Reforming the Canadian Federation
Francophone and Indigenous Canadians and Cultural Sovereignty
Jun 02, 2025
When I wrote my submission to the Spicer Commission on Canada’s Future back in 1991, the main issue at the time was Quebec separatism. Indigenous issues were peaking over the horizon but were still a relatively low priority in spite of the Oka crisis having occurred only a year earlier. Oka was the first time that indigenous rights had become the focus of national attention and was well before the Truth and Reconciliation, Commission in 2008. The more recent tensions between the Wetʼsuwetʼen people in BC and the Coastal Gas Link pipeline shows that we really didn’t learn much from Oka which was over a small parcel of land that a private developer wanted for expansion of a golf course.
In researching this article, I was somewhat surprised to find references to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which the federal government launched in August 1991 about a year after Oka and just months after I had made my Spicer submission which had included indigenous issues. I’m sure I was aware of the Royal Commission at the time but it didn’t get much attention. It ran for about 5 years and they submitted a 5 volume report of its findings on 21 November 1996.
The main conclusion of the report was the need for a complete restructuring of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. Some of the broader recommendations included the proposal for a new Royal Proclamation; which would require the government to commit to a new set of ethical principles respecting the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the state. This new relationship would acknowledge and respect Indigenous cultures and values, the historical origins of Indigenous nationhood and the inherent right to Indigenous self-determination. Implementing many of the recommendations in the Royal Commission would have required constitutional change. Canadian Encyclopedia
What the report did not recommend and should have is a recognition that the indigenous people are one of the founding nations of Canada. It needs to be right upfront in a new Canadian constitution.
Like most Royal commissions, the report was essentially buried – the government made some vague commitments but little more. Why? Likely because the Chretien government knew that it could never get buy-in from many of the provincial governments.
Culturally, Canadians identify as about 56% anglophone, about 22% francophone, about 5% indigenous and rest non-English, non-French “new” Canadians. The fact that most of the francophones live in Quebec has disadvantaged them – pitting Quebec against 9 other provinces. Our native population has been even more disadvantaged because they live in much smaller pockets scattered across the land -most of them Northern.
What I call cultural sovereignty could satisfy the aspirations of both the francophone and indigenous populations.
But first an observation. French Canadians are a distinct society – Quebec is a geographic entity and is not a distinct society. About 10% of Canadian francophones live outside Quebec – most, more than half a million – live in Ontario, and New Brunswick is about 35% French. Every province has a significant French population. There are still French speaking Acadian communities in Nova Scotia and there are French speaking Metis populations across the prairies. Quebec doesn’t give a whit for these and cannot claim to speak for French Canadians.
To accommodate these diverse populations of French and native Canadians we need a new structure which can serve all of these populations wherever they live.
The basic thrust of these ideas is the assignment of cultural matters from the current provincial level of government to a new form of cultural government which would exercise a high level of cultural sovereignty over its people from coast to coast. Spicer Commission Submission
The Cultural Level of Government
Four Cultural Assemblies – Native, English Canadian, French Canadian and Multicultural Canadian would provide services from coast to coast to their particular constituency. The services would not be geographically based and would overlap in much the same way as both Quebec and Ontario currently operate two religion based school systems. People would choose which culture they wished to support with their taxes (much like people in Ontario choose whether they are public or separate school supporters) and each assembly would be elected by their own group.
These assemblies would be subject to terms laid down in the Constitution – they would be autonomous from the federal government and could (to the extent that the constitution allowed it) determine their own structures. For example the Native Assembly might operate differently within their cultural traditions than the anglophone assembly.
The assemblies would be responsible for the provision and administration of all cultural matters affecting their people such as education, communication and the administration of lower court criminal justice. This does not preclude the possibility that one assembly might delegate or contract certain of its responsibilities to another where population failed to warrant full cultural services.
Within this context, it would seem reasonable that the Multicultural Assembly might be given less powers under the constitution than the other three. Education would be required in either English or French but the multicultural assembly might provide the resources to teach the foreign languages and culture of “new” Canadians.
Provincial or Regional Level of Government
Because much of the responsibility that presently falls under the provincial governments would be taken over by the Cultural Assemblies, the rationale for much of the present provincial structures would be greatly reduced. Provinces would become more oriented towards economic infrastructure such as roads, development, public safety, etc.
Their responsibilities would become more akin to our current municipal or regional level of government. In that context it would seem logical that certain large municipal areas such as Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver would be better served by raising their status. Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec might also form separate provinces Spicer Commission Submission
When I read over my submission earlier this year, I found that most of it still works 35 years later – but a few things have changed. The pandemic highlighted the need for stronger coordination of healthcare at the federal level and the same is true for the environment. Climate change is a global problem and is now the subject of international standards and agreements. The current division of powers that pits provinces against those international standards is unworkable and needs to change. Environmental policy needs to come from the federal government.
At least some of our provincial governments would oppose these changes – which is why constitutional change cannot be left to the politicians. It needs to be initiated by the federal government as I suggested in my previous article. After that, governments at all levels should step back and let the process work.
There is a lot more detail on this proposal in my Spicer submission which you can read on my website.
So, is this all a pipe dream? Do you have alternate ideas? Let’s get a conversation going. Please comment.
If you like this approach forward it to your MP, MLA or MPP and any other ‘leaders’ that you may have contact with. Politicians tend to live in the world of incremental change and need to be pushed and dragged out of their narrow perspectives. It is often noted that paradigm shifts only occur in times of crisis … like now.
