Indian Sovereignty

First nations aren't big enough for true sovereignty

Jeffrey Simpson

Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009 12:14AM EDT

Pouce Coupe, B.C., has a population of about 700 people. Estevan, Sask., has a population of about 10,000. Gravenhurst, Ont., boasts about 11,000 people.

Would we think it fair, plausible, desirable or doable to give Gravenhurst, let alone Pouce Coupe, the responsibilities that go with provincial sovereignty – justice, schooling, health, policing, roads, welfare? Of course we wouldn't, and nor would the people of those communities expect it. Their numbers would be too small, their tax bases too constrained, their capacities too limited. We wouldn't do it and they wouldn't ask, not because there aren't good and capable people in those communities, but because the numbers would defeat their best efforts.

We have something like this dilemma in aboriginal policy, dealing with first nations demands for sovereignty, political status and the other attributes that normally accompany “nationhood.”

The Indian Register, while not perfect, is arguably the best source available for registered Indian numbers. (The census is another source, but some reserves refuse to co-operate with it, and there have been scattered disputes about it.) While the Register's numbers might be off, it's usually by only a little. It does convey the general sense of where Indians live, on reserves and off, although many first nations people move on and off their own reserves. What does it show?

• The average size of a band, or first nation, across Canada is 1,260 people, about twice the size of Pouce Coupe but just a little over 10 per cent the population of Estevan.
• Eighteen per cent of all bands have populations above 2,000.
• There are 19 bands, or nations, with populations above 5,000. The rest of the Registry breakdown: 21 per cent between 1,000 and 1,999; 27 per cent between 500 and 999; 18 per cent between 250 and 499; 12 per cent between 100 and 249; 3 per cent with fewer than 100.

Be careful with nomenclature. An Indian nation, such as the Cree or Mohawk, can contain a number of communities, and therefore collectively be much larger than a division by reserve would indicate. Another warning: The population of a band should not be confused with how many people live on a reserve. For example, Shawn Atleo, the newly elected grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, comes from the Ahousaht First Nation. The Register lists a population of 1,876, but just 676 people actually live on the reserve on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

For many decades now, aboriginal leaders have used the “nation” terminology to describe Indian groups, because they have the characteristics of a nation: language (in many cases now lost), cultural specificity, a historical sense of distinctiveness, defined territory (shrunken drastically from centuries ago).

With that discourse has come demands for more land and funding, new treaties or respect for old ones, and the delivery by the “nation” of services to its members.

These are all understandable goals, but they crash repeatedly against the reality of numbers. Just as Pouce Coupe, no matter how much better funded, cannot deliver the same range of services a “sovereign nation” expects, neither can the 77 first nations listed in the Register with populations between 600 and 800.

In some cases, the numbers also crash against the realities of geography, since many reserves are isolated from larger population centres, difficult to service and situated on land with limited economic potential.

We have been living a myth in aboriginal policy: that “nations,” in the sociological sense of the word, can be effective “sovereign” entities, in the sense of doing what sovereign governments are expected to do. When the population of a “nation” is a few hundred people, or even a few thousand, we are kidding ourselves, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, if we think that sovereignty can be anything more than partial.

The Inuit of Nunavut and the Dene of the Northwest Territories have populations that make the claim of sovereignty a real one, although Nunavut's terrible disappointment is a lack of formally educated Inuit to run their own administration. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was right last week in saying that aboriginals should staff more of their own institutions. Alas, the small populations of most first nations will make that ambition difficult or impossible, declarations of sovereignty notwithstanding.