An Unheard Confidence Crisis? An Analysis of Indigenous Peoples’ Perception of Settler Institutions and Politics

ABSTRACTFocusing on the case of Canada, this paper offers an investigation of how members of Indigenous nations perceive the system of government using data from the 2019 Canadian Election Study (CES). Given the legacies of colonialism, we consider if Indigenous individuals in Canada adopt a distinct outlook on political institutions, actors, and democracy when compared to other Canadian voters by leveraging quantitative tools. We find that Indigenous people have a significantly more negative perception of several political institutions, politicians, and democracy in Canada.KEYWORDS: Indigenous peoplespolitical institutionssettler colonialismCanada Aknowledgements:The authors would like to thank Daniel Rubenson for comments on a previous version of this manuscript as well as the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.Disclosure StatementAt the time of writing this article, Sabrina Bourgeois was employed by the Government of Canada. The authors would like to emphasize that the views and opinions expressed in this article are their own and do not reflect the official policies or positions of any Canadian federal departments.Notes1 On February 6, 2020, notably, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) intervened to enforce a court injunction from the British Columbia Supreme Court (Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. v. Hudson, 2019). They cleared Indigenous camps to free up access to the Coastal Gaslink pipeline.2 Use of terms: We use terms such as ‘Indigenous peoples’ to refer to collectives (‘peoples’ as nations), which are the First Nations, Métis, and Inuit in Canada. We use terms such as ‘Indigenous individuals’ to refer to the attitudes or opinions of individuals, and more specifically ‘Indigenous respondents’ to refer to the respondents to the Canadian Election Study (CES). The term ‘Aboriginal’ is used to refer to legal concepts. The word ‘Indian’ was formerly used to refer to First Nations – we use it only to refer to the Indian Act and ‘Indian status.’ Furthermore, we use the term ‘settler’ to refer to non-Indigenous institutions and politics, as well as to the colonial reality facing Indigenous nations because of settler colonialism. We also use ‘Canadian’ institutions and politics to refer to the Canadian context.3 TC Energy signed twenty project agreements with elected First Nations governments along the approved route (Coastal Gaslink, Citation2021). These impacts and benefits agreements (IBAs) are private agreements between the industry and Indigenous nations, which usually contain mitigation measures and a package of benefits – contracts, jobs, etc. (O'Faircheallaigh, Citation2013). They negotiated with band councils; local First Nation government created by the Indian Act (Abele, Citation2007), a federal law that defines "Indian status" as well as the administration and governance of Indigenous lands. Meanwhile, Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs had not consented to the project. Hereditary chiefs are part of traditional political institutions (also including clans and Houses) which were "(…) not lost, although the Indian Act and provincial laws have affected (their) right to self-regulation" (Delgamuukv (S.C.C.), 1997: art. 70). See Eisenberg (Citation2021) for more information.4 For a review of the research on Indigenous political attitudes, see notably Evans (Citation2014).5 The Indian Act created the possibility for band councils, but, in some cases, decades passed before they were imposed and forcefully replaced traditional Indigenous governance and institutions. For example, the Haudenosaunee ("People of the Longhouse") Confederacy, whose traditional lands are now part of Nord-eastern Canada and the United States, has been governing itself under the Gayanashagowa ("Great Law of Peace") long before contact with Europeans. It was not until the 1920s that "Canada’s military (…) [began] to forcibly (expel) the traditional government and (set) up a chief and council band government under the Indian Act" (Lightfoot 2021: 981).6 Large Métis communities emerged along the trade routes on Rupert’s land in the 18th century. They existed as organised societies and had their own governance which differed from First Nations and Europeans in terms of language, culture, social organisation, and livelihood. The acquisition of their lands by the Canadian government, their collective political will to resist that unilateral annexation, and the loss of their rights contributed to the emergence of the Métis as a distinct people, notably in the Prairies (Saunders & Dubois, Citation2019). See Anderson (Citation2014) for further information on their contemporary struggle for Indigenous peoplehood.7 The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the existence of Métis Rights for the first time in the Powley (2003) decision.8 The Eskimos decision (1939) and the Daniels decision (2016) by the Supreme Court of Canada declared that Inuit and Métis, as well as non-status "Indians," should be considered as "Indians" under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867.9 Provinces granted members of First Nations voting rights in the following order : Nova Scotia (1885), British Columbia (1949), Newfoundland and Labrador (1949), Manitoba (1952), Ontario (1954), Saskatchewan (1960), New Brunswick (1963), Alberta (1965), and Quebec (1969) (Ladner & McCrossan, Citation2007).10 Given the lower number of respondents in the PES, we could not assess the level of institutional trust of Indigenous women.11 Data was collected during and after the 2019 federal elections in Canada, from September 13th to November 11th.12 The number of Métis, as well as non-status "Indians", is growing faster than any possible natural increase from a surplus of births over deaths (Flanagan, Citation2017), a phenomenon that could be attributed to "ethnic mobility" (i.e., individuals selecting new labels for themselves). Moreover, there is also confusion in the population on the claims and the recognition of Métis status in Eastern Canada. These factors could explain why some individuals self-identified as Métis as well as First Nations or Inuit. Given the overlap in the data, we remain cautious in our conclusions regarding the attitudes of Métis individuals.13 Ontario is the most populous province of the country and includes the capital (Ottawa).14 There are three Territories in Canada: The Northwest Territories (25 respondents), Nunavut (26 respondents), and Yukon (38 respondents).15 Data from the campaign period survey was collected during the 2019 federal elections, from September 13th to October 21st.16 As there are only 40 Inuit respondents in the dataset, we cannot consider them separately.17 Indigenous respondents are excluded from this category to avoid an overlap.18 A full version of the table is available in the Appendix (Table A1).19 A full version is available in the Appendix (Table A3).20 A full version is available in the Appendix (Table A4).21 Given the smaller sample size, we could not analyse trust in institutions in the same manner.22 A full version is available in the Appendix (Table A5).Additional informationNotes on contributorsJoanie BouchardJoanie Bouchard is an Assistant Professor in Political Science at Université de Sherbrooke in Québec, Canada. She is interested in understanding diversity and discrimination in electoral politics and focuses on the issues faced by women, immigrants, people of colour, and members of the LGBTQ + community in Canada.Sabrina BourgeoisSabrina Bourgeois is a doctoral student in political science at Université Laval, Québec, Canada. Her research interests include indigenous politics, self-determination and natural resource management. Her thesis ‘Negotiating the Rules of the Game. Indigenous Peoples and Mining Development’ is part of the international research network Knowledge Network on Mining Encounters and Indigenous Sustainable Livelihoods: Cross-Perspectives from the Circumpolar North and Melanesia/Australia (MinErAL network).