Comment on partners in confederation, a report on self-government by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples (original) (raw)

, the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada were recognized and affirmed in the Canadian constitution.' In the following years, several First Ministers' conferences were held to address Aboriginal constitutional matters. A recurring topic was the recognition of a right of Aboriginal peoples to self-government. The existence, nature and scope of such a right were at the heart of the self-government debate. In the end, Aboriginal and government representatives could not agree on the need, desirability and effect of an articulated definition of self-government in the Canadian constitution. Throughout this debate, many Aboriginal peoples and academics claimed that the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized in the Constitution Act, 1982 included an inherent right to self-government. 2 According to this view, specific articulation of the right may be politically desirable but not legally necessary. One can argue that questions of scope, jurisdiction and implementation are properly addressed in negotiations with specific Aboriginal Nations and t Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University ofAlberta. The author gratefully acknowledges the editorial assistance provided by D. Schneiderman in the preparation of this piece. © Catherine Bell, 1993. I Constitution Act, zphs, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1 9 S2 (U.K.), 1982, c. it. 2 The word "inherent" indicates that the right finds its source within Aboriginal nations. This concept can be contrasted to the concept of delegated or created rights which presumes that Aboriginal rights are limited to those delegated by the federal and provincial governments. 7 The majority ofvoters on Indian reserves across Canada rejected the Charlottetown Accord. The "biggest issues for most native people were the limitations on self-government" and lack of guaranteed financial support. See, for example, G. York "Indians rejected accord, tallies show" The Globe and Mail (28 October 1992) Aso. The proposed amendments were also viewed by many as a serious erosion of treaty rights. See, for example, I-Platiel, "Mohawks reject deal on self-rule" The Globe and Mail (22 August 1992) A4, D. Roberts, "Proposals on self-rule ring hollow, chiefs say"