingle Supreme Courtdecision significantlyaffecting Aboriginalrights will elicit more periodicalarticles in the immediate aftermaththan will be devoted to Aboriginalpeople and legislatures in a decade.There is, therefore, an undeniableattention deficit. Political enthusiasmand academic adrenalin are more easilystimulated by the heady wine ofAboriginal nationalism and the inher-ent right to self-government than bythe more humdrum business of electionsfor minority Aboriginal populationsunlikely to gain more than a toehold inlegislatures – the northern territoriesbeing an obvious exception.

However, a bias in political andscholarly attention does not attest toa logical incompatibility between self-government and participation in thefederal election process. First Nationswill have small populations even ifconsolidation into larger groupingstakes place. Even the most generousself-government arrangements willleave hugely important policy areasbeyond their grasp, in the hands offederal and provincial governments.To opt out of the possibility ofinfluencing these policy areas fromthe inside would surely be attendedby a heavy price tag. It would informlegislators and governments that policy

areas beyond the reach of Aboriginalgovernments could be handled withminimal attention to Aboriginalinterests. It is difficult to see how thiscould be viewed as an advantageousoutcome by the citizens of First Nationsgovernments or of other self-governingIndigenous communities. Further, thelarge off-reserve Status Indian popula-tion, even if now politically linked toreserves by the Corbiere decision,21

would risk reducing attention to itsneeds by avoiding participation inmunicipal, provincial and federalpolitics. Finally, and even moreemphatically, there is no reasonwhy the non-Status urban Indigenouspopulation should avoid participatingin federal elections because someIndigenous people elsewhere arepractising self-government.

Perhaps, however, there is some consti-tutional principle that either precludesvoter participation by citizens of self-governing First Nations, or assertsthat MPs with Aboriginal nations intheir constituencies should have theirparliamentary roles restricted incertain circumstances. During thelong struggle over the status of Quebecin Canada, federalists often arguedthat if Quebec achieved extensive

Parliament adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms in 1982.

8 Electoral Insight

asymmetrical status, Quebec membersof the federal Parliament would haveto opt out of discussions in federalpolicy areas that applied to the restof Canada, but not to Quebec. Theissue was correctly seen as an issueof fairness.

The fairness argument, however,has much lesser validity for smallAboriginal nations. Their limitedgoverning capacity means theirencroachment on federal powers ismuch less. Further, with rare excep-tions, reserve populations are partof larger constituencies, usually withnon-Aboriginal representatives. Howwould an MP behave if differentAboriginal nations in his or herconstituency had dissimilar jurisdic-tional powers? His or her vote couldnot be fragmented to reflect thesedifferences. This is only the beginningof complexity. Unlike Quebec, a singlejurisdiction, there could be as manyas hundreds of Aboriginal nationswielding different jurisdictionalpackages scattered across many con-stituencies. Keeping these distinctions

alive in a legislature would be anadministrative nightmare. The superiorsolution, given the very limitedpowers Aboriginal governmentswould typically wield, is to acceptthat the situations of MPs with self-governing Aboriginal nations in their

constituencies areminor anomalies,troubling only tothe pedantic.

The alleged conflictbetween the practiceof self-government

and participation as voters, candidatesfor office, members of the House ofCommons and as holders of ministerialportfolios lacks substance. The idea thatthere is a conflict or incompatibilitybetween participation in federal elec-tions and self-government is illogical.To suggest that small communities of afew hundred or a few thousand peopleshould be required to opt out of federalelections because they are nations,or because their limited legislativepowers infringe marginally on federaljurisdiction, is to punish smallcommunities by isolating them fromtheir Canadian counterparts. Even“an autonomous Aboriginal nation,”correctly argues John Borrows,“would encounter a geography, history,economics, and politics that requiresparticipation with Canada and the

world to secure its objectives.”22

Aboriginal people are inevitablycaught up in the consequences offederal, provincial, territorial and,often, municipal politics. Participationin these arenas is an essential supportfor self-government.

Some Aboriginal nations, or theirmembers, may feel that participationin federal elections is incompatible withthe nation-to-nation relationship theyprefer, or that it accords a legitimacyto the federal government they do notwish to grant. However, if practicalitiesare considered, I suggest that the wiserstrategy is full participation in urban,provincial, territorial and federalpolitics as voters and candidates.The negative effects of the previouslyimposed isolation, when Indians weredeprived of the franchise, are unhappyreminders from the past.

Ending colonialism is not an easy task.Remarkable progress has been madein the past half-century. No longermarginalized wards of the state,Indian peoples belong to First Nations.Indigenous leaders head two of thenorthern territories. That federalvoting participation falls short of theCanadian average should surprise onlythe naive. That we have some way togo should not blind us to the fact thatwe have come a long way.

NOTES

The idea that there is a conflict orincompatibility between participationin federal elections and self-governmentis illogical.

1. See also Kiera L. Ladner, “The Alienation ofNation: Understanding Aboriginal ElectoralParticipation,” in this issue for analysis of thewidespread alienation of Aboriginal peoplefrom the electoral process.

2. Alan C. Cairns, “ConstitutionalStigmatisation,” in Patrick J. Hanafinand Melissa S. Williams, eds., Identity,Rights and Constitutional Transformation(Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1999).

3. J. Rick Ponting, “Internationalization:Perspectives on an Emerging Direction inAboriginal Affairs,” Canadian Ethnic StudiesVol. 22, No. 3 (1990), p. 93. Cree leaderBilly Diamond reported that his father taughthim “one thing ... never, never agree with thegovernment – no matter what. And I neverhave. Never.” Roy MacGregor, Chief: TheFearless Vision of Billy Diamond (Markham,Ontario: Viking/Penguin, 1989), p. 4.

4. Patricia Monture-Angus, Thunder in MySoul: A Mohawk Woman Speaks (Halifax,Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 1995),p. 245, note 13.

5. Monture-Angus, Thunder in My Soul, p. 167,note 16. Taiaiake Alfred, Peace, Power,Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto(Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999), p. 19. Roger J. Augustine andGuy A. Richard, Miramichi Bay CommunityRelations and Building Bridges: Miramichi

November 2003 9

Fishing Communities at a Crossroads[on-line report] at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/COMMUNIC/Marshall/miramichi/miramichi-rep_e.htm.

6. Kevin Bruyneel, “Smash Your Protractor!The Complicated Geometry of AboriginalPolitics in Canada,” paper prepared forpresentation at the Canadian PoliticalScience Association Annual Meeting,Toronto, Ontario, May 31, 2002,pp. 21–22.

7. John Borrows, “Uncertain Citizens:Aboriginal Peoples and the SupremeCourt,” Canadian Bar Review Vol. 80,Nos. 1 and 2 (March – June 2001),pp. 15–41.

8. Mary Ellen Turpel, “Aboriginal Peoplesand the Canadian Charter: InterpretiveMonopolies, Cultural Differences,”Canadian Human Rights Yearbook (Toronto:Carswell, 1989–1990).

9. Brad Morse, however, argues that “theindividual rights and liberties emphasizedby the Charter are [now] becoming moreaccepted and internalized by Aboriginalpeople,” leading to challenges to the lawsand policies of all governments, includingAboriginal governments. Bradford Morse,Twenty Years of Charter Protection: TheStatus of Aboriginal Peoples under theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms(no date), mimeo.

10. H. B. Hawthorn, ed., A Survey of theContemporary Indians of Canada, Vol. 1(Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966–1967),p. 199.

11. Report of the Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples, Vol. 2, Restructuring theRelationship, Part One (Ottawa: CanadaCommunication Group Publishing, 1996),pp. 4, 243, 374–375.

12. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,Looking Forward, Looking Back, Vol. 1,p. 249.

13. Canada, Debates of the Senate,November 18, 1987, p. 2201.

14. Mercredi, however, concluded his remarksby observing that “we can and do partici-pate in the political life of the country.”Ovide Mercredi, Vice-Chief ManitobaRegion, Assembly of First Nations, in his

“Presentation to the Royal Commissionon Electoral Reform and Party Financing,”April 19, 1990, mimeo, p. 3.

15. Jonathon Malloy and Graham White,“Aboriginal Participation in CanadianLegislatures,” in Robert J. Fleming andJ. E. Glenn, eds., Fleming’s CanadianLegislatures 1997, 11th edition (Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1997),pp. 60, 62.

16. Gibbins quoted in Trevor Knight,“Electoral Justice for Aboriginal People inCanada,” McGill Law Journal Vol. 46(2001), p. 1068.

17. Viola Marie Robinson was Presidentof the Native Council of Canada from1990–1991. Mary Sillet had been VicePresident of the Inuit Tapirisat Canadafor four years, and President of the InuitWomen’s Association of Canada fortwo terms.

18. For example, at the four special constitu-tional conferences in 1983–1987, designedto flesh out the practical meaning ofAboriginal and treaty rights, at whichparticipants included representatives of themajor Aboriginal organizations, did thefederal and provincial governments alsospeak for the Aboriginal citizens in theirelectorate? Or, and more likely, given theemerging nation-to-nation philosophy ofinteraction, were they pressed into the roleof representing non-Aboriginal Canadians,who could be thought of as the “other side”or the “other nation”?

19. Mary Ellen Turpel, “Indigenous Peoples’Rights of Political Participation andSelf-Determination: Recent InternationalLegal Developments and the ContinuingStruggle for Recognition,” CornellInternational Law Journal Vol. 25, No. 3(1992), p. 600.

20. The Two-Row Wampum Treaty “is thetreaty which governs the relationshipbetween the Six Nations Confederacy …and the settler nations,” Patricia Monture-Angus, Journeying Forward: Dreaming ofFirst Nations Independence (Halifax,Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 1999),pp. 36–37.

21. Macklem provides a useful summary ofthe decision: “Until recently ss. 2 and 77of the Indian Act restricted the right tovote and run for office to band members‘ordinarily resident on the reserve,’ butthis restriction was successfully challengedas contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.” PatrickMacklem, Indigenous Difference andthe Constitution of Canada (Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 2001), p. 230,note 90. For the decision itself, seeCorbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian andNorthern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203.

22. John Borrows, “ ‘Landed’ Citizenship:Narratives of Aboriginal PoliticalParticipation,” in Alan C. Cairns, et al.,eds., Citizenship, Diversity and Pluralism:Canadian and Comparative Perspectives(Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press, 1999), pp. 74–75. TrevorKnight argues that “although guaranteedrepresentation in Parliament is theoreti-cally inconsistent with a conceptionof Aboriginal self-government thatcontemplates independence or absolutesovereignty, it can be seen as an appropriate,even necessary, component to the morecommonly contemplated forms of self-government, by which Aboriginal peoplewould maintain some ties to the Canadianstate.” Trevor Knight, “Electoral Justice forAboriginal People in Canada,” McGill LawJournal Vol. 46 (2001), p. 1078. Knight’slogic is equally applicable to representationin the existing system of single-memberconstituencies.

10 Electoral Insight

This article analyzes the participation of Aboriginalelectors in the 2000 Canadian federal general election.1

The differences between turnout rates for Aboriginalpeople and other Canadians and the differences acrossprovinces and territories are analyzed using unpublishedelectoral data for First Nations reserves in each provinceand territory. Finally, certain implications of this analysisfor the development of measures to encourage Aboriginalparticipation in federal elections are discussed.

Trends in Aboriginal turnout

Data on voting participation by Aboriginal people inCanada are quite limited. As Bedford and Pobihushchyhave pointed out in their study of Aboriginal participa-tion in the Maritimes, “very little attention has beendirected at Indian (or more generally, Aboriginal) voterparticipation in Canadian politics by students of electoralparticipation.”2

The few available studies show that, on average, theturnout of Aboriginal people at federal elections is lowerthan that of other Canadians.3 That said, turnout amongAboriginal voters varies greatly across provinces andcommunities. In some areas, turnout among Aboriginalvoters is higher than that of the Canadian population asa whole.

Historically, Aboriginal people and their communitiesin Canada have faced a series of obstacles to electoral

participation. The extension of the franchise to “registeredIndians” is relatively recent. Nevertheless, a great deal ofprogress has been made since 1960, the year the federalgovernment first allowed First Nations people living onreserves to vote at the federal level without having to giveup their status under the Indian Act. It is important torecall that the lower turnout of Aboriginal voters observedsince 1960 is not so unusual if we consider that it oftentakes several decades for newly enfranchised people toexercise their right to vote at a rate similar to that of themajority (African-Americans, for instance).

In addition, a significant number of Aboriginal people,as individuals and communities, still regard participationin non-Aboriginal elections or plebiscites as a threat totheir unique rights, their autonomy and their goals ofself-governance. Such persons hold a philosophicalbelief about the legitimacy of Aboriginal self-governancethat differs fundamentally from that of the Canadiangovernment; and may view other (non-Aboriginal)governments as irrelevant, even alien. Joan Carling sug-gests that national party system and electoral processes canbe viable and meaningful to certain groups of Indigenouspeoples in various national settings if there is democraticspace within nation-states that provides an equal playingfield for the participation of Indigenous peoples (ingeneral); and that creating this democratic space shouldinclude recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples’systems of decision-making and mechanisms for self-governance.4


Aboriginal Participation inCanadian Federal Elections Trends and Implications

Daniel GuérinSenior Analyst, National and International Research and Policy Development, Elections Canada

November 2003 11

Whatever their reasons for non-participation in Canadian federalelections, promoting greater involve-ment by Aboriginal people must besituated within a complex historical,cultural and political context. Thus,while the concern here is to understandthe barriers to Aboriginal electoralparticipation in Canadian society, it isto be noted that not all such barriersare externally induced. Indeed, asdiscussed in other articles in this issue,some are more a result of voluntarypolitical choices of Aboriginal peoplethan the accessibility and administrativeefficacy of various programsimplemented by Elections Canada.

Factors behind lowAboriginal turnout

Evidence to date on Aboriginalvoter turnout suggests the followingquestions: What structural andpolitical factors account for the weakparticipation of certain Aboriginalpeoples in federal elections? Whatcultural factors are related toAboriginal participation in federalelections? What are the attitudesand values associated with not votingamong Aboriginal people?

According to the Royal Commissionon Electoral Reform and PartyFinancing, Aboriginal turnout dependson a number of factors related to thecontext of each election, such as thepresence or absence of debate aboutissues that are relevant to Aboriginalpeople, and, in particular, the presenceof Aboriginal candidates. TheCommission identified a series ofadditional factors to explain thetraditionally low participation ofAboriginal peoples, which may begrouped into several categories, andare based on the on- and off-reservedistinction.5

On reserves: • Social conditions and other socio-

demographic factors• Cultural factors • Political factors • Problems of communication6

Off reserves:• Geographic dispersion makes

outreach challenging• Weak social connectedness • Social conditions

Empirical data onthe socio-psychologicalcharacteristics ofthe Aboriginal voterpopulation are essen-tial for understandingthe lower turnout ofAboriginal people at federal elections.Also essential are data on factors relat-ed to the demographic structure ofAboriginal communities. As notedabove, a significantly higher propor-tion of the Aboriginal population isyoung (under 25) than in theCanadian population as a whole.This age structure tends to have astrong negative impact on Aboriginalparticipation, as it is well-known thatyouth vote at a rate significantlylower than older groups.7 Independentlyof age, knowledge about the electoralprocess is also demonstrated byresearch to have a significant influenceon the likelihood of voting.

Turnout in recentfederal elections

In March 2001, Ipsos-Reid reported thefindings of a survey of 556 Aboriginalpeople, commissioned by ElectionsCanada, about their participation inthe November 2000 federal election.Respondents were from the northernareas of the provinces of BritishColumbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, andother regions in these provinces andin Atlantic Canada with knownheavier concentrations of Aboriginalpeople, as well as an over-sample of150 Aboriginal people residing northof the 60th parallel.8 In that survey,seven in ten Aboriginal respondents(70 percent) indicated that they votedin the 2000 election. The proportionof respondents who say they voted maybe inflated, however.9

In an internal Elections Canadastudy on the participation ofAboriginal people at federal electionsprior to 2000, Jean-Nicolas Bustrospoints out that the only empiricalevidence on Aboriginal turnout ratesavailable for the whole country isprovided by the detailed poll-by-pollreports of the Chief Electoral Officer.However, he observes that evidencecan only be collected from polls withan exclusively Aboriginal population.Using this evidence, he reported aparticipation rate in such polls of41 percent in the 1992 referendum,38 percent in the 1993 generalelection and 40 percent in the 1997general election. Bustros adds thatAboriginal voters who cast, or omitto cast, their vote in “mixed” pollscould not be traced; nor was it possibleto determine turnout rates for the largeurban Aboriginal population.10

Bedford and Pobihushchy examinedtrends in voter turnout amongAboriginal people for federal,provincial and band elections inNew Brunswick, Nova Scotia and

… promoting greater involvement byAboriginal people must be situatedwithin a complex historical, culturaland political context.


Prince Edward Island between 1962and 1993. They found significantvariations in turnout rates foron-reserve Status Indians. For example,participation rates were:• 1988 federal election: 17.8 percent

in New Brunswick, 54 percent inNova Scotia and 72.8 percent inPrince Edward Island

• provincial elections: 27.6 percentin New Brunswick in 1991,45.2 percent in Nova Scotia in 1993and 78.4 percent in Prince EdwardIsland in 1993

• band elections: in New Brunswick andNova Scotia, consistently around the90 percent mark from 1972 to 1992

The authors used voting results onlyfrom those polls situated entirelywithin the boundaries of reserves;results from other polling stationswould have included information onparticipation by both First Nations andnon-Aboriginal persons. Nevertheless,Bedford and Pobihushchy’s research

method for assessing Aboriginal voterparticipation may be considered the“gold standard” for such research.

Analysis of Aboriginalturnout in the 2000 federalelection

Empirical data on turnout rates in the1992 referendum and recent federalelections, especially for exclusivelyAboriginal polls, show a noticeablevariation across Aboriginal communitiesand regions of the country. Bustros

indicated that innorthern polls,where Aboriginalcandidates werepresent, turnout rateswere comparable toand even exceeded

those of non-Aboriginal communities;however, in the larger, southernAboriginal communities, turnout rateswere generally much lower than theCanadian average.11

New analysis conducted by ElectionsCanada’s National and InternationalResearch and Policy DevelopmentDirectorate illustrates similar varia-tions during the last federal election.Using the same methodology as the

Bedford and Pobihushchy study, thisanalysis examined participation ratesamong Aboriginal people living onreserves at the 2000 federal election.

The analysis included the 264 FirstNations reserves whose boundariescorresponded exactly with the federalelectoral polling divisions at thattime. Overall, the turnout rate forall 296 polling stations covered by thestudy was 47.8 percent – 16 percentlower than the turnout among thegeneral population during the sameelection.12 At the same time, as shownin Figure 1, there was considerablevariation in turnout rates acrossprovinces and territories13 in the2000 election:

1. High-turnout provinces andterritories: Prince Edward Island,Saskatchewan, Nunavut,14

Alberta and British Columbia2. Medium-turnout provinces and

territories: Northwest Territories,Ontario, Newfoundland, NewBrunswick and Nova Scotia

3. Low-turnout provinces: Manitobaand Quebec

Although comparable data are notavailable, there is some evidence to

During the 1992 federal referendum, ElectionsCanada’s information program for the country’s manyAboriginal groups included publishing the referendumquestion about the Charlottetown Accord in37 Aboriginal languages. This booklet was availableat all polling stations.

… there was considerable variation inturnout rates across provinces andterritories in the 2000 election …

November 2003 13

suggest that turnout is lower in thevarious urban centres with significantproportions of Aboriginal people.Current estimates are that about halfthe Aboriginal population does notreside on reserve lands.15 For example,according to a 2001 Ipsos-Reidsurvey,16 Aboriginal people living inurban areas were three times less likelyto have said they voted in the 2000federal election than those living onreserves. It is also worth noting thatthe “youth factor” has to be taken

into account when interpreting theseresults. According to 2001 Canadiancensus figures, approximately 50 percentof the Aboriginal population was24 years of age or younger, comparedto 31 percent of the general Canadianpopulation.17 If this factor were takeninto account, the overall differencebetween the turnout rate of Aboriginalpeople and that of the general popu-lation would probably be reduced.Finally, under-registration of Aboriginalelectors may mean that availableturnout rates are somewhat higherthan they would be if coverage weremore complete.

We can draw a number of lessonsfrom the available research onAboriginal participation inCanadian elections.

• Participation of Aboriginal peopleat federal elections is usually lowerthan that of the general population,although there are significantvariations across the country.

• Aboriginal turnout is affected bythe context of each election,including whether there areAboriginal candidates, and thepresence or absence of debateabout issues that are importantto Aboriginal people.

• Various factors, often reinforcingone another, partly explain lowerturnout rates of Aboriginal people.These are:• lower socio-economic and

educational levels• disengagement from, or even

opposition to, participation inthe federal election process

• geographical dispersion, particularlyin northern Canada

• cultural diversity (e.g. largenumber of languages)

• difficulties in reaching thesignificant Aboriginal populationnot living on reserves

Aboriginal participation inthe 2000 federal election

This examination of Aboriginalparticipation in the 2000 federalelection is one of the first empiricalanalyses conducted in all the provincesand territories for a single federalelection. Using a methodology similarto that adopted by Bedford andPobihushchy in their pioneering studyof Aboriginal participation in theMaritimes, it was demonstrated thatthe question of Aboriginal participationin federal elections is more complexthan many observers of the politicalscene have generally believed.

According to our analysis, theAboriginal participation rate in the2000 federal election was 48 percent.

More information about the composition ofthe Aboriginal population in Canada can befound on the Statistics Canada Web site atwww.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo38a.htm.

Figure 1Turnout Rates at Polling Stations on First Nations Reserves(2000 General Election)

Source: National and International Research and Policy Development, Elections Canada

N = 296 polling stations

P.E.I.

Sask.

Nunavut

Alta.

B.C.

N.W.T.

Ont.

Nfld.

N.B.

N.S.

Man.

Que.

0.0% 10.0% 30.0% 50.0% 70.0%20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

66.9%

55.0%

54.3%

53.9%

51.3%

45.9%

44.5%

43.7%

40.8%

40.7%

36.6%

35.3%


This is 16 points below the rate forthe Canadian population as a whole.These results tend to confirm a pointthat has been widely acknowledged instudies of Aboriginal participation infederal elections, i.e. their habituallylow level of participation. However,our results for individual provincesand territories also tend to reveal awide variation in the Aboriginalparticipation rates in federal elections.

In fact, there are three differentgroups of provinces and territories.Aboriginal electors in the first group(four provinces and one territory)had a turnout rate comparable to orslightly lower than the overall rate.The average turnout rate for Aboriginalelectors in this group in the 2000election was 56.3 percent.

In the second group of four provincesand one territory, the turnout rate forAboriginal electors was more than10 points lower than the overallturnout rate, that is, an average of

43.1 percent. Finally, there is a smallgroup of two provinces (Manitobaand Quebec) where the turnout ratefor Aboriginal electors was signifi-cantly lower than the rate forthe Canadian public as a whole –36 percent, which is roughly30 points lower than the overallrate during that election.

The research could not determine thereasons for these significant variations.However, a number of hypothesesare possible. First, one might thinkthat these variations, to a greatextent, reflect the fact that Aboriginalparticipation in federal electionsdepends largely on cultural and socialfactors. This hypothesis can be calledthe socio-cultural explanation. Theprecise mechanism of these influencesis difficult to judge at present, giventhe almost total lack of research onthis question.

Another possible explanation is thatthe participation rates are influenced

more by the specific context of eachelection in each community than bylong-term forces such as those thatform the basis of the socio-culturalhypothesis. This explanation can becalled the contextual hypothesis. It isalso plausible, inasmuch as researchhas shown in the past that variablesspecific to the local electoral context,such as the presence of Aboriginalcandidates or of debates on issues rele-vant to members of the First Nations,can have a marked influence on theturnout rate of Aboriginal people.

It is possible that a combination ofseveral explanatory factors lies at theroot of the variations in Aboriginalparticipation rates in Canada. Thatis why it would be advisable to developa multivariate (and preferably multi-level) analytical model that takes intoaccount factors relating to individuals,as well as factors relating to the socialand political environment. In anycase, the research reported in thisarticle allows us to envisage a furtherstep in the investigation of thisquestion, that is, an analysis of otherfederal elections using the sameanalytical method.

Conclusion

In closing, some of the limitations ofthis research should be pointed out.The trends derived from this researchare based primarily on data gatheredon First Nations reserves. In order toextend the conclusions to the entireAboriginal population of Canada,it will be necessary in subsequentanalyses to include data on theelectoral participation of Aboriginalpeople living off reserves, andparticularly in cities. For the moment,there is little data available. It wouldthus be advisable to include largersamplings of these segments of the

Aboriginal Languages by Community, 1996

The map Aboriginal Languages by Community, 1996 shows the distribution and population ofAboriginal communities categorized by language family. The Aboriginal languages of Canada belong to11 major language families. Most families consist of separate but related member languages, and eachmember language may include several dialects. The Atlas of Canada. © 2003.

Major LanguageFamilies

Ojibway

Cree

Other Algonquian Families

Inuktitut

Athapaskan

(Siouan) Dakota

Salish

Tsimshian

Wakashan

Iroquoian

Haida

Tlingit

Kutenai

Aboriginal population in upcomingelectoral research and other surveys.

Finally, a word about some of thepossible implications of this researchfor the development of programs toencourage participation in federalelections. The fact that we notedsignificant variations in participationrates across provinces and territories

means it is necessary to developmeasures adapted to the differentconditions of the varied communitiesand provinces/territories. This willrequire qualitative information tocomplement the quantitative datagathered through research such as this.Such information could come fromconsultations with the various groupsconcerned, Aboriginal officials and

opinion leaders, as well as other electorsliving in the diverse Aboriginalcommunities throughout Canada.These consultations could also serveto test any initiatives being developedand to ensure a reasonable level ofacceptance among the communitiestargeted by such measures.

November 2003 15

1. The author thanks Asifa Akbar, Analyst,National and International Research andPolicy Development, Elections Canada, forher noteworthy contribution to this research.

2. David Bedford and Sidney Pobihushchy,“On-Reserve Status Indian VoterParticipation in the Maritimes,” CanadianJournal of Native Studies Vol. 15, No. 2(1995), pp. 255–278.

3. R. Gibbins, “Electoral Reform and Canada’sAboriginal Population: An Assessmentof Aboriginal Electoral Districts,” inR. A. Milen, ed., Aboriginal Peoples andElectoral Reform in Canada, Vol. 9 of theResearch Studies of the Royal Commissionon Electoral Reform and Party Financing(Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991), p. 160;Elections Canada, “Elections CanadaInitiatives Concerning AboriginalElectors: Elections Canada 1992–1999”(Presentation to the Assembly of FirstNations, January 1999); Elections Canada,Thirty-fifth General Election 1993: OfficialVoting Results (Ottawa: Chief ElectoralOfficer of Canada, 1993); Chief ElectoralOfficer of Canada, Thirty-sixth GeneralElection 1997: Official Voting Results(CD-ROM: Catalogue No. SE-1-1997-MRC).

4. Joan Carling, “Indigenous Peoples’Involvement in National Politics,” inKathrin Wessendorf, ed., ChallengingPolitics: Indigenous People’s Experiences withPolitical Parties and Elections (Copenhagen:International Work Group for IndigenousAffairs, 2001).

5. Royal Commission on Electoral Reformand Party Financing, Final Report, Vol. 1(Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada,1991), pp. 168–170.

6. It is a well recognized fact that “less thanadequate communications media areresponsible for the diminished awarenessand interest of Aboriginal people in theelectoral process.” (Royal Commission onElectoral Reform and Party Financing, FinalReport, Vol. 1, Section “Equality and Efficacyof the Vote,” p. 170.) See also ValerieAlia, “Aboriginal Peoples and CampaignCoverage in the North,” in R. A. Milen,ed., Aboriginal Peoples and Electoral Reformin Canada, Vol. 9 of the Research Studies ofthe Royal Commission on Electoral Reformand Party Financing (Toronto: DundurnPress, 1991), pp. 105–106.

7. See Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc,“Explaining the Turnout Decline inCanadian Federal Elections: A New Surveyof Non-voters,” (Ottawa: Elections Canada,March 2003), p. 20.

8. As a result of this pre-selection process thesurvey is not truly representative of thenational Aboriginal population but is sim-ply a proxy; there is a greater margin oferror for subgroups of the survey population;the margin of error for this sample was plusor minus 5 percentage points 19 times outof 20; the sample was weighted and is repre-sentative of Canada’s age and gender com-position according to the 1996 census datafor Aboriginal people, but has not beenweighted according to the actual voterturnout in the November 2000 election.Ipsos-Reid, Elections Canada Survey onAboriginal Participation, Ottawa, June 2001.

9. The difference between the proportionof respondents who say that they votedin the general election and the estimatedproportion of Aboriginal people whovoted may be attributed to response biasand acquiescent bias.

10. Jean-Nicolas Bustros, “Electoral Participationof Aboriginal People: Summary of PreviouslyConducted Research and Analysis”(Ottawa: Elections Canada, Legal ServicesDirectorate, March 2000).

11. Gibbins, “Electoral Reform and Canada’sAboriginal Population,” p. 160.

12. We use here the turnout rate calculatedafter the Register was purged of duplicates,i.e. 64 percent (61 percent before theelimination of duplicates).

13. Yukon was excluded from the analysisbecause there was insufficient valid data.

14. In Nunavut, 22 of 25 Inuit communitieswere included in our study. It is worthnoting that in Nunavut, there are 22 Inuitcommunities and no First Nations reserves.In Nunavut, the turnout rate is 10 percentagepoints higher than in the NorthwestTerritories, where we included 23 FirstNations reserves and 5 Inuit communities.

15. It is difficult to estimate the total Aboriginalpopulation reliably, but a figure of900,000–1 million is often presented as aplausible approximation.

16. Elections Canada Survey on AboriginalParticipation.

17. Statistics Canada, Aboriginal Population byAge Groups, 2001 census, www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo38a.htm; StatisticsCanada, 2001 Census, Age and Sex,for Canada, Provinces, and Territories,www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/AgeSex/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&View=1&Table=4a&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Median&B2=Both.

NOTES


Arend Lijphardt’s 1996 Presidential Address to the AmericanPolitical Science Association emphasized the problems facedby democratic states when participation in the electoralprocess is unequal. Participation, which is widely regarded as“an intrinsic democratic good,”1 is instrumental to influence,so that groups that have lower rates of participation haveless effect on system outcomes.2 Lijphardt further notedthat the literature on voter turnout has concluded thatthose who are socio-economically disadvantaged and havea lower overall status in society also have significantlylower rates of voter turnout, exacerbating their generalpowerlessness to effect outcomes.3 He advocated, therefore,that students of politics direct their attention to means ofincreasing participation rates.

Over the years, various reasons for differences in voterturnout have been proposed. A small number of variableshas emerged in the literature as critical. Demographicfactors such as education, income and sex, and personalpsychological predispositions such as a sense of efficacyand a belief in civic responsibility, have all been shownto correlate with voter turnout.4 Furthermore, it iscommonplace that elections of greater national importancehave larger turnouts – often two or three times greater –than those of a purely local nature. While there are stillunresolved questions about voter turnout, there is generalagreement on the basic parameters.

The data on voting within the Aboriginal community,which are as yet still incomplete, sit very uncomfortably

with the orthodox understanding of electoral participation.5

The startling trends that emerge from the data yield newinsights into the understanding of voting behaviour, aswell as into the issues of Aboriginal self-governance andthe relationship between Aboriginal communities and theCanadian state. Let us begin the discussion by presentingthe data.

Data

A description of the nature of the data is in order.6 Thedata for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, presented inTables 1–4, are a census of all polls that were whollyincluded within reserve boundaries. As a result, there canbe a high degree of confidence that (almost) all electorsincluded are Status Indians. The data yield importantinformation about First Nations persons living on reserves.However, this method of data collection leaves out manyStatus Indians and other Aboriginal persons. Therefore, ittells us nothing about the increasingly important urban oroff-reserve Aboriginal populations, who must be surveyedusing different techniques. Tables 5 and 6 present data onband elections in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Finally,Table 7 presents data on First Nations voter turnout inprovincial elections across the rest of Canada. Thisinformation represents an incomplete sampling of reservecommunities. Included in the study were 59 reserves withpolling divisions wholly contained within the reserveboundaries. They were chosen at random from among thereserves that had wholly contained polling divisions.


Aboriginal VoterParticipation in Nova Scotiaand New Brunswick

David BedfordProfessor, Department of Political Science, University of New Brunswick

November 2003 17

Tables 1 and 2 present the resultsof First Nations voter turnout inNew Brunswick, in federal and provin-cial elections respectively. The declinein voter turnout is more dramaticin New Brunswick than in any otherprovince. Turnout in federal electionsdeclined from 66.8 percent ofFirst Nations electors in 1965 to17.8 percent in 1988. However,Daniel Guérin’s analysis of turnouton First Nations reserves in the2000 federal election (see his articlein this issue), indicates a subsequentimprovement. Guérin reports a turnoutrate of 41 percent in the pollingstations covered by his research. Thedata for provincial elections show amarked decline during the periodexamined, dropping from 64.4 percentFirst Nations turnout in 1967 to27.6 percent in 1991.

The results of our study of FirstNations voter turnout in Nova Scotiashowed a similar pattern, althoughwith noticeably higher turnouts atboth the beginning and end of theperiod investigated. As seen inTable 3, First Nations participationrates declined in federal elections, from89.3 percent in 1962 to 54 percent in1988 (Guérin reports a First Nationsturnout rate of 41 percent in NovaScotia in the 2000 federal election).The Nova Scotia provincial elections(Table 4) showed a decline in FirstNations turnout from 67.2 percentin 1967 to 45.2 percent in 1993.

Table 7 presents First Nations turnoutresults from provincial electionsin British Columbia, Alberta,Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario andQuebec. The data from Prince EdwardIsland and Newfoundland were eithertoo small to be significant or impossibleto collect. Looking at the period from1967 to 1991, we see a decline in First

Table 1Rate of First Nations Voter Turnout in Federal Elections inNew Brunswick 1962–1988Year % Number of electors

participation about whom rate information was available

1962 70.0 2711963 63.1 5771965 66.8 5421968 53.2 5941972 60.4 7481974 56.7 8031979 38.0 9601980 40.3 9921984 44.0 9851988 17.8 1,312

Table 2Rate of First Nations Voter Turnout in New BrunswickProvincial Elections 1967–1991Year % Number of electors


1967 64.4 9081970 62.0 9881974 61.2 1,5111978 37.7 1,5021982 46.9 1,7491987 32.1 2,0601991 27.6 2,340

Table 3Rate of First Nations Voter Turnout in Federal Elections inNova Scotia 1962–1988Year % Number of electors


1962 89.3 6891963 87.4 7281965 82.8 7951968 72.5 7901972 72.6 1,1551974 61.3 1,2181979 49.5 1,5081980 51.9 1,4781984 53.4 1,5521988 54.0 2,244


Nations turnout in all provincesexcept Quebec, which had consistent-ly low turnout throughout the period.Additionally, by the 1990s all prov-inces showed turnout percentagesfor reserve communities that weresignificantly lower than for the rest ofthe population. Ontario, Quebec and

Alberta all had percentages of voterturnout on reserves of less than 30.

Finally, Tables 5 and 6 present whatare perhaps the most surprising data.Band elections in New Brunswick andNova Scotia show consistently veryhigh turnouts. New Brunswick’s band

elections varied from 86.7 percent in1983 to 96.9 percent in 1978. NovaScotia showed a similar pattern withan overall average in the twoprovinces of about 90 percent.

Analysis and conclusions

The data for on-reserve voting requireexplanation, and the commonly usedconcepts and explanatory models arenot fully adequate to the task. Thedata are sufficiently anomalous to raisequestions about the explanations forvoter turnout used to account for vot-ing in the United States, Canada andWestern Europe. In the absence ofmore complete information on thepolitical behaviour and attitudes ofAboriginal persons regarding voting,the political process, the varioussocial-psychological determinants suchas sense of efficacy and civic duty, andof correlations of changes in incomeand education to voting, no clear pic-ture can emerge and no definite con-clusions can be drawn. More study isrequired, and this should be a priorityfor researchers in voting behaviourand political participation.

However, agnosticism is an intellectualvirtue that can inhibit as well asenhance research; hence, this articlewill offer a pair of explanations toaccount for the low and decliningturnout in “Canadian” elections andthe very high turnout in band elec-tions. As is well known, Status Indianshave had to follow a twisted road tothe ballot box. Male Indians wereenfranchised in 1885 under John A.Macdonald’s Conservative govern-ment. Laurier’s Liberals repealed theElectoral Franchise Act in 1898, remov-ing the right to vote for StatusIndians. The stated reason was that, aswards of the state, they could not actindependently and freely. Unofficially,

Table 4Rate of First Nations Voter Turnout in Nova ScotiaProvincial Elections 1963–1993Year % Number of electors


1963 52.0 6611967 67.2 9871970 70.1 1,1881974 65.4 1,4011978 57.9 1,7581981 60.1 2,1501984 59.8 2,3041988 54.8 2,8401993 45.2 3,127

Table 5Rate of Voter Turnout in New Brunswick Band Elections1972–1992Year % Number of electors


1972–74 82.0 6951975–77 94.2 7201978 96.9 3531979 81.1 5991980 87.8 6541981 91.0 1,0421982 88.7 6901983 86.7 8351984 93.5 5051985 87.1 1,3071986 92.2 6061987 91.4 1,4711988 88.8 1,0361989 87.5 1,2691990 91.2 1,2741991 88.2 1,3911992 94.9 760

November 2003 19

as Malcolm Montgomery argued, theyhad “committed the crime of not vot-ing the right way.”7 They could notvote again in Canadian federal elec-tions until 1960 and only by the 1960sin most provincial elections. Prior to1960, Status Indians could only vote ifthey gave up their status through the“enfranchisement” process defined inthe Indian Act.

The interpretation of the low anddeclining participation in the electoralprocess by on-reserve Status Indiansthat overwhelmingly presents itself is,in the vocabulary of voting literature,the declining sense of “civic duty”among Aboriginal persons. Usingmore politically meaningful language,the past 40 years have seen a signifi-cant decline in the self-identificationof Aboriginal persons as Canadians.Clearly, much more research needs tobe done to confirm this conjecture.However, based on the publishedworks of Aboriginal scholars andactivists, the policy and politicalpositions taken by Aboriginal leadersand organizations, and extensive

personal contacts and discussions,it is reasonable to conclude thatthe voting statistics presented herearticulate an important political,cultural and attitudinal change withinAboriginal communities.

If this hypothesis is correct,then the voter turnoutdata indicate that there isa crisis of legitimacy facingthe Canadian state. Asignificant proportion ofa group that makes up4 percent of the totalpopulation of Canada hasserious and deep-seatedquestions about thelegitimate authority ofthe Canadian state andits control over their lives.

Perhaps more surprisingthan the data on federaland provincial elections isthe very high turnoutfor band elections.

Conventional voting analysis seeslocal elections as less important andas having turnout rates of half toone third those of national elections.Yet, here we see the opposite. Again,what will be proposed here is stillspeculative, but is based on extensiveobservation of band-level politics andnumerous personal contracts and con-versations. The extraordinarily highturnout in band elections during theperiod examined results from a pathol-ogy in the politics and governanceof reserve communities. Under theregulations of the Indian Act and thefederal government’s 20-year policy ofdevolving self-government authority toreserves, band councils have come towield unprecedented control over thelives of reserve community members.Furthermore, not only are the areas ofjurisdiction extensive, but control overthese areas is concentrated in a fewhands. Unlike the experience of non-Aboriginal Canadians, for those per-sons living on reserves the same smallnumber of people, wielding a single

Table 6Rate of Voter Turnout in Nova Scotia Band Elections 1978–1992Year % Number of electors


1978 90.2 2541979 – –1980 91.3 5071981 73.8 1831982 88.9 1,4271983 93.8 1281984 90.1 1,5471985 94.5 1451986 94.4 8151987 55.6 6891988 91.0 2,7121989 90.6 3281990 83.5 3,3631991 90.0 4891992 92.0 3,215

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker achieved a long-held personalgoal when Parliament extended the franchise to all StatusIndians in 1960. They were no longer required to give uptheir Indian status in order to vote.

Phot

o: N

atio

nal A

rchi

ves

of C

anad

a, P

A-1

9069

9


political authority, controls access tohousing and welfare, education andeducation grants, policing, municipalservices, employment, community eco-nomic development, and health andsocial services. This is in addition tobeing the avenue for contact betweenthe community and government andother Aboriginal organizations.

This degree of concentration ofpolitical and economic power candistort the normal functioning ofdemocratic politics. Legitimate

democratic politics requires thatthose who have lost an election ora decision still accept the outcome.This means that democracy worksbest when the stakes are low. Thepoverty of many reserves, and thelack of access to resources outside thepolitical system of the reserve, resultin people who are dependent on theresources that pass to the communitythrough the chief and band council.The stakes are, thus, enormously high;so, too, are the incentives to vote inband elections.

Let me be clear, theproblem is not corrup-tion. While measuressuch as the proposedchanges to communi-ty governance arewelcome, they do notaddress the real issue.Similarly, the ongoingpolicy of the incre-mental devolutionof self-governmentauthority only exacer-bates the currentsituation. Where suchadditional authorityis acquired, evenmore will hang onthe results of bandelections.

More study of voting patterns will helpilluminate a number of issues at thecentre of the political life of reservecommunities. Key information can begained from further investigation intothe (non) voting patterns of Aboriginalpersons and into their causes. Thoseexpert in the study of voting must turntheir attention to Aboriginal voting.Generic studies of voting across Canadado not apply to these uniquely situatedcommunities with political issues andideas that are often very different fromthose of other Canadians.

Table 7First Nations Turnout in Provincial Elections

Percentage

(Number of First Nations electors included)

1970(8,545)

28.4

1989(18,220)

29.0

Quebec

1967(5,590)

29.5

1990(9,173)

Ontario

1973(5,332)

50.5

1990(8,980)

38.5

Manitoba

1967(2,874)

62.9

1991(5,385)

42.2

Saskatchewan

1967(2,273)

1989(2,653)

Alberta

1969(628)

52.9

1991(1,610)

49.6

BritishColumbia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

26.4

41.7

25.0

1. Arend Lijphart, “Unequal Participation:Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma”, TheAmerican Political Science Review Vol. 91,No. 1 (March 1997), pp. 1–14.

2. Lijphart, “Unequal Participation,” p. 1.

3. Lijphart, “Unequal Participation,” p. 2.

4. See, for example: Elisabeth Gidengil,“Canada Votes: A Quarter Century ofCanadian National Voting Studies,”Canadian Journal of Political ScienceVol. XXV, Issue 2 (June 1992), pp. 219–248;

and Kurt Lang and Gladys Lang, Votingand Non-Voting (Waltham, Massachusetts:Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968).

5. Research for this paper was conducted withSidney Pobihushchy and was originallypublished as “On-Reserve Status IndianVoter Participation in the Maritimes,”co-authored with Sidney Pobihushchy,The Canadian Journal of Native StudiesVol. 15, Issue 2 (1996), pp. 255–278.

6. The data on voting in federal andprovincial elections were collected from

all polls that were wholly contained withinthe boundaries of the reserves examined.In the early years, relatively few polls wereso contained. The number increased overthe years as Elections Canada attemptedto harmonize poll and reserve boundaries.Data on band elections were collectedand made available by the Department ofIndian and Northern Affairs.

7. Malcolm Montgomery, “The Six Nationsand the MacDonald Franchise,” OntarioHistory Vol. LVII, Issue 1 (1965), p. 25.

NOTES

November 2003 21

The topic of Aboriginal electoral participation is extremelycomplex and multi-faceted, for there are innumerable factorsthat influence electoral participation rates among both indi-viduals and collectivities. This complexity is heightened bythe lack of reliable data on Aboriginal participation rates infederal and provincial elections and the lack of longitudinalstudies in this area. The shortage of information can beattributed in part to the virtual absence of electoral districtswhere Aboriginal people represent the majority of voters.Moreover, the data collected from the 296 polling stationsthat are located on reserves (see below) could be construed asunreliable due to the relatively small number of such pollingstations and the refusal of some First Nations (such asAkwesasne) to allow polling stations on their reserves.

While rates of participation cannot be determined withabsolute accuracy, it is certain that the rate of electoralparticipation among Aboriginal peoples is, on average,considerably lower than among the general Canadianpublic. For instance, while according to the Chief ofAkwesasne “only one Akwesasne [Mohawk] person hasever voted in a Canadian election,”1 in Hobemma(Plains Cree), the typical rate of participation prior to1991 was 12.5 percent.2 According to research carriedout at Elections Canada, rates of participation in the2000 federal election ranged from 35.3 percent in Quebecto 66.9 percent in Prince Edward Island.3

Acknowledging that turnout varies considerably amongreserves, nations and urban areas, and that participation

is situational (it varies significantly, depending on theelection and level of government), several questionsmust be asked. Why do so many Aboriginal peoplenot vote? What, if anything, can be done to increasethe participation of Aboriginal people in Canadianelectoral politics?

This article begins to address these questions by focusing onthe two primary reasons – alienation and nation – whyAboriginal people do not vote. It also suggests possiblemeasures that could alleviate these causes of electoraldispossession. Specifically, I argue that electoral dispossessionis the result of both the alienation of Aboriginal people fromthe Canadian political system and the discourses of national-ism and rights that permeate Aboriginal communities. Theexistence of these two factors highlights the need to addressthe recognition and participation of Aboriginal nations.While more research is necessary, my initial reflections aregrounded in the Indigenous world and are based on my con-tinued interaction with and research on the “traditional” andmore radical elements of numerous Aboriginal communities.

Alienation and electoral participation

Typically, lack of participation in electoral politics by acommunity of interest or minority is attributed to a lack offaith in the political system, a sense of alienation from theelectoral system and political processes, feelings of exclusion,the existence of structural barriers within electoral politicsthat hinder participation, a perceived lack of effectiveness,


The Alienation of Nation Understanding AboriginalElectoral Participation

Kiera L. LadnerAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Western Ontario


the non-affirmation of group differenceby and within electoral politics, andthe virtual lack of a group’s presenceor representation in electoral politics(and in politics generally).4 At firstglance, it seems as though the literatureof democratic theory may be correct inits depiction of factors that contributeto low rates of electoral participationamong specific communities of interest.Voter apathy, alienation, feelings ofexclusion and perceptions of a lackof effectiveness are dramatically andpositively affected by the inclusionof a group in the electoral process(as candidates and in platforms).

A group’s electoral participationgenerally increases with increasedparticipation in political parties and theinclusion of its interests in partyplatforms and/or the predominantcampaign issues.5 Accordingly, wouldit not be possible to increase voter

turnout among Aboriginalpeoples by increasing theirparticipation in politicalparties, and specifically bycreating greater opportunitiesfor both the nomination ofAboriginal candidates andincreased Aboriginal involve-ment in party policy anddecision making?

It appears that it would bepossible to increase the rateof electoral participation byincreasing Aboriginal involve-ment in Canadian politics(generally). But increasing andsustaining the involvement ofAboriginal people and issuesin party politics may not be avery effective strategy. Giventhat political parties are seekingto maximize public appeal andvoter support, there is likelyvery little opportunity for

Aboriginal people to capture nomina-tions and/or the attention of politicalparties in areas where they do not con-stitute a significant percentage of voters.This poses a serious problem, since theAboriginal population is relativelysmall, as well as being fragmented andscattered throughout Canada. At thefederal level, the absence of a signifi-cant concentrated population cannotreadily be overcome;there are few areaswhere electoraldistricts exist or couldbe established inwhich Aboriginalpeople would consti-tute a significantenough percentageof the electorate to wield actualinfluence in electoral politics.

Even in situations where Aboriginalpeople constitute a significant

percentage of electors, it may be verydifficult to increase their presencein electoral politics as candidatesand, most importantly, as voters. AsStasiulis and Abu-Laban point out intheir discussion of the representationand participation of ethnic and racialminorities in electoral politics,structural and organizational barriersimpede participation in mainstreamparty politics, thus ensuring thecontinued alienation of voters fromsuch groups.6 I would argue that thishas also been the case for Aboriginalpeople. In the past and in a variety ofelections (at all levels of government),for reasons including maximizingelectoral support, many parties havechosen to rely on the alienationof Aboriginal voters. However,while some candidates and politicalparties have ignored the Aboriginalcommunity and banked on theircontinued alienation and low levelsof participation to win elections,others have attempted to securevictory by creating alienation andsplitting the Aboriginal vote. Forinstance, during the 1995 provincialelection, members of the ManitobaProgressive Conservative party helpedto create and financially support theIndependent Native Voice party inseveral constituencies, thus disruptingthe NDP campaign.7

In light of the lack of a critical mass,a radical transformation is required.Despite the fact that Aboriginalpeople have been able to vote federallysince 1960, and that Aboriginal

Voter apathy, alienation, feelings ofexclusion and perceptions of a lackof effectiveness are dramatically andpositively affected by the inclusion ofa group in the electoral process …

Phot

o: E

lect

ions

Can

ada

Before the 1993 extension of the special ballot to anyoneunable to vote at a polling station, making votingaccessible to Aboriginal and other electors throughoutCanada’s vast and sparsely populated northern regionsoften required extensive travel by election officials.

November 2003 23

cultures and communities are extremelypolitical, Aboriginal people fail to seethemselves in the political process orto feel included and respected as bothindividuals and collectivities. By andlarge, Aboriginal people continue tosee the Canadian political system asan instrument of their dominationand oppression. They see themselvesas distinct from other Canadians andas belonging to “nations within”;and as nations that are not represented“within”. It is interesting to notethat this sentiment remains constanteven when there is an Aboriginalcandidate and widespread communityparticipation in an election. Thecollectivity may feel unrepresented,and candidates may feel that they areunable to represent their communitydue to the constraints of party politicsand the existing political system. As aformer Aboriginal MP once confided,neither (s)he nor her/his people wererepresented in Parliament; a sentimentthat may have contributed to thecommunity’s backlash and the wide-spread belief that (s)he had soldout and had failed to act as a member

of their Aboriginal nation (havingbecome a “Canadian”).

As historian Iris Marion Young andother progressive theorists of democracyhave argued, ignoring group differenceshas oppressive c

electoral electoral · elections canada is the non-partisan agency responsible for the conduct of...

Documents