choicesVol. 12, no. 6, November 2006 ISSN 0711-0677 www.irpp.org

Aboriginal Quality of Life

IRPP

Daniel Saléewith the assistance ofDavid Newhouse andCarole Lévesque

Quality of Lifeof AboriginalPeople in Canada

An Analysis of Current Research

F ounded in 1972, the Institute for Research onPublic Policy is an independent, national,nonprofit organization.

IRPP seeks to improve public policy in Canada bygenerating research, providing insight and sparkingdebate that will contribute to the public policydecision-making process and strengthen the quality ofthe public policy decisions made by Canadiangovernments, citizens, institutions and organizations.

IRPP's independence is assured by an endowment fundestablished in the early 1970s.

F ondé en 1972, l’Institut de recherche enpolitiques publiques est un organisme canadien,indépendant et sans but lucratif.

L’IRPP cherche à améliorer les politiques publiquescanadiennes en encourageant la recherche, en mettantde l’avant de nouvelles perspectives et en suscitant desdébats qui contribueront au processus décisionnel enmatière de politiques publiques et qui rehausseront laqualité des décisions que prennent les gouvernements,les citoyens, les institutions et les organismescanadiens.

L’indépendance de l’IRPP est assurée par un fonds dedotation établi au début des années 1970.

This publication was produced under thedirection of F. Leslie Seidle, Senior ResearchAssociate, IRPP. The manuscript was copy-editedby Barry Norris, proofreading was by BarbaraCzarnecki, production was by Anne Tremblay, artdirection was by Schumacher Design andprinting was by Impressions Graphiques.

Copyright belongs to IRPP. To order or requestpermission to reprint, contact:

IRPP1470 Peel Street, Suite 200Montreal, Quebec H3A 1T1Telephone: 514-985-2461Fax: 514-985-2559E-mail: irpp@irpp.org

All IRPP Choices and IRPP Policy Matters areavailable for download at www.irpp.org

To cite this document:

Salée, Daniel, with the assistance of DavidNewhouse and Carol Lévesque. 2006. “Quality ofLife of Aboriginal People in Canada: An Analysisof Current Research.” IRPP Choices 12 (6).

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IRPP or its Board of Directors.

1

Canada’s Aboriginal communities and the fact thathalf the country’s Aboriginal people live in cities,collaborative approaches need to be pursued withconsiderably more vigour.

Consistent with its mandate to contribute to thepublic policy decision-making process in Canada, theIRPP plans to publish several more studies as part ofthis research program. The authors will report rele-vant data on the quality of life of Aboriginal people,including trends over time; present case studies ofinnovations in public policies and programs in thegiven policy sector, including how the innovationswere developed and implemented (e.g. partnerships,intergovernmental agreements); and assess the resultsof the innovations — including, where possible, theimpact on outcomes and lessons learned. The studieswill be situated within a broader context, includinghistorical and constitutional factors. It is hoped thatone or two studies will examine the linkages betweencommunity capacity (including institutional develop-ment and governance) and socio-economic outcomes.

This research program was developed in consulta-tion with an advisory committee that includes JoyceGreen (University of Regina), Carole Lévesque(Institut national de la recherche scientifique), DavidNewhouse (Trent University) and Daniel Salée(Concordia University). On behalf of the IRPP, I wishto express our sincere appreciation to these col-leagues for their active interest in this program andtheir valued suggestions and sound advice on how toaddress these important research questions.

C ette publication de l’IRPP inaugure un nou-veau programme de recherche sur la qualitéde vie des Autochtones, qui comprendra une

série d’études consacrées aux innovations récentesapportées aux politiques et programmes et aux parte-nariats avec les Autochtones. Le programme derecherche s’inspire des travaux menés dans le cadredu projet de l’IRPP sur l’art de l’État, volume III, et enparticulier des contributions d’Evelyn Peters, de JoyceGreen et Ian Peach, et de John Richards à l’ouvragede l’IRPP en voie de publication, intitulé Belonging?Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship inCanada.

La situation d’un grand nombre d’Autochtones estl’une des questions les plus urgentes auxquelles doits’attaquer la politique publique au Canada. Plusieursindicateurs, depuis les niveaux de revenu et de chô-mage jusqu’aux indicateurs de santé (l’incidence dudiabète, par exemple), soulignent l’écart important

Aboriginal Quality of Life / Qualité de vie des AutochtonesResearch Director/ Directeur de recherche

F. Leslie Seidle

W ith this publication, the IRPP is launchinga new research program, AboriginalQuality of Life, which will include a series

of studies examining recent innovations in publicpolicies, programs and partnerships involvingAboriginal people. This program builds on researchcarried out as part of the institute’s Art of the StateIII project, notably the contributions of Evelyn Peters,Joyce Green and Ian Peach, and John Richards to theforthcoming IRPP volume Belonging? DiversityRecognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada.

The situation of many of Canada’s Aboriginal peo-ple is one of the country’s most pressing public policyquestions. Based on a range of indicators, fromincome and unemployment levels to health indicators(such as the incidence of diabetes), there are signifi-cant gaps in life chances between many Aboriginaland most non-Aboriginal Canadians. There has beenprogress in some areas. For example, the proportionof Aboriginal people aged 25 to 34 living in Toronto,Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary andSaskatoon who completed post-secondary educationrose significantly between 1981 and 2001.Nonetheless, measures such as the United NationsHuman Development Index continue to underline theunacceptable disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada.

As Daniel Salée recounts in his thoughtful analysisof a wide range of research and other literature, gov-ernments and Aboriginal communities have madesincere attempts to improve Aboriginal socio-economic conditions. The Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples saw self-government as a key toallow Aboriginal communities to mould a betterfuture. However, negotiations have been painfullyslow, and few new agreements have been signed inthe past decade or so (the 1999 Nisga’a treaty is onenotable exception). That said, some policy makers arepaying greater attention to the potential of targetedinterventions and partnerships (both between govern-ments and with other sectors) for improving out-comes. The Urban Aboriginal Strategy the federalgovernment launched in 1998 is one example of thisapparent shift. In light of the diversity among

2

élaborées et mises en œuvre (par exemple, les parte-nariats et les ententes intergouvernementales), etanalyseront les résultats de ces innovations, y com-pris, dans la mesure du possible, leur impact sur lasituation des Autochtones et les leçons tirées de cesexpériences. Les études s’inscriront dans un contexteplus large, où seront notamment évoqués les facteurshistoriques et constitutionnels. On espère qu’une oudeux études se pencheront sur les rapports entre lescapacités des communautés autochtones (y compris ledéveloppement des institutions et la gouvernance) etleur situation socioéconomique.

Le programme de recherche a été élaboré avec lacollaboration d’un comité consultatif qui se composede Joyce Green (Université de Regina), CaroleLévesque (Institut national de la recherche scienti-fique), David Newhouse (Université Trent) et DanielSalée (Université Concordia). Au nom de l’IRPP, jetiens à remercier sincèrement ces collègues pourl’intérêt actif qu’ils ont manifesté envers ce pro-gramme et pour les suggestions et conseils judicieuxqu’ils ont formulés quant à la façon d’aborder cetteimportante thématique de recherche.

qui existe entre de nombreux Autochtones et lamajorité des non-Autochtones du point de vue deleurs conditions de vie. Certes, des progrès ont étéenregistrés dans certains domaines. Ainsi, parmi lesAutochtones âgés de 25 à 34 ans qui vivent àToronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary etSaskatoon, la proportion de ceux qui ont achevé leursétudes postsecondaires s’est accrue sensiblement de1981 à 2001. D’autres indicateurs, tel l’Indice dedéveloppement humain des Nations Unies, continuentnéanmoins de mettre en lumière les disparités inac-ceptables qui persistent entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones.

Comme l’indique Daniel Salée dans son analyseapprofondie d’un large éventail de travaux derecherche et d’autres publications portant sur cesquestions, les gouvernements et les communautésautochtones ont fait des efforts sincères en vued’améliorer la situation socioéconomique desAutochtones. Pour la Commission royale sur les peu-ples autochtones, l’autonomie était la clé qui allaitpermettre aux communautés autochtones de préparerun avenir meilleur. Les négociations ont toutefoistraîné en longueur et très peu de nouveaux accordsont été conclus depuis une dizaine d’années, le traitésigné avec les Nisga’a en 1999 étant une exceptionnotable. Cela dit, certains responsables politiquess’intéressent davantage aux possibilités offertes parles interventions et les partenariats ciblés (entre gou-vernements ou avec le secteur privé) pour améliorerla situation. La Stratégie pour les Autochtones vivanten milieu urbain, lancée par le gouvernement fédéralen 1998, constitue un exemple de cette réorientationapparente. Compte tenu de la diversité qui caractériseles communautés autochtones du Canada et du faitque la moitié des Autochtones vivent dans les villes,il faudra appliquer des approches axées sur la collab-oration de façon beaucoup plus vigoureuse.

Conformément à son mandat, qui consiste à for-muler des recommandations destinées à contribuer auprocessus décisionnel en matière de politiquespubliques au Canada, l’IRPP se propose de publierplusieurs études additionnelles dans le cadre de ceprogramme de recherche. Les auteurs présenteront desdonnées pertinentes sur la qualité de vie desAutochtones, y compris des séries chronologiquespermettant de dégager des tendances, décriront desétudes de cas se rapportant aux innovationsapportées aux politiques et programmes publics dansdes secteurs déterminés de la politique publique, sig-nalant notamment comment ces innovations ont été

3

Contents6 Quality of Life: What’s in a Name?

9 Aboriginal Quality of Life: Reviewing theResearch

23 Looking Ahead

29 Notes

32 References

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the expertise of Joyce Green,David Newhouse and Carole Lévesque, who gener-ously offered their judicious comments and advice

on draft versions of this paper. I would also like tothank Leslie Seidle and France Saint-Hilaire of theIRPP, whose many pertinent observations led me toclarify a number of points. Finally, I wish to thankKahente Horn-Miller for her assistance in the initialstages of this research. I take full responsibility forany remaining errors and omissions.

About the AuthorDDaanniieell SSaallééee is a professor of political science andPrincipal of the School of Community and PublicAffairs at Concordia University. He also serves as Co-director of the Concordia-UQAM Chair in EthnicStudies. He is a member of the UQAM-based Centrede recherche sur l'immigration, l'ethnicité et lacitoyenneté (CRIEC). His research has focused mainlyon the politics of the relations between the French-speaking majority and members of linguistic, cultur-al, racialized and immigrant minorities and FirstPeoples in Quebec. His most recent work explores theinterface between the national question and citizen-ship and the politics of state/First Peoples relations inQuebec and Canada.

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

4

Suppose then that our benevolent colonizer hassucceeded in laying aside both the problems ofhis own privileges and that of his emotionaldifficulties. Only his ideological and politicalattitudes remain to be considered.

Albert Memmi, 1965

T he Institute for Research on Public Policy haslaunched a new research program on thequality of life of Aboriginal people in Canada.

As the first step in this endeavour, this paper aims totake stock of the current state of knowledge of thebroad issues related to the quality of life and well-being of Aboriginal people, of innovations that areameliorating their living conditions and of the link-ages between quality of life and governance in theircommunities. The paper also seeks, as corollaryobjectives, to identify areas where further explo-rations might be needed and to propose new direc-tions for policy-relevant research.

The decision to focus on the quality of life ofAboriginal people is almost self-evident. Forty yearsago, the authors of A Survey of the ContemporaryIndians of Canada, also known as the HawthornReport, wrote:

It has become increasingly evident in recentyears…that the majority of the Indian popu-lation constitutes a group economicallydepressed in terms of the standards that havebecome widely accepted in Canada. They arenot sharing equally with others in proportionto their numbers in the material and othergains, satisfactions and rewards that anaffluent and rapidly growing national econo-my has to offer. True enough, their level ofmaterial welfare, as measured simply byaverage per capita real income from allsources, and their level of formal education,are probably higher than they have everbeen, and a minority among them have hadsuccessful careers in various lines of work.Nonetheless, in comparison to the muchlarger gains in these and other respects thatthe majority of the non-Indian populationhas enjoyed in recent decades, there are indi-cations that the gap between the two groupshas been widening. (Hawthorn 1966, 1:21)

Quality of Life ofAboriginal People inCanadaAn Analysis of Current Research

Daniel Salée

with the assistance ofDavid Newhouse and Carole Lévesque

5

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

ethey seem to have a fairly good sense of what ailsAboriginal communities and individuals: the higherincidence of family violence, youth suicide, psycho-logical distress and substance abuse, poorer individualhealth, weak or undeveloped capacity for economicdevelopment, the greater likelihood of exclusion fromkey labour markets, substandard housing and sanitaryconditions — all of which makes life for them, at leaston the surface, more difficult and less appealing.

In truth, however, all is not as bleak as sensation-alist news reports might imply. Recent scholarshippoints increasingly to successful cases of positivesocial and economic transformation, hearteninginstances of community healing and exemplary expe-riences of individual and collective empowerment(Ponting and Voyageur 2005; Wuttunee 2004b). Still,in the aggregate, the persistence of significant gapsbetween the living conditions of Canada’s Aboriginaland non-Aboriginal populations (particularly those ofEuropean descent) remains a stark, undeniable reality,an unflattering blemish on Canada’s purportedlyenviable record of social justice.

Aboriginal people face socioeconomic challengesthat, in many ways, are far more daunting than thoseto which the general population is usually exposed.In cities, where the majority of Aboriginal peoplenow live, high poverty rates and low levels of educa-tional attainment and poor health combine to exacer-bate the risk of social exclusion. In remote northerncommunities, where significant numbers ofAboriginal people still live, access to basic servicesthat most Canadians take for granted is often prob-lematic, dependence on state programs for incomeremains high and opportunities for community-basedincome sources are limited (Papillon and Cosentino2004). Whether rural or urban, many youngAboriginal individuals live in environments thatinadequately prepare them for the job market. Thesechallenges severely curtail the ability of Aboriginalpeople to enjoy levels of general well-being thatother Canadians expect for themselves.

In such a context, questions about the quality of lifeand well-being of Canada’s Aboriginal people have,unsurprisingly, become important priorities on the pol-icy agenda. Since the report of the Royal Commissionon Aboriginal Peoples a decade ago, Ottawa and mostprovincial governments have formulated and imple-mented initiatives and action plans designed preciselyto offer redress to and improve the living conditionsand general welfare of Aboriginal communities andindividuals.3 As a result, a wide variety of expertise

Four decades later, Indian and Northern AffairsCanada, using more sophisticated data and morerefined methods of statistical analysis, echoed theHawthorn Report: “Well-being certainly improved inFirst Nations between 1991 and 2001 and they didmove toward equality with other Canadian communi-ties. However, while there is nothing to suggest thatFirst Nations will not continue to improve, thedecline in their progress relative to other Canadiancommunities between 1996 and 2001 suggests thatthe well-being gap may persist” (O’Sullivan andMcHardy 2004, 17).

Studies of the well-being of Aboriginal peopleconsistently show the existence of substantial dispar-ities between them and the general Canadian popula-tion. Analyses based on the United Nations HumanDevelopment Index (HDI), for example, have estab-lished that Canada’s registered Indians,1 includingthose living on and off reserves, fare considerablyless well than Canadians as a whole. If status Indianswere considered as a separate national entity in theUN’s Human Development Report, they would rankabout 48th (out of about 174 countries), even asCanada regularly ranks at or near the top. The situa-tion is even less encouraging when the attentionfocuses on separate components of the HDI: regis-tered Indians rank 71st on the index of educationalattainment (compared with 1st for non-AboriginalCanadians), 53rd on the life expectancy index (non-Aboriginal Canadians rank 2nd) and 42nd on real GDPper capita (non-Aboriginal Canadians are 10th)(Beavon and Cooke 2003). Despite some improvementin the well-being of registered Indians relative tonon-Aboriginal Canadians over the past quarter-century, they “continue to have shorter life expectan-cy, lower educational attainment, and lower averageannual incomes than do other Canadians, and the gapin average annual incomes actually increased duringthis period” (Cooke, Beavon, and McHardy 2004, 62).

This, of course, is hardly news. Forty years after theHawthorn Report, ten years after the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples (Canada 1996)exposed the socioeconomic inequality and exclusionwidely experienced by members of Aboriginal commu-nities, after countless additional studies and, one mightadd, regular admonitions by the international commu-nity for Canada’s failing to meet international stan-dards of social justice and human rights when it comesto Aboriginal people,2 policy-makers are well aware ofthe social and economic differences that separateAboriginal people from other Canadians. Similarly,

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

6

society to society. Substantial efforts have been made inrecent years across the social and life sciences to stripthe term of its relativistic nature so as to make it lessapproximate, more tangible and, ultimately, more meas-urable and more reliable as an indicator and predictorof individual and social development. Much of whatpasses as research on quality of life focuses on well-being. The two terms are often conflated intellectuallyand seem to appear as synonyms for each other.Although a fairly elaborate “science of well-being” hasdeveloped in recent years (see Huppert and Baylis 2004),what specialists discuss in the end are the constituentelements, both for individuals and communities, of thegood life and the dimensions that should be emphasizedwhen looking for acceptable standards of evaluating it.On that score, views are quite varied.

In a background document prepared for CanadianPolicy Research Networks (CPRN), Andrew Sharpe sur-veys no fewer than 11 indices of economic and socialwell-being and two sets of social indicators most oftenused in Canada and around the world (Sharpe 2000).4

Despite methodological differences and purposes, mostof these indices (and others Sharpe does not review5)share a particularly strong emphasis on diverse aspectsof material well-being, such as income (or wages), per-sonal consumption, household facilities, governmentspending, financial wealth, educational attainment,debt, unemployment and vulnerability to labour marketfluctuations, income distribution, poverty, educationalattainment, life expectancy and stocks of wealth (natu-ral resources, human capital, real capital stock). A fewindices go beyond material considerations and focustheir assessment of the quality of life of a society orcommunity on whether some key desirable human val-ues are being fulfilled: harmony with the environment,affective autonomy, intellectual autonomy, respect forand preservation of life, socioeconomic equality andthe absence of social hierarchies.

Notwithstanding conceptual differences in the waythese indexes are conceived and constructed, they areinformed by an implicit understanding of quality of lifethat broadly includes market incomes, non-market careand support within the family, state-sponsored servicesand income transfers and community services and sup-port. Although it is not necessarily clearly acknowl-edged or formulated in this way, quality of life hinges inpart on what the state can or cannot or will or will notoffer citizens, or on whether or not the state shieldsthem from market inadequacies. It is a function of theguarantees that the state provides citizens that basicnecessities will be covered and that protection from

and research capacity has been mobilized, both di-rectly and indirectly, across several fields of the socialsciences, the humanities and the life sciences, to exam-ine the many issues related to the quality of life andwell-being of Aboriginal people in Canada.

Yet, despite the impressive amount of knowledgeaccumulated so far about the nature of the problemsand the challenges, about the conditions for successand positive change and about which policy solutionswork and which do not, the policy community is stillwrestling with the unrelenting persistence of apprecia-ble socioeconomic disparities between Aboriginal andnon-Aboriginal people. Have the right questions beenposed? Have all the issues been looked at? Have allthe policy implications been examined? Has everyangle of analysis been considered? Have the appropri-ate policies been proposed? In the following pages, Iaddress these questions as I evaluate current knowl-edge about Aboriginal quality of life and ponder alter-native research orientations. To this end, the second,core section of the paper offers a synthesis that identi-fies and reviews critically what appear to be the mainapproaches that characterize the literature, the set ofknowledge that obtains and the analytical or episte-mological underpinnings that inform each approach.

Before looking at these approaches in turn, however,I first consider the notion of “quality of life” and therelated concept of “well-being.” Although one mightthink a priori that the fundamental meanings of theseterms are fairly straightforward — simply, one is happy,secure and comfortable or one is not — they are, in fact,the object of varied and sometimes contested defini-tions and understandings. These different interpreta-tions need to be grasped, however, for they inform andinfluence the literature on the quality of life ofAboriginal people in different ways. The final section ofthe paper weaves the threads of the literature reviewinto a critical discussion of the scope and limitations ofthe current research, and suggests on that basis possibledirections for a renewed research agenda.

Quality of Life: What’s in a Name?

T aken in and of itself, the idea of quality of lifecan be quite subjective and its meaning ratherrelative: the criteria and conditions that underlie

one’s general sense of well-being, of physical comfortand mental wellness and of satisfaction with one’s lifevary from person to person, culture to culture and

7

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eexperiencing the good life are largely connected tothe social context in which individuals find them-selves. In their view, improving levels of income andgeneral affluence is not necessarily conducive tomeasurable increases in subjective well-being; rather,well-being is strongly related to social connectedness(marriage, family and workplace ties, civic engage-ment) and to the dependability of others and thedegree to which they are trusted. Society-wideincreases in social capital (and, implicitly, in socialcohesion) are thus more likely to have a strongly pos-itive effect on well-being and the general quality oflife. The policy implications are clear: the more socialcapital is produced, the better life in a given societyor community will be. Individuals can foster thedevelopment of such capital out of their own initia-tives, or they can summon the state and ensure thatthe delivery of its programs will favour a greaterdegree of social capital. Communities that succeed inbuilding and maintaining greater social cohesion andin facilitating personal empowerment and integrationinto the mainstream will improve their quality of life.

The state as a factor in quality of life hardly fig-ures at all in approaches that emphasize psychologi-cal or emotional criteria as benchmarks of well-beingand that are often conceived with therapeutic purpos-es in mind. While they might agree that state-guaranteed access to the means of economic securityand social context are not without importance inassessing quality of life, they stress instead whatsome insist is a holistic understanding of quality oflife and well-being, in which all dimensions of lifemust be taken equally into account. Personal healingand the process of reclaiming control over one’s per-sonal life are key aspects of the approach of suchstudies (see Dossa 1989; Huppert and Baylis 2004).

Since 1994, the University of Toronto’s Quality ofLife Research Unit has been studying the quality of lifeof adults with physical or psychiatric disabilities andchildren with developmental disabilities, as well as eld-erly people, teenagers and adults in the general popula-tion. In so doing, it has developed a conceptualframework that defines quality of life as “the degree towhich a person enjoys the important possibilities of hisor her life,” whereby “possibilities result from theopportunities and limitations each person has in his/herlife and reflect the interaction of personal and environ-mental factors.” In this framework, “enjoyment has twocomponents: the experience of satisfaction or the pos-session or achievement of some characteristic.”6 Theframework is centred on three life domains, each of

physical or material risks and psychological distresswill be available. From that perspective, quality of lifeis ultimately determined and assessed in large part bythe ability of the state to cope with broad economic,demographic, political and social trends and to adjustto the demands posed by their evolution.

This perspective was largely confirmed in a surveyconducted by CPRN in 2000 that was designed by citi-zens to capture what they believe contributes to quali-ty of life. Citizens from a cross-section of Canadiansociety were brought together in 40 small groups invarious locations across the country to discuss what isimportant for quality of life and the information theyneed to assess progress (Michalski 2001, 2002; Zagon2001, 2002). CPRN found that, when asked directlywhat matters to them in terms of quality of life,Canadians alluded to dimensions that can be groupedunder nine thematic headings: democratic rights andparticipation, health care, education and learning, theenvironment, social programs and conditions, com-munity, personal well-being, the economy andemployment and, lastly, government. The survey doesnot really reflect the views of Canadians about thepresence of the state in their lives but, for nearly all ofthe themes it explores, state functions do have a directand determining bearing on the way they are actual-ized on the ground. The impression that clearlyemanates from the CPRN survey is that the stateinvariably plays a fundamental and inherent role inproviding the constituent elements of the good life.The survey also implies, by extension, that any policyanalysis or research on the quality of life should focuson the state’s measurable capacity to create the condi-tions for the good life. Similarly, policy prescriptionsabout quality of life should indicate the intensity ofstate action that is needed to bring about a satisfacto-ry level of the good life.

In other strands of the literature, quality of lifeand well-being are not associated to the same extentwith the state’s role; some do not even consider it apertinent factor. Their focus is more on the capacityof individuals and narrowly defined communities tocreate their own conditions of the good life. JohnHelliwell and Robert Putnam, for example, draw adirect link between well-being and social capital(Helliwell 2005; Helliwell and Putnam 2004). Buildingon Putnam’s own influential empirical and theoreticalwork on social capital (Putnam 2000) as well as ondata banks such as the World Values Survey and theEuropean Values Survey, they make the case that thesense of well-being and the impression that one is

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

8

within one’s inner life, one’s relationships and one’sphysical and social environment.

It is not uncommon for Aboriginal scholars toaddress or explain quality-of-life and well-being issuesthrough references to the concept of the medicinewheel,7 an ancient symbol, a circle, which represents away of seeing and knowing as well as the teachings thatgo with it. The wheel is divided into four parts and isused to show how, within whatever entity one mightconsider (a person, a family, a community), these fourparts and their constituent dimensions are interrelatedand interdependent. The good life reflects the properfunctioning of each part and their continued intercon-nectedness. Applied to individuals, the medicine wheelencompasses the dynamic system of mind, body, emo-tions and spirit, and the particular needs of each ofthese areas of the wheel that must be met for thedevelopment of human potential. With respect to thefamily, the quadrants of the medicine wheel include thedominant thinking patterns that inform and drive deci-sion-making and influence the family’s relationshipswith the outside world; human relations, which refer tothe nature and quality of intercourse of the members ofthe family with each other; the material economy,which has to do with how the family provides for itsphysical needs; and cultural and spiritual life — thebeliefs, values, morals and goals of the family. Finally,insofar as the wider community is concerned, the medi-cine wheel incorporates the political and administrativeenvironment, where the quality and effectiveness ofpeople’s participation and decision-making power inmatters that directly affect their lives are indicators ofthe good life; the social environment, where society-wide patterns of human interactions are defined andwhere a measure of the good life would be the commu-nity’s openness to and support of individuals andgroups working toward positive social change; the eco-nomic environment, where the development and main-tenance of long-term, sustainable systems of productionthat empower individuals, preserve the environment andcontribute to community capacity are objectives meantto ensure a good quality of life; and the cultural andspiritual environment, where the presence of a respect-ful dialogue on values and an appreciation for diversityare important indicators of well-being (Four WorldsInternational Institute n.d., part 1).

As this brief overview indicates, ways of under-standing and assessing quality of life and well-beingare diverse. Although the intellectual or methodologicaldistance between some of them may not be substantial,they do inform studies of Aboriginal quality of life in

which comprises three subdomains: being (physicalbeing, psychological being, spiritual being), whichrefers to who one is; belonging (physical belonging,social belonging, community belonging), which entailsone’s connections with environments; and becoming(practical becoming, leisure becoming, growth becom-ing). In its empirical, evaluative application, the frame-work is constructed so as to be sensitive to the specificlife situations of individuals and to take into accountthat each person might attach a different importance toeach particular dimension of life and enjoy it with dif-ferent intensity. In addition, it controls for the power ofindividuals to make their own decisions to change anyaspect of their life situation. Thus, an environment thatensures a person can experience a life of quality is onethat “provides for basic needs to be met (food, shelter,safety, social contact)[;] provides for a range of oppor-tunities within the individual’s potential[; and] providesfor control and choice within that environment.”

Global and integrated conceptions of quality oflife and well-being are strongly emphasized by anumber of Aboriginal scholars. However, they seeholistic approaches not so much as a methodologicaltool of evaluation but as inherent in the Aboriginalworld view, which holds the good life, first and fore-most, to be one free of chaos and disorder. As NativeAmerican historian and philosopher Donald Fixicoexplains, “chaos is frustration in life, anxiety, anddisappointment”; the disorder that ensues “leads tofear, distrust, and, ultimately, to self-destruction.” Tocounteract the negativity of these “evil twins,” it isimportant to achieve “balance in oneself and in one’scommunity,” for without it “life is more difficult andalarming.” As Fixico explains,

Balance is between two things or more and itis the purpose in life for American Indianswhose philosophy is inclusive of all things inthe universe. At least five kinds of balanceexist: (1) balance within one’s self, (2) bal-ance within the family, (3) balance withinthe community or tribe, (4) balance withexternal communities, including other tribesand the spiritual world, and (5) balance withthe environment and the universe. (2003, 49)

The idea of balance, in fact, undergirds the notion,central to Aboriginal scholarship on quality of lifeand well-being, that everything is related to every-thing, that nothing can happen to one part of anindividual’s or community’s life without affecting allthe other parts — that to enjoy a life of good quality,it is essential that every aspect of life be at peace andproperly attended to, perfectly attuned to all otheraspects. Living well and healthily requires harmony

9

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eundivided and socially cohesive. Quebec’s particulardemands and threats of leaving the federation, how-ever, were symptomatic of something deeper andbroader in its implications. Like Quebecers, more andmore groups and constituencies were dissatisfied withone aspect or another of the normative matrix thatdefines the Canadian political community, or hadissues with the governance system employed to ren-der that matrix operational.9 Aboriginal people, vin-dicated and bolstered in their claims by the report ofthe Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, werenot the least among them. This context clearly raisedthe concern of policy-makers, who felt somethinghad to be done to shore up Canada’s withering socialcohesion and strengthen the value of its citizenship.10

Over the past decade, the federal government hasdeployed an impressive network of state and univer-sity researchers to document and analyze the situa-tion of Aboriginal people in Canada and to suggestpolicy directions. Data from Statistics Canada havebecome more extensive as a result of major new ini-tiatives such as the 2001 Aboriginal Peoples Survey(O’Donnell and Tait 2004; Siggner and Costa 2005).In addition, the federal government has collaboratedwith members of the research community in a broad,still ongoing fact-finding, data-gathering and prob-lem-solving endeavour on a wide range of social andeconomic issues that are perceived as potentialthreats to the well-being of Canadians and to thegeneral cohesion of Canadian society. Aboriginalpeople have figured fairly prominently in thisendeavour, in part, of course, because of the state’scommitment, in Gathering Strength: Canada’sAboriginal Action Plan (Canada 1997), to createfavourable conditions for the improvement of alldimensions of their general well-being and for theirincreased participation in Canadian society; but inpart also because of the considerable place that issuesrelated to Aboriginal people have come to occupy inpublic discourse and the policy agenda.11

In recent years, the state-research communitynexus has yielded a fairly substantial amount of up-to-date information on the social and economic situa-tion of Aboriginal people. One successful andhigh-profile example of this association is the FirstNations Cohesion Project, carried out jointly byresearchers from the Department of Sociology at theUniversity of Western Ontario and the StrategicResearch and Analysis Directorate of Indian andNorthern Affairs Canada. Established in 1999 with thefinancial support of the Social Sciences and

different ways. As the review of the literature in thenext section shows, the decision to zero in on one oranother issue related to quality of life, or to favourone type of policy solution rather than another, islargely related to the manner in which one perceivesquality of life and undertakes to address it.

Aboriginal Quality of Life:Reviewing the Research

F our major approaches shape the relevantCanadian literature on Aboriginal quality oflife.8 They are not necessarily tightly defined or

mutually exclusive. Authors one might readily iden-tify with one approach may also have some analyti-cal, epistemological or methodological affinity withanother. Still, they are sufficiently distinct from eachother to warrant a separate classification. Their dis-tinctiveness is a matter of emphasis or focus.

The first approach tends to focus primarily — usu-ally in quantitative terms — on the socioeconomicproblems and issues Aboriginal people face without,however, explicitly prescribing precise policy direc-tions. The other three approaches, on the contrary,build on existing factual knowledge and data aboutAboriginal people to suggest various policy stances toimprove Aboriginal well-being or alternative ways tounderstand the stakes of Aboriginal quality-of-lifeissues. The second approach insists on capacity-building, community development and economicempowerment, and is inclined to draw — most oftenexplicitly, but sometimes only implicitly — on thetheoretical literature on social capital and socialcohesion. The third approach explores research thatseeks to develop strategies and paths to communityand personal healing as preconditions to well-beingand a better quality of life; it generally stresses indi-vidual or psychological reconstruction and personaltransformation. Finally, the fourth approach stemsfrom a normative critique of current governmentpolicies concerning Aboriginal people that isgrounded in the search for policy alternatives thatfocus more on fiscal responsibility, accountabilityand the efficiency of service delivery.

Facts, figures and the imperatives of the stateThe close call of the 1995 Quebec referendum on sov-ereignty was a reality check for those whose businessit is to keep the Canadian political community one,

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

10

United Nations Human Development Index revealed bythose studies. On an epistemological level, though,they are also a significant illustration of the analyticalperspective that pervades the First Nations CohesionProject’s evaluation of Aboriginal quality of life.Despite the insistence of the principal investigatorsthat their research program is meant to de-emphasizethe victimization model within which Aboriginalissues are often framed, the findings are cast againstWestern and Eurocentric benchmarks of socioeconomicaccomplishment. The whole research approach isdesigned, in fact, so as to stress the socioeconomic dis-tance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peopleand the capacity deficit of Aboriginal communities.The intent, of course, is to inform and alert the state towhat appears to the democratic mind as an unaccept-able situation of social inequity, and to suggest correc-tive paths likely to facilitate the adaptation ofAboriginal people to market imperatives, to reactivatesocial cohesion, and, it is hoped, soon to close thesocioeconomic gap between Aboriginal people and therest of the Canadian population. In reality, the researchagenda and analytical perspective that inform the FirstNations Cohesion Project partake of a long tradition ofstate-driven research on Aboriginal people in Canada,which is essentially determined by state concern foreffective Aboriginal policy management.

In his account of the Canadian state’s managementof Indian welfare policy from 1873 to 1965, HughShewell shows how social scientists were called uponby Indian Affairs in the early years of the postwarperiod to shed light on the various aspects ofAboriginal social behaviour, psychological dispositionsand their economic situation so as to devise policiesand programs that could promote the full integration ofAboriginal people into Canadian society. As he argues:

Throughout the 1950s, studies conducted forIndian Affairs centred on problems of Indianadaptation and transition to Euro-Canadiansociety. They were tailored to the state’s needsrather than to a sympathetic appreciation of thesituation facing First Nations. Most professedto be objective studies, but nearly all wereimplicitly biased toward ideas of liberalprogress, modern society, and what Indianslacked — either in their social environment orin their nature — that would enable them tobecome successful citizens. (Shewell 2004, 219)

Fifty years later, the assimilationist proclivity of theCanadian state’s preoccupation with Aboriginal peoplearguably has been considerably diluted, and it wouldbe unthinkable today not to profess, officially at least,sympathy for the difficulties afflicting Aboriginal com-munities. In epistemological terms, however, little has

Humanities Research Council of Canada, this particu-lar research initiative has led, among other things, totwo major Aboriginal research policy conferences, in2002 and 2006, with hundreds of participants fromgovernment, academic circles and Aboriginal organi-zations. The contributions to the 2002 conference(Newhouse and Peters 2003; White, Maxim, andBeavon 2003, 2004) provide an impressive compendi-um of mostly quantitative data and statistical obser-vations on the full range of quality-of-life issues; theyrepresent well the analytical and epistemological spiritwith which a policy-driven, evidence-based perspec-tive frames the question of Aboriginal quality of life.

The research agenda that informs the whole enter-prise is mainly focused on documenting the socialproblems and realities that characterize Aboriginalcommunities in order to get as precise as possible apicture of the situation and to determine on that basisthe best course of policy action for the state.Surprisingly, most of the research within that frame-work is rather short on policy solutions. The bulk ofthe work produced so far rests on positivist method-ologies and hinges essentially on the search for reliablefactual data and measurable social and economic out-comes. Though not all are necessarily statistics driven,many of the studies in the First Nations CohesionProject assess the quality of life of Aboriginal peoplein rural and urban settings for the most part throughthe prism of statistical evidence on health and lifeexpectancy, educational attainment, income distribu-tion, employment status and labour market participa-tion, economic development, demographic estimatesand projections, geographical mobility and urbanmigrations, language retention, criminality, sexualoffence and family violence. Space does not permitone to review all 52 contributions but, notwithstand-ing the occasional success story of healing and recon-struction, they tend to confirm the picture of socialdistress, community dysfunction, economic marginali-zation and cultural erosion that is well known to any-one familiar with the contemporary social andeconomic reality of Aboriginal people in Canada.

The studies contrasting Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal levels of well-being alluded to in theintroduction emanate from the First NationsCohesion Project; they capture remarkably well thegist of the difficult socioeconomic challenges withwhich Aboriginal people are confronted. One cannothelp but be struck in particular by the poor aggre-gate performance of Aboriginal populations relativeto non-Aboriginal people on all key indicators of the

11

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

enant culture which says that “these culturesare fine, but we must be able to locate themwithin our own grid.”…[T]he universalismthat paradoxically permits diversity masksethnocentric norms, values and interests.(1990, 208)

One might object that there is nothing inherentlywrong with that: should it actually be the case, ittakes nothing away from the intrinsic value and use-fulness of the statistical evidence and empiricalobservations that state-driven research on Aboriginalpeople has generated. Be that as it may, it is impor-tant to note that, in the end, the research output andany understanding of Aboriginal quality-of-lifeissues one might derive from it are unavoidablyfraught with the ideological requirements and nor-mative templates that the Canadian state and thegroups or interests shaping its policy agenda imposeon Canadian society; as is well known, the politicalsignificance of Aboriginal influence in this processhas tended to be rather marginal. Ultimately, themost important limitation of the state-research com-munity nexus is that it refrains from questioning, letalone modifying, the societal paradigm that hasallowed the disadvantageous socioeconomic condi-tions of Aboriginal people to develop in the firstplace. “[O]ur purpose here,” acknowledges one of theprincipal investigators of the First Nations CohesionProject, “is to advance the research-policy nexus, notdramatically shift paradigmatic perceptions” (White2003, xxiii).

One could argue that this is an epistemologicalchoice — and by extension a political one as well —that is as legitimate and justifiable as any. However,the fundamentally uncritical nature of this choiceexcludes the systemic and political constraints thatactually restrict the development of a truly transfor-mative quality-of-life agenda for Aboriginal peoplein Canada today. One still remains largely unclear asto the reasons and the long-term historical processesthat have shaped things the way they are. Althoughthe evidence-based perspective favoured by the FirstNations Cohesion Project does undoubtedly yield amore precise and more statistically refined picture ofthe socioeconomic condition of Aboriginal peoplethan was available merely a decade ago, analyticallyit does not venture much beyond the need to takestock. While one gets from it a good sense of wherethings stand, the approach does not really offer in theend an explicit vision of the policy direction thatwould best tackle the most pressing quality-of-lifeissues faced by Aboriginal people in Canada.

changed. The state-research community nexus is stillpremised on the state’s belief in the superiority of sci-entific rationality and empirical evidence to guide itspolicy vis-à-vis Aboriginal people; it is still initiatedto help the state shape its own policy orientations.Aboriginal people are still seen as a policy issue, andthe particularities of their socioeconomic reality aretreated as social problems to be addressed andresolved. In the process, Aboriginal people continueto be framed analytically as objects of study, not asknowing subjects, despite the declared willingness ofstate researchers to include them as partners andequals in research designs.12

Today’s state-research community nexus is not asovertly biased toward ideas of liberal progress as wasthe case with previous generations of policy-makers,and its members are usually quite careful not tosound off about the supposed superiority of Westernand Euro-Canadian ways. Still, their concern with thequality of life of Aboriginal people is couched essen-tially in terms that posit Eurocentric notions of well-being as ultimate objectives. Furthermore, the state’scurrent focus on measurable dimensions ofAboriginal quality of life is in fact largely predicatedon its neoliberal commitment to individual equalityand universalistic values, which translates into com-plex, uneasily decipherable and, at some level, hardlyadmissible motivations. Proclaiming that Aboriginalpeople must have access to the same degree of well-being as every other Canadian citizen is also imply-ing, particularly in Canada’s policy context of fiscalattrition, that they must eventually do as well in themarket as mainstream Canadians; ultimately, theymust come to rely less on the state for their individ-ual and collective well-being.

Similarly, despite officially acknowledging andembracing diversity and cultural differences, theCanadian state also works to minimize the potentiallydivisive nature of cultural and identity claims.Indeed, it actually favours the merger of differencesinto one preestablished, normative and culturalframework whose parameters reflect the hegemonicposition of groups and individuals whose socio-political preeminence in the country’s history seemsto justify their dominance (Abu-Laban and Gabriel2002; Bannerji 2000; Labelle and Salée 1999). Ascultural theorist Homi Bhabha put it,

although there is always an entertainmentand encouragement of cultural diversity,there is always also a corresponding contain-ment of it. A transparent norm is constituted,a norm given by the host society or domi-

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

12

research agendas, both explicitly and implicitly, inmainstream social and policy sciences for nearly twodecades. It has been conceptualized in a number of dif-ferent ways, and for that reason it does not easily lenditself to one straightforward and clear-cut definition(Hunter 2004; Woolcock 2001). Nevertheless, thereseems to be some agreement that social capital can bebroadly understood as

networks of social relations which are charac-terised by norms of trust and reciprocity andwhich lead to mutually beneficialoutcomes…For individuals, this can meanaccess to social connections that help theprocesses of getting by or getting ahead. Forcommunities, social capital reflects the abilityof community members to participate, cooper-ate, and interact. (Hunter 2004, 3)

Although less tangible than human and physical cap-itals, social capital manifests itself through participationin (civic) organizations, the construction of trust andtrustworthiness and the development of norms of co-operative behaviour and reciprocal obligations (Whiteand Maxim 2003, 14). It plays a pivotal role in bringingto fruition any investment in human or physical capital:without the social vitality that high levels of social capi-tal entail the economic viability of a communityinevitably will decrease (Chataway 2002, 78). Simplyput, “[t]he more people are engaged together in a varietyof associations, from singing groups to informal loancooperatives, the higher the level of generalized trustand cooperative problem-solving in the system and thegreater the strength and productivity of that community”(77). As this belief permeates much of the social capitalliterature, research tends to focus “on the positive out-comes associated with high levels of social capital and[seeks] to explain social problems as an outcome ofdiminishing social capital stock” (Hunter 2004, 12).

The notion of social capital currently has tremen-dous intellectual purchase in the scholarship onAboriginal quality of life. Even in works that do notreadily identify it as a guiding concept, one can oftendetect in the subtext that the presence or absence ofsocial capital is considered a determining factor in thesuccess or failure of an Aboriginal community. Therenow seems to be a fairly wide — though not quite gen-eral — consensus within the research and policy com-munity that the significant erosion of social capitalbrought on by various state policies, cultural disinte-gration, displacement and the wearing down of tradi-tional knowledge is largely responsible for thedifficulties many Aboriginal communities and individ-uals experience. To address this problem and reversethe negative dynamics of socioeconomic ills, specialists

Social cohesion, social capital and capacity-buildingThe will to build a research agenda focused on shed-ding empirical and statistical light on the presentsocioeconomic situation of Aboriginal people rests ona relatively simple thought process. It begins withtwo central, unquestioned presuppositions: first, thata healthy level of social cohesion is a precondition ofwell-being and good quality of life for both individu-als and communities; second, that Aboriginal individ-uals and communities in Canada are suffering fromsignificant disruptions in their inner social balance,from a breakdown in social cohesion. The report ofthe Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples com-pellingly underscored that reality. The commissionalso emphasized the role and impact of colonialism inthis breakdown, but since the past cannot be changed— so continues the thought process — it makes moresense to document and understand the obstacles toimproved social cohesion as they appear now, and towork from there.

Among those who endorse the general premise ofthis intellectual project, some have chosen to uncoverthe empirical conditions of Aboriginal life (the self-imposed mission of several contributors to the FirstNations Cohesion Project). Others, building on avail-able data, concern themselves with the best way toreconstitute or foster enhanced social cohesion withinAboriginal communities without its becoming athreat to Canada’s own global social cohesion. Thelatter group’s research contributions have spawned afairly extensive, increasingly dominant literature thatemphasizes social capital and capacity-building asfoundations for a better quality of life in the follow-ing way. In order to bring about the social cohesionthat is the key to improved well-being, Aboriginalpeople must acquire greater capacity — that is, “theability of individuals, organizations, and whole soci-eties to define and solve problems, make informedchoices, order their priorities and plan their futures,as well as implement programs and projects to sus-tain them” (Nair 2003, 1, quoted in Hunt 2005, 1).While access to skilled human resources and physicalcapital is a definite asset in the process of capacity-building, the presence of a substantial pool of socialcapital is essential to its actualization.

The notion of social capital is central. A product ofsociological theory (see Bourdieu 1986, 1993;Coleman 1988; Portes 1998), it has at times beenseverely criticized (see Baron, Field, and Schuller2000; Fine 2001) but has become a mainstay of

13

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eapparatus and intervention in the process. In anotherCPRN discussion paper, Katherine Graham andEvelyn Peters (2002) call for the federal governmentto exercise a “central leadership role” in dealing withthe urban Aboriginal agenda, as they believe it canplay a constructive role in supporting Aboriginalorganizations working in cities, Aboriginal initiativesin community economic development and housingand educational needs. In still another CPRN report,Frances Abele (2004) argues that, despite the persist-ence of some of its historically discriminatory prac-tices, the Canadian state has mended its ways sincethe Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and hasembarked on a number of capacity-developing initia-tives in concert with Aboriginal organizations andgovernments. Abele’s review of past and emergentpractices of social provision implies that a new insti-tutional framework can be put in place within thestructural parameters of the Canadian state to amelio-rate the conditions of life of Aboriginal people.Although her perspective privileges the creation ofpartnerships between all levels of government,including Aboriginal governments, it does not linkcapacity with self-government or the development ofa fully politically autonomous and self-determinedinstitutional sphere for Aboriginal people: whatevernew capacity Aboriginal people need to acquire, itshould be circumscribed by the institutional environ-ment of the Canadian state.

Abele’s view on building Aboriginal capacityechoes, in fact, the spirit behind a number of capaci-ty-development initiatives put in place by the federalgovernment since the late 1990s,13 but falls short ofthe comprehensive approach promoted by the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples. The commissionessentially limited the role of the Canadian state tofinancing services and the costs of self-government.It envisioned Aboriginal nations’ having a muchgreater say and involvement in building capacity, andadvocated a four-stage transition strategy towardfully functional Aboriginal governments: rebuildingAboriginal nations and reclaiming nationhood;designing and planning national governments andreflecting these in a constitution or in law; negotiat-ing new intergovernmental agreements with othergovernments in Canada; and exercising the wholepanoply of governmental powers over the long term.The realization of this latter stage would complete thetransition, but would imply the development of aproperly educated human resource base, skilled in therequisites of self-government, culturally sensitive and

suggest that measures be devised to replenish thedepleted stocks of social capital and develop capacity.It is not always entirely clear which comes first, butboth social capital and capacity-building appear inti-mately intertwined in most of the literature: withoutgood social capital — that is, without strong socialbonds and networks, without trust and reciprocityand without transmission and the concomitantacceptance of dominant cultural and social norms —it will be difficult to build capacity because theappropriate social conditions to maintain that cap-acity will be lacking; conversely, without developingsome form of enabling framework and mechanismsof empowerment, whatever social capital might stillexist is likely to erode further and disappear.

Regardless of the angle from which one approachesthe question, most scholars and policy specialistsagree that the quality of life and well-being ofAboriginal communities and individuals in Canadawill improve if they are properly empowered and pro-vided with opportunities to reclaim control over theirlives and sociocultural assets — if, in other words,they can reestablish social cohesion. As a result, theliterature that derives from the social capital/capacity-building perspective is mainly concerned with theconditions of Aboriginal empowerment and the desir-able path to it. However, while almost everyone seemsto agree on the ultimate goal, the design of the roadmap to get there varies from one author to another.

The authors of a discussion paper for CanadianPolicy Research Networks (CPRN) on the reconfigura-tion of Canada’s social architecture consider andcompare the policy challenges for the provision ofwelfare services to Aboriginal people in the UnitedStates, Australia and New Zealand and conclude that

what is needed [in Canada] is support aimedtowards building Aboriginal institutionalcapacity, in communities or in urban centres.This support for autonomous capacity build-ing, to consolidate the legitimacy and effi-ciency of Aboriginal governing authorities, isessential for creating an environment con-ducive to socio-economic development andstrengthening the welfare of Aboriginal peo-ples over the long term. The best social poli-cies may well have limited impact withoutsuch a broader perspective. (Papillon andCosentino 2004, 20; italics in original)

The authors of that paper do not discuss just whatdegree of autonomy should be granted in the capaci-ty-building process, but this issue is the object ofdivergent views and differences in focus within theliterature. CPRN, for one, links Aboriginal capacity-building to the Canadian state’s existing institutional

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

14

Economic Development since the late 1980s, that suc-cessful economic development in Aboriginal communi-ties depends less on what assets they have in hand thanon how they are organized, how they make decisionsand how they govern themselves. Cornell and Kalt findthat sovereignty, institutions and culture matter inachieving economic success. They argue that, whenAboriginal communities make their own decisionsabout what approaches to take and what resources todevelop, they consistently outperform non-Aboriginaldecision-makers. Similarly, stable political institutionsand policies, fair and independent mechanisms for dis-pute resolution, a separation of politics from day-to-day business management, a capable bureaucracy anda strategic orientation contribute to the maintenance ofan environment conducive to economic development.Finally, they also contend that culture plays a signifi-cant role, as the economic success of Aboriginal com-munities rests on a strong and widely accepted fitbetween the culture of the community and the structureand powers of the governing institutions (Cornell andKalt 1992, 1998, 2000; see also the Harvard ProjectWeb site, www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied).

The work of the Harvard Project researchers has hadmuch influence within Aboriginal circles in Canada,having inspired the advocacy efforts and sociopoliticalvision of many Aboriginal leaders. The chapter on eco-nomic development in the report of the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples (Canada 1996, vol.2, chap. 5) bears its mark in part, while CANDO offi-cials regularly refer to it approvingly and several chiefsacross the country have sought the advice of Cornelland Kalt or espoused their perspective. Clearly, theHarvard Project’s emphasis on independent governanceand the importance of culturally appropriate governinginstitutions lends support to the claims of self-determination and nationhood that are now the main-stay of Aboriginal political discourse.

Cornell and Kalt’s underlying assumptions and con-clusions, however, are not without detractors. One criticfinds fault with their empirical findings, the unexcep-tional and self-evident nature of their conclusions,their uncritical endorsement of capitalist managementprinciples and economic rationalism and their inabilityto factor in class, gender and race issues (Mowbray2005). “The Harvard model,” writes Christina Dowling,“embraces western style economics, underpinned by anindividualistic orientation and acceptance of authoritybased on self-interest. Cornell and Kalt tend to useuncritically concepts such as market enterprises, andwesternized notions of economic development; they

in tune with the self-determination objectives ofAboriginal governments; it would also imply theestablishment of accountability, data collection andinformation management systems, as well as ade-quate organizational and institutional structurescapable of sustaining the activities of Aboriginal gov-ernments (Institute on Governance n.d.).

Other discussions of capacity-building in the liter-ature tend to steer clear of considerations of the roleof the Canadian state. Instead, they approach thematter in relation to the inner workings and societallogic of local Aboriginal communities — a positionthat, interestingly, is somewhat at odds with the rec-ommendations of the Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples, which emphasized national struc-tures of empowerment rather than community-basedones. Illustrations of this stance abound in the pagesof the Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development,a scholarly journal published twice yearly since 1999by the Council for the Advancement of NativeDevelopment Officers (CANDO)14 under the intellectu-al leadership of well-respected Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal researchers and academics in the areas ofeconomic development, business management, com-munity studies and Native studies.15 The overall per-spective running through most of the contributions tothe journal is generally quite positive. Scholarshipand analysis are devoted both to documenting suc-cessful cases of community economic developmentinitiatives that led to tangible empowerment and pos-itive social transformation at the local level, and todrawing out the theoretical and methodologicalimplications that can inform action and help eco-nomic field workers develop adequate and adaptedtools for capacity-building in their own environment.The journal’s implicit objective is to move away fromthe logic of victimization extant in the general litera-ture on Aboriginal people and instill in Aboriginalcommunities an attitude of confidence in their abilityto take charge of their future in accord with theirown values and self-determined goals of well-being(Newhouse 2001, 2004; Wuttunee 2004a).

Within this strand of the literature, economicdevelopment obviously figures as a significant vectorof capacity-building. There are, however, some ana-lytical and interpretative variations as to what theingredients of economic success for increased capaci-ty are and how economic success should actually beunderstood. US researchers Stephen Cornell andJoseph Kalt suggest, on the basis of research conduct-ed within the Harvard Project on American Indian

15

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

etor protection of the Earth Mother into the final deci-sion…[T]he guiding principle is reasonable developmentin support of livelihood and community” (185).

Wuttunee’s optimism notwithstanding, the com-patibility of traditional Aboriginal values with capi-talism is not easily achieved. Newhouse (2004) is alltoo aware of it, but, like Wuttunee, he believes thatwhat he calls “red capitalism” is possible and thatAboriginal values and world views can be construc-tively applied to the practices of capitalism for thebetterment of the quality of life in Aboriginal com-munities. According to Newhouse, “capitalism with ared face” can have a positive, transformative impacton both the life of Aboriginal communities and thebroader society, in several ways:• the concept of personal and social development

will be much broader, encompassing all thedimensions of life included in the medicine wheel;

• development will be seen as a process, not a prod-uct — a journey, not an end in itself, with long-termresults taking precedence over short-term gains;

• red capitalism will bring development to be seenas a joint effort between the individual and thecollective and its institutions, as a collaborativerather than a competitive process;

• similarly, red capitalism will also be seen as apartnership between the individual and the worldin such a way that, when individuals see them-selves as part of the creation, they are more likelyto make respectful choices in their developmentprojects and the technology they employ;

• the emphasis will be on human capital investmentrather than on individual capital accumulation;

• elders’ traditional wisdom will be used to guideplanning and decision-making;

• wealth distribution will reflect Aboriginal valuesof kindness and sharing, thus modifying the capi-talist notion of success in material terms;

• the establishment of Western economic institutionswill have to be attuned to the needs and values ofthe community;

• decision-making by consensus will guide thedevelopment of the community and the organiza-tional structures needed to support it; and

• notions of honesty and respect, so central to theAboriginal value set, will foster a heightened senseof accountability for economic institutions anddecision-makers (Newhouse 2000, 59-60).It is important to note that, contrary to the

Harvard Project, which invites Aboriginal communi-ties to follow well-delineated paths to and proven

lament the lack of economic success of those tribeswhose cultures do not easily welcome the businessmodel” (Dowling 2005, 120). In the end, she argues,the Harvard Project proffers a vision of Aboriginaleconomic development unsuitable for mostAboriginal communities and only reinforces theattempts of the state to tone down their otherness.

Aboriginal scholars Wanda Wuttunee and DavidNewhouse have proposed, each in her or his ownvoice, a way of conceiving capacity and economicempowerment that contrasts with the institutional,nation-building, rationalist and market-efficiencyfocus of the Harvard Project. Without rejecting thecapitalist imperatives that unavoidably underscoreeconomic development, they suggest instead thatthese imperatives be adapted to Aboriginal worldviews — that Aboriginal values and normativeparameters be made to inform any process of eco-nomic and social empowerment.

In her latest book, Wuttunee (2004b) borrows fromthe development model put forward by the US-basedFirst Nations Development Institute and directlyinspired by the medicine wheel (Salway Black 1994).In her view, the holistic approach and spirit uponwhich the medicine wheel is based are more appro-priate not only to understand Aboriginal communi-ties and their needs, but also as a framework withwhich to guide action toward economic and socialempowerment. As she notes:

most programs for Aboriginal peoplesencourage them to enter the very market-based, capitalist system that has marginal-ized many of them for years…This alternativeapproach, however, strives for a balance andadditional terms of reference that may bepicked up by anyone and used to modifytheir approaches to development.Relationships between people, communitiesand environment with a spiritual underpin-ning are honoured and are the focus for eco-nomic development within a context ofvalues, culture and tradition. Many of thesefactors were labelled as problems in the reg-ular approach to business and economicdevelopment. Now they form the basis forsuccess. (Wuttunee 2004b, 24)

Wuttunee’s message is simple: Aboriginal peoplemust use their own ways of looking at the world and attheir communities, based on their needs. They maydraw on capitalism, but they must be left to do thingsaccording to their own understanding of how thoseshould be done. When they are — that is, “when theyare able to make consistent input into the decision-making process” — she believes her research shows that“the checks and balance in the system will tend to fac-

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

16

the key to greater measures of well-being for Aboriginalpeople. This belief is now deeply entrenched in policycircles and informs much of the thinking and action ofboth governments and Aboriginal organizations.Communities, however, are made up of individuals, andmany consider that the health and well-being of com-munities largely depend on the preponderance of physi-cally healthy, mentally sound and well-functioningindividuals in their midst. Without downplaying theimportance of community, they stress instead individualwellness and the means to achieve it. Out of their con-cern for the psychological and physical well-being ofAboriginal people, a significant literature focusing onthe self has developed, to which I now turn.

Therapy of the self: personal healing,psychological recovery and individualtransformationThe comparatively high statistical incidence inAboriginal communities of what appear at first sightlike intensely personal dramas (youth suicide, sub-stance abuse, alcoholism, family violence, sexualoffending, mental illness, neglected children andunhealthy or self-destructive lifestyle choices) has ledto a fairly extensive literature that directly links issuesof Aboriginal well-being with the various and frequentmanifestations of individual behavioural and biologicaldysfunction. Some of this literature is mostly con-cerned with simply measuring the extent of thesemanifestations, more often than not in comparisonwith mainstream Canadian society. Much of it has beenproduced in the context of the Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples, the First Nations Cohesion Projectdiscussed above and occasional government-commissioned studies. Though useful from a statisticalstandpoint, it mostly takes stock of aggregate situationsand rarely brings the analysis beyond what the statis-tics reveal at face value.

A large and in many ways more compelling segmentof this literature, however, calls attention to strategiesof personal healing, psychological recovery and indi-vidual transformation. It complements the outlook ofthe social-cohesion/social-capital/capacity-buildingliterature on Aboriginal quality of life in that it positsindividual mental, spiritual and physical health as anecessary precondition to well-functioning, cohesivecommunities. Although it rests largely on a politics ofthe self, it assumes, like the social-cohesion literature —albeit in a more implicit fashion — that the key toAboriginal well-being is healthy, ordered and well-balanced communities.

recipes of economic success and empowerment,Wuttunee and Newhouse are not prescriptive. Theirevocation of Aboriginal traditions and philosophies isessentially suggestive — a guideline, not an absoluteprerequisite. As long as a community is comfortablewith the choices it makes, as long as those choicesare supported by a large consensus and meet itsneeds, how its goals and priorities are reached is notof central concern in the end. Whether a communitydecides to adhere to unadulterated principles of mar-ket capitalism or renounce them, whether it choosesto enter into partnerships with external, private orpublic economic agents or act alone, or againwhether it works within the institutional and struc-tural limits of the state or creates its own is relativelyimmaterial. The litmus test appears to be whether thechosen path has ultimately enabled the community,improved its living conditions and empowered itsmembers in a way that respects the physical environ-ment and the community’s cultural norms.

Development thinking and practice can be dividedinto two major strands: “One…stresses the need forsound policies (especially efficient markets) to sustaingrowth, coupled with sound financial and legal insti-tutions to foster investment and trade. The otherfocuses more on investment in human and socialcapital, and the strengthening of civil society” (Hunt2005, 1). In the Canadian capacity and developmentliterature relevant to Aboriginal people, this distinc-tion is blurred. It is not that it is nonexistent, but it isnot uncommon for writers and practitioners in thefield of Aboriginal community development to findmerit in whatever approach seems to work in anygiven instance, even if it happens to be one to whichthey may not be immediately drawn. In a way, onemight find that refreshing, for, on the face of it, itseems to evince both an encouraging absence ofintellectual rigidity and heartening postcolonial sen-sitivity to the diversity of situations experienced byAboriginal people in Canada. Wuttunee claims thather review of economic development initiatives inAboriginal communities of western Canada showsthat “there are no cookie-cutter solutions…nopanaceas” (2004b, 17). Similarly, Dowling insists onthe “multivocality” of Aboriginal communities andon the importance of factoring it into any develop-ment or capacity initiative (2005, 126).

Overall, notwithstanding the variations reviewedhere, the literature on social cohesion, social capitaland capacity-building rests on the firm belief that thesocial and economic strengthening of communities is

17

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eApplied to Aboriginal peoples, the PTSD argument

implies that their experience of contact with and cul-tural domination by Euro-Canadians, particularly thelengthy and difficult episode of residential schools(Miller 1996), was of such a harrowing and negativenature that it can reasonably be viewed as having ledto the profound psychological despair and unhealthyliving conditions that disturb the life of manyAboriginal individuals and communities today (Dion-Stout and Kipling 2003). The notion of PTSD is usu-ally associated with the theory that holds thatindividuals can be affected deeply by historic trau-matic events (civil war, genocide, forced displacementor acculturation of entire communities, and so on)that occurred before their lifetime (Wesley-Esquimauxand Smolewski 2004). Hence, for example, the tor-ment caused to those who directly experienced theabuses of residential school transcends their genera-tion, impacts their behaviour, disables them as fullyfunctioning and responsible adults and continues byextension to have just as negative an effect on thenext generations. The trauma of colonialism maykeep sowing its hurtful seeds long after it has ceasedto be an official policy of the state.

The PTSD argument implicitly provides the analyti-cal backdrop to most studies of psychological or physi-cal health in Aboriginal communities. Although not allsuch studies necessarily insist pointedly on the trans-generational legacy of colonial dispossession, the liter-ature has tended to focus more generally on theconcrete manifestations of this legacy in search of thedeterminants and possible treatments of individualbehavioural disorders and physical dysfunctions incontemporary settings. For example, the prevalence ofsuicide, particularly among youth, in many Aboriginalcommunities across Canada has mobilized the scholar-ly attention of a number of specialists. In 1995, theRoyal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples released aspecial report in which it identified four groups of riskfactors associated with suicide: psychobiological(depression, anxiety, schizophrenia), situational (dis-ruptions of family, forced attendance at residentialschools, long-term illnesses), socioeconomic (poverty,unemployment, inadequate housing) and cultural stress(erosion of belief systems and spirituality, loss of con-trol over the land, racial discrimination, weakening ofpolitical and social institutions). The commissioninsisted that cultural stress was of particular signifi-cance in Aboriginal suicide (Miller-Chenier 1995).

Other more specific studies have documentedextremely high rates of suicidal ideation and attempted

This particular literature comprises two mainthreads. One stems from conventional scholarship,particularly in psychology, anthropology and the lifesciences, and generally operates on the basis of thepostulate that there exists a strong connectionbetween Aboriginal quality of life and mental andphysical health. The other draws from Aboriginalphilosophies to offer more activist pathways of indi-vidual transformation and psychological recoverytoward community well-being.

Over the past two decades, a substantial and grow-ing body of research and scholarship on the mental andphysical health of Aboriginal people in Canada hasemerged (see, for example, Kirmayer, Brass, and Tait2000). Evidence has been available for some time onthe complex web of physiological, psychological, spiri-tual, historical, cultural, economic and environmentalfactors that have combined over time to create amongAboriginal communities a widespread and generalizedstate of ill health (Waldram, Herring, and Young 1995),which, most authors infer, constitutes a major obstacleto these communities’ ability to elaborate the appropri-ate measures of redress for a better socioeconomic andpolitical future. To many students of Aboriginal mentalhealth and psychological unease, the most glaringproblems seen in Aboriginal communities (high rates ofsuicide, violence, alcoholism and pervasive demoraliza-tion) are the direct consequences of a history of culturaldisintegration, disruption of traditional patterns of sub-sistence and forced separation from the land (Duranand Duran 1995; Waldram 1997; York 1990). The ideathat Aboriginal people generally suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has therefore gainedmuch currency in accounts of Aboriginal mental andphysical dysfunctions and in attempts at formulatingpossible treatments (Archibald 2006; Manson et al.1996; Mitchell and Maracle 2005).

Experts argue that PTSD arises from long-termexposure to external trauma and terrifying experiencesresulting in intense fear, helplessness or terror thatbreak a person’s sense of predictability, vulnerabilityand control and can lead to significant social or occu-pational distress. Mentally, people affected by PTSDmay develop negative beliefs about themselves andtheir world; emotionally, they may experience cyclesof denial and anxiety; physically, they may experiencesleep disturbances, heightened sensitivity, nightmaresand flashbacks; behaviourally, they may avoid certainsituations, isolate themselves from their social environ-ment, drink heavily and become increasingly aggres-sive (Mitchell and Maracle 2005, 16).

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

18

mental health issues and over questions concerningquality of life more generally (Elias and O’Neil 2004;Lemchuk-Favel and Jock 2004; Warry 1998). Aboriginalcommunities, they argue, have the cultural wherewithaland the knowledge base within themselves to decidewhat is best for them and to devise the most effectivestrategies to address and surmount adversity (Lalondeforthcoming). Evidence suggests that Aboriginal com-munities that are firmly grounded in their culture, con-fident in their identity and the legitimacy of theirtraditions and secure in their social and political institu-tions are healthier, happier and better functioning(Adelson 1998, 2000a, 2000b).

In other words, researchers who have an intimateknowledge of the emotional and psychological stakesinvolved in Aboriginal well-being seem to agree thatAboriginal quality of life depends largely on the spaceof political and institutional autonomy that communi-ties ultimately succeed in securing for themselves inaccord with their own cultural sensitivities and priori-ties. As one group of authors explains:

Government and professional responses tosocial pathologies — providing more health careor supporting traditional forms of healing —while essential, do not address the most funda-mental causes of suffering. Community devel-opment and local control of health care systemsare needed, not only to make services respon-sive to local needs but also to promote the senseof individual and collective efficacy and pridethat contribute to positive mental health.Ultimately, political efforts to restore Aboriginalrights, settle land claims, and redistribute powerthrough various forms of self-government holdthe keys to healthy communities. (Kirmayer,Brass, and Tait 2000, 614)

The First Nations Health Action Plan put forward bythe Assembly of First Nations (AFN) at the 2004 FirstMinisters’ Meeting echoes such conclusions by callingfor a “First Nations controlled and sustainable healthsystem that adopts a holistic, culturally appropriateapproach” as its overall objective (Assembly of FirstNations 2004, 1). Although the AFN requested additionalstate funding and governmental engagement in provid-ing a public health infrastructure for Aboriginal people,it insisted on a large measure of self-governance toadminister the delivery of services and to determine theirnature and content. In the action plan, political andadministrative control over health services is presentedas an essential precondition for improved health andwell-being of Aboriginal people. Self-determinationshould be the mainstay, the fundamental premise of anypolicy aimed at mending Aboriginal quality of life.

The extent and nature of self-determination, how-ever, remain a point of contention. While the AFN and

suicide among adolescents and young adults in Inuitcommunities of northern Quebec, pointing out a num-ber of key explanatory factors, including a personalhistory of psychiatric problems, a parental history ofsubstance abuse or psychiatric disorders, feelings ofalienation from the community, a history of physicalabuse and a profound crisis of identity and self-esteem, particularly among males who experience dif-ficulty coping with the disruption of their traditionalsocial roles (Kirmayer, Boothroyd, and Hodgins 1998;Kirmayer, Fletcher, and Boothroyd 1998; Kirmayer,Malus, and Boothroyd 1996). Studies done in BritishColumbia have found, on the other hand, that suiciderates are noticeably lower where cultural continuity isensured and control over key aspects of political andadministrative life is firmly in the hands of the localcommunity (Chandler and Lalonde 1998, 2004, forth-coming). Consequently, they suggest, there is a stronglink between high suicide rates in Aboriginal commu-nities and the loss of clear cultural parameters and thelack of local community control.

Suicide is perhaps the most dramatic indicator ofdistress in Aboriginal communities and, understand-ably, an important focus of attention in the special-ized literature on the mental health and well-being ofAboriginal people. Other issues, however, have alsobeen the object of scholarly attention, notably maleviolence (Mussell 2005; Pelletier 1993), the well-being of children and the psychological impact onthem of ineffective social environments (Bennett andBlackstock 2002; Blackstock et al. 2004), the crisis ofindividual identity (Briggs 1985; Dorais 1997; Stairs1992) and the clinical treatment of psychologicaltraumas (Kirmayer 1996a, 1996b). This literature isusually quite informative, and takes stock of variouspsychosocial problems affecting Aboriginal commu-nities, though it tends to focus primarily on thenature of the phenomena observed rather than ontheir policy implications.

Be that as it may, concerns over the inadequacy ofWestern-style approaches to psychotherapy and theapparent inefficacy of government programs andfunding at effecting tangible improvements have led anumber of researchers to investigate the differentways in which Aboriginal communities cope with thepsychological and emotional suffering that troublestheir members. Their varied contributions on the top-ics of community healing and resilience unequivocallyindicate that policy choices concerning Aboriginalwell-being should give Aboriginal communities con-siderable latitude in decisions over psychological and

19

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

etional processes” (Alfred and Corntassel 2005, 611),but processes that begin with the self, with efforts toadhere to a tradition-based spiritual foundation andprovide “a new psychological and mental frameworkfor decision-making in our own lives and in that ofour communities” (Alfred 2005, 86). As PatriciaMonture-Angus puts it,

self-determination begins with looking atyourself and your family and deciding if andwhen you are living responsibly. Self-deter-mination is principally, that is first and fore-most, about our relationships. Communitiescannot be self-determining unless membersof those communities are well and living in aresponsible way. It is difficult for individualsto be self-determining until they are livingas part of their community. (1999, 8)

Ultimately then, inasmuch as self-determination isunderstood as the key to well-being, whetherAboriginal communities succeed in bringing aboutthe desired level of quality of life is essentiallyincumbent on the willingness of individuals toembrace healthy lifestyles, bring peace in their rela-tions with others and reconnect themselves with thekey cultural parameters of the Aboriginal way of life.In this sense, Aboriginal quality of life and well-being do not hinge so much on appropriate statepolicies as on individuals’ readiness to adopt patternsof personal behaviour more likely to promote individ-ual and collective well-being, including

mental awakening through the promotion ofknowledge; emotional fortitude and theinstilling of emotional and psychological sta-bility; the return to traditional diets and reg-ular hard physical labour to purify andstrengthen the body; and the rediscovery ofmeaning outside shallow materialism andconsumerism through the restoration ofsocial connections and spiritual rootedness.(Alfred 2005, 87)

White man’s burden: Aboriginal policy,individual rights and equality As the preceding discussion suggested, questions relat-ed to Aboriginal quality of life pose a fairly difficultand perplexing conundrum for Canadian policy-makers. To what extent should the federal and provin-cial governments accommodate the particular needs ofAboriginal people to close the quality-of-life gapbetween them and non-Aboriginal Canadians on allsocioeconomic indicators? How can this be achievedwithout running the risk of fostering the already wellentrenched impression among the latter thatAboriginal people are unduly privileged — without, inother words, compromising the fundamental principlesof equal citizenship upon which rests the Canadian

sister Aboriginal organizations are prepared to exer-cise their inherent rights to self-determination withinthe institutional parameters of the Canadian state,Aboriginal scholars who have considered quality-of-life issues in Aboriginal communities can have quitea different view on the question. Taiaiake Alfred, forone, sees no tangible improvement possible without“Indigenous insurgency”: Aboriginal people need to“disentangle [them]selves from state-imperial identi-ties (tribal or patriotic) and reorient [them]selves ontraditional Indigenous identities”; they need to“develop effective structures to mobilize the power ofIndigenous identity and values,” involve themselvesin contentious action and “engage imperial powerwith dignity in a struggle for justice” (Alfred 2004,96-97). Alfred’s uncompromising activist stancestems from his blunt and direct diagnosis of what ailsAboriginal people:

The real reason most of our people endureunhappy and unhealthy lives has nothing todo with governmental powers or money. Thelack of these things only contributes to mak-ing a bad situation worse. The root of theproblem is that we are living a spiritual cri-sis, a darkness that descended on our peopleat the time we became disconnected fromour lands and from our cultures. We aredivided amongst ourselves and confused inour minds about who we are and what kindof life we should be living. We depend onothers to feed us and to teach us how tolook, feel and live. We turn to white men forthe answers to our problems. We have startedto trust them. There are no more leaders andhardly a place to go where you can just bean Indian. This is a spiritual crisis…Large-scale governmental “solutions” like self-government and land claims are not so muchlies as they are irrelevant to this root prob-lem of spiritual crisis. For generations now,we have been on a quest for political powerand money; somewhere along the journeyfrom the past to the future, we seem to haveforgotten that when we started out our goalwas to reconnect with our lands and to pre-serve our culture and way of life. It is thesethings that are the true guarantees of peace,health, strength, and happiness — of survival— for Indigenous peoples. (94-95; see alsoAlfred 2005)

Alfred’s view converges with that of other studentsof Aboriginal mental health who stress the impor-tance of cultural integrity and political control for theimprovement of Aboriginal quality of life. However,he advances their findings somewhat and dissociateshimself from policy alternatives that involve the stateor broad institutional solutions. For him and a num-ber of like-minded colleagues, self-determinationimplies larger processes of regeneration and decolo-nization, which “are not at root collective and institu-

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

20

Aboriginal Canadians. In his view — generally sharedby all who push the equality argument — that stress onotherness is unproductive. Cairns is satisfied thatAboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians have amoral obligation to help each other, and that is suffi-cient ground to trust that the socioeconomic conditionsof Aboriginal people inevitably will improve. In hisview, the key to the amelioration of Aboriginal qualityof life in Canada lies in the search for solutions thatrespect and take into consideration the needs of bothAboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians, not in theaspirations of self-government and territorial autono-my put forward notably by the report of the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples. Should such aspi-rations be fulfilled, he suggests, they would succeedonly in creating small, fiscally weak Aboriginal politi-cal entities and endanger the unity of the Canadianpolitical community.

Others, more blunt than Cairns, do not hesitate tomaintain that Canada’s Aboriginal policy is ill-con-ceived and that the Canadian state is unwisely givingin to Aboriginal claims, thus pursuing a course that isantithetical to egalitarian objectives and the founda-tions of Canadian citizenship. Professing to be commit-ted to the socioeconomic advancement of Aboriginalpeople, they argue that the current structures ofAboriginal governance, increased Aboriginal autonomyand self-government in service delivery and the state’srelative openness to claims of self-determination leadto a two-tier, ethnic- or race-based system of govern-ment that is not only contrary to liberal democratictenets, but also does little in the end to improve thequality of life of Aboriginal people.

Melvin Smith, a constitutional expert and formersenior civil servant in the British Columbia govern-ment, was one of the first to articulate this positionfully. In Our Home or Native Land? (1995), he lashesout at the federal and provincial governments for giv-ing in to a sense of collective guilt that he claims non-Aboriginal Canadians seem to have for past wrongsdone to Aboriginal people and for kowtowing uncriti-cally as a result to their demands. This, he argues, hasled to a differential treatment that sets Aboriginal andnon-Aboriginal Canadians apart, a situation he findsunacceptable in a liberal-democratic political commu-nity like Canada. He also maintains that it has createdthe unhealthy dependence of Aboriginal people on thestate, which, in his view, only perpetuates their inferiorsocioeconomic status. Too much taxpayers’ money isbeing spent, too many programs are being created withinsufficient accountability and unconvincing outcomes.

polity? In order to solve current issues of Aboriginalquality of life, must Canadians acquiesce to the repeat-ed pleas for enhanced self-government and politicalautonomy and can they do so without weakening thevery foundations of the Canadian state?

Most of the authors and approaches reviewed so fareither situate themselves outside the purview of thisconundrum or deliberately choose not to formulate thepolicy stakes of Aboriginal quality of life in thoseterms. Nevertheless, a substantial majority amongthem would not disagree that a greater measure ofAboriginal self-government would go a long waytoward levelling the playing field for Aboriginal peopleand consolidating Canada’s democratic outlook, andthat such a move would in no way threaten the perma-nency of the Canadian state. Yet several authors whoseintellectual influence is considerable in some quartersof the Canadian policy community reject this view.They are generally quite uncomfortable withAboriginal claims of self-government, and refuse to goalong with the assumption that it is a necessary pre-requisite to greater Aboriginal well-being.

Alan Cairns’s Citizens Plus (2000) best exemplifiesthe apprehension such authors have in grappling withidentity-based Aboriginal claims. In this book cele-brated for its level-headedness, Cairns revives therecommendations of the Hawthorn Report and sug-gests that Aboriginal people in Canada be granted aspecial status that would somehow recognize addi-tional rights. But he also cautions against the tenden-cy, extant in the report of the Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples, to give primacy to cultural revi-talization and to seek political autonomy forAboriginal cultures. Cairns insists instead on thedegree to which large segments of Canada’sAboriginal population have already successfully inte-grated into the mainstream and on what he sees asthe small cultural distance that separates Aboriginaland non-Aboriginal Canadians to argue that there isno need to modify the institutional and constitutionalapparatus to accommodate Aboriginal claims. Whilehe is prepared to recognize in principle and even tosupport the expression of Aboriginal cultures withinthe Canadian public space, he argues that these mustfit within the institutional parameters and value setthat define Canada.

Cairns believes that current Aboriginal claims ofself-government and self-determination exaggeratethe otherness of Aboriginality, for he thinks that, inthe end, there is actually little, culturally and norma-tively, that differentiates Aboriginal and non-

21

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

epolicy, are not only unfounded, they are highly sus-pect. Should the Aboriginal orthodoxy as he sees itcome to dominate the Canadian policy landscape, “[i]twould establish aboriginal nations as privileged politi-cal communities with membership defined by race andpassed on through descent; [i]t would redefine Canadaas an association of racial communities rather than apolity whose members are individual human beings”(194). The Aboriginal orthodoxy, Flanagan furtherargues, misleads Aboriginal people into focusing onEuro-Canadians as the source of their misfortune andinto thinking wrongly that obtaining financial repara-tion from their oppressors will produce independenceand prosperity. Finally, Flanagan is concerned that theAboriginal orthodoxy “encourages Aboriginal peopleto withdraw into themselves,” into their own “FirstNations,” under their “self-governments,” on theirown “traditional lands,” within their own “aboriginaleconomies” (195), which, in his view, would be a dis-astrous direction to take, for only a small political andprofessional local Aboriginal elite would benefit, tothe detriment of the majority.

Flanagan argues that the way out of what troublesAboriginal communities and individuals is relativelysimple: “Aboriginal people need to acquire the skillsand attitudes that bring success in a liberal society,political democracy and market economy” (195-96).To this end, he calls for a greater measure of integra-tion by Aboriginal people into the mainstream ofCanadian society, more accountability on the part ofAboriginal governments and administrations, thedeconcentration of power away from band councils inmatters of service delivery and management and theintroduction of a regime of individual property rights.

The themes Smith and Flanagan address have beenpicked up by a number of civil society organizationsand think tanks. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation(CTF), for example, has produced a number of positionpapers (Fiss 2002, 2004, 2005a, 2005b) that seek torekindle the vision contained in the much-criticized1969 White Paper (Canada 1969) and to blame thebalkanization and segregation effects of the FirstNations reserve system for the poor socioeconomic sit-uation of Aboriginal communities and individuals: asthey are isolated and exist outside the mainstream ofCanadian society, they are not given full opportunitiesto enjoy the benefits of Canadian citizenship. If any-thing, these papers argue, the special treatment offeredby the state has been to no avail, as increased govern-ment spending has failed to improve health and othersocial indicators for Aboriginal people. Rather, the key

Smith argues that Canada’s Aboriginal policy mustbe rethought and reframed on the basis of two incon-trovertible principles: Aboriginal self-reliance andequality under the law. According to him, self-reliance is born of self-confidence, and he blamesnon-Aboriginal society for having insulatedAboriginal people from the mainstream with govern-mental largesse that has simply numbed and incapac-itated them. He proposes “jurisdictional integration”to “break down the thicket of laws, regulations andprocedures that separate natives from their fellowCanadians [and] break down stereotype attitudes andmindsets” (261-62). There is no panacea for self-reliance, he admits, and some assistance for educa-tion, employment training and social improvementmight be needed along the way, “but these must notbe seen as handouts but as something earned throughmeasurable results on an equal footing with otherCanadians” (262).

Above all, Smith puts equality under the law. Hedoes not mean that existing treaty rights andAboriginal interests, as defined by law and theConstitution, are not valid: First Nations’ rights toreserves and established rights must be honoured, but“beyond that, the rule of law extends no solace.”Programs and benefits extended by ordinary legisla-tion are subject to repeal or amendment just like anyothers provided to Canadians (including tax exemp-tions); similarly, the interests of non-Aboriginal peoplemust also be protected, particularly against supposedAboriginal legal entitlements over land that is, in fact,the entitlement of all Canadians without distinction.

Smith’s position has been endorsed by a numberof like-minded authors and organizations. In hisaward-winning and controversial First Nations?Second Thoughts (2000), political scientist TomFlanagan undertakes to debunk what he calls the“Aboriginal orthodoxy,” a set of beliefs that holds,among other things, that

prior residence in North America is an enti-tlement to special treatment; that Aboriginalpeoples are part of sovereign nationsendowed with an inherent right to self-gov-ernment; that Aboriginals must have collec-tive rather than individual property rights;that all treaties must be renegotiated on a“nation-to-nation” basis; and that nativepeople should be encouraged to build pros-perous “aboriginal economies” throughmoney, land, and natural resources trans-ferred from other Canadians. (Flanagan2000, i)

For Flanagan, these assumptions, which informcurrent Aboriginal political claims and governmental

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

22

centres. To deflect the problem, he proposes that thepayment of treaty money be recalculated to reflect cur-rent value and redirected as cash handouts into thepockets of individuals and families in a move to bypassthe authority and control of band councils.

Allard’s analysis has been quoted approvingly indocuments of the C.D. Howe Institute and the FrontierCentre for Public Policy. In a recent C.D. Howe Institutestudy, John Richards (2006), in particular, offers hisown blueprint for the improvement of Aboriginalsocioeconomic conditions. He zeroes in on the impor-tance of providing high-quality education and schoolservices that will enable Aboriginal youth to acquirethe skills and qualifications necessary to adapt to andcompete successfully in the labour market. Noticingthat off-reserve Aboriginal students tend to performbetter in school than their on-reserve peers, Richardssuggests that “reform requires greater professionalismin school administration” and, following Allard’s view,argues that this, “in turn, will almost certainly requireindividual bands to cede authority over schools tolarger organizations such as tribal councils or to new,province-wide Aboriginal school boards, and thatreserve schools [should] integrate curricula and studenttesting more closely with the relevant province” (2006,122). Similarly, he proposes “to withdraw from individ-ual bands the authority to distribute welfare and toentrust the function, with an accompanying budget, toan intertribal social assistance agency for eachprovince” (124). In another C.D. Howe Institute paper,Richards (2003) totally endorses Allard’s proposal topay treaty benefits to individuals, regardless of theirplace of residence, and suggests introducing own-source taxation to Indian bands.

Although, on the face of it, the equality argumentmay seem unfairly critical of the supposed privilegesand prerogatives enjoyed by Aboriginal people, it is, infact, cautiously constructed precisely so as to notappear unsupportive of Aboriginal people. Equalityunder the law, the argument goes, is important not somuch because the want of it would be unfair to non-Aboriginal people, but primarily because it is crucial tothe well-being of Aboriginal people, as it guaranteestheir access to the mainstream of Canadian society andthus to superior standards of living. For proponents ofthe equality argument, Aboriginal people are not theproblem; the whole institutional apparatus to whichthey are submitted clearly is. Though there is no reasonto suspect that their desire to recast Aboriginal policyfor the betterment of Aboriginal quality of life is notgenuine, in reality their vision is in tension with the

to long-term economic viability and, by extension, to abetter quality of life for Aboriginal communities iseasily identifiable individual property that can be lever-aged for loans and wealth creation. As the Indian Actprecludes the enjoyment of private property rights onreserves, the CTF argues, it must be abolished.Aboriginal Canadians must be brought into the eco-nomic mainstream and be treated like any otherCanadians. To that end, the CTF suggests, all Aboriginalcommunities should be municipalized, submitted to thesame rules of good governance, transparency andaccountability in force all over the country, and theirconstituents no longer exempted from paying taxes (asprovided in the Indian Act). In short, the CTF calls forno less than an end to the status quo if Aboriginal peo-ple are to be truly self-sustaining.

The twin ideas that the current institutional struc-tures of Aboriginal governance are inadequate and thatindividual rights are superior to collective arrangementsare recurring, interwoven motifs of the equality argu-ment. They clearly intimate that the quality of life ofAboriginal people would be greatly improved if thecurrent band council-driven system of governance wascompletely overhauled in favour of mechanisms thatwould submit Aboriginal political and administrativeleaders to close and inescapable accountability and thatwould give individuals a much greater measure ofautonomy and control over their leaders. The virtues ofindividual freedom over collective or bureaucratic dic-tates are touted as the way out of the adverse condi-tions Aboriginal people experience.

Jean Allard, a Métis politician and former NDPManitoba MLA, argues that modern checks and bal-ances applied to Aboriginal leaders do not operate, asthere is no real separation between politics andadministration on reserves. In the wake of the rejec-tion of the 1969 White Paper, he explains, an unholyalliance of Indian Affairs bureaucrats and Aboriginalelites has ensued and, as a result, “chiefs, councils andtheir allies — who make up the ruling elite — exercisepower and control over the lives of people who liveon reserves that is unheard of in a democratic coun-try. They control everything: from who gets the on-reserve jobs to who gets plumbing repairs. The rulingelite exercises total control while the impoverishedclass is voiceless and powerless” (Allard 2002, 131).This situation, which, Allard suggests, is fraught with“nepotism, fraud, corruption and abuse of humanrights” (133), is largely responsible for the massmigration away from the reserves of Aboriginal peo-ple in search of a better social environment in urban

23

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eand political autonomy is crucial to bringing about abetter life and enhanced sense of well-being amongAboriginal people; this is by and large the vision pro-pounded by the report of the Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples. Some influential authors andorganizations believe, however, that identity-basedclaims of self-determination and self-governmentfurther isolate Aboriginal people from access to thewell-being and the good life one can experience inthe mainstream of society, unnecessarily pitAboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians againsteach other and threaten the institutional and consti-tutional structures of the country; this is a visionlargely inherited from the 1969 White Paper and stillvery much alive in some of the policy discourse onAboriginal people.

These two perspectives are fundamentally at odds.They rest on markedly different and opposite pro-grammatic rationales of what is best for Aboriginalpeople. Which one should future research onAboriginal quality of life draw from and expand?This is a choice that the Canadian state itself has notquite resolved to make. Indeed, both visions exercisetheir contrary influence on Canada’s Aboriginal poli-cy as the state seems to oscillate between them.16 Intruth, future research must transcend this choice — inpart, because of the problematic nature of some ofthe assumptions upon which the overall literaturerests, but mostly because the work done within bothvisions generally fails to account for the failure toimprove Aboriginal quality of life in any significantand sustained fashion, despite current, extensiveknowledge of the problems.

There is no denying that numerous Aboriginalcommunities have seen their lot improve substantial-ly thanks to the work of community-conscious andculturally sensitive individuals and organizations,including state agencies. Still, it is not entirely clearhow far pressing local communities to regain balanceand enhance social capital will take them on the wayto improved well-being for all Aboriginal peoplewithout a serious, critical consideration of the struc-tures of power and patterns of social relations thatare primarily responsible for the difficulties they face.Therein lies one of the most urgent analytical chal-lenges that confront us in our search for the improve-ment of Aboriginal quality of life and in the processof devising transformative policy alternatives.

The many different ways of addressing and con-ceiving Aboriginal well-being and the seeminginability or unwillingness of the state to abide fully

goals of cultural protection and revitalization put for-ward since the 1969 White Paper by Aboriginal intel-lectuals and leaders and by non-Aboriginalsympathizers who argue that Aboriginal quality oflife can be improved only on Aboriginal people’s ownterms and not according to some prepackagedEurocentric notion of equality and the good life.

The often incisive insinuations that there is anAboriginal “orthodoxy” — or that it is in the interestof a few to keep the current state of affairsunchanged — the call for an end to Aboriginal taxexemptions, the alarm over self-government andland-settlement agreements, the repeated insistenceon objectives of strict civic equality and market solu-tions all underscore the profound unease of propo-nents of the equality argument with the prospect thatAboriginal people might be empowered in ways thatwould set them in a separate and autonomous sphereof citizenship. They are, in the end, essentially con-cerned that the legitimization of an Aboriginal civicand cultural identity that would not fully correspondto Canada’s own would threaten the institutionalcoherence and civic cohesiveness of the Canadianpolitical community. However unfounded or inappro-priate such a concern may seem to critics (see, forexample, Alfred 2000; Rotman 2001), it is real andlikely to remain a factor in debates and discussionsover Aboriginal policy for some time to come.

Looking Ahead

W hat have we learned? There is a clear con-sensus throughout the literature reviewedin the previous section about the consider-

able socioeconomic deficit of Aboriginal people inCanada. No one dismisses their plight or downplaystheir often-difficult reality. There is also widespreadagreement about the urgency of finding appropriateresponses that will quickly lead to tangible improve-ments in the general quality of life of Aboriginal peo-ple. However, the range of policy choices that woulddeliver the most favourable outcomes is not only seg-mented by the different understandings of what is agood quality of life, but also split between two broad,diverging visions of how to achieve it in the bestinterest of Aboriginal people. Authors who emphasizecapacity-building, community empowerment and cul-tural revitalization generally support the idea that asignificantly greater measure of self-determination

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

24

— more often than not through successful episodes ofrepression and coercion — by one or a few groups thathave succeeded in establishing their dominion andhegemonic grip over the whole of society.

On the whole, the social-cohesion/social-capital/capacity-building perspective is less concerned aboutwhether the structures of power and domination left bythe legacy of troubled relations between Euro-Canadians and Aboriginal people still have an impacton the persistent disparities Aboriginal people face.This approach also does not question whethermacrostructural dimensions such as the dominant pat-tern of power relations or the inner logic of theCanadian political economy might be at cause. It shiesaway, in other words, from exploring the systemicobstacles to the improvement of Aboriginal socioeco-nomic conditions, and emphasizes instead the creationof social capital and capacity development, a much lesscontroversial handle on the question of Aboriginalquality of life — and much less threatening to the statusquo — clearly implying that the source of the problemis the community itself, its inability to prevent the fail-ure of its integrative functions or to adapt to thedemands of the global environment.

The communitarian thinking that permeates somediscussions on capacity-building in particular seems toargue for a return to an almost mythical communitywhere the restoration of traditions would perforceensure a better living. It may well be — indeed, thereare examples where community healing and capacitywere achieved thanks in part to the reconnection of thecommunity with past practices and philosophies. Butagain, heavily communitarian conceptions of well-being blur internal political divisions and downplaytensions between diverging interests: they do little inthe end to shed light on the societal dynamics thatblock or stall the emergence of improved socio-economic conditions.

Similarly, the psychocultural-therapeutic perspectivedetracts attention from the global context that hasshaped the current socioeconomic conditions ofAboriginal people. The focus on personal healing andtransformation of the self is undeniably persuasive; itdoes, on the face of it, make good sense. Mentallyhealthy individuals are more likely to contribute posi-tively to their community, and a community of men-tally healthy individuals will be better equipped toacquire and provide its members with the requisites ofa life of good quality. The flip side of this conventionalwisdom is that the onus of success is entirely on theindividual: communities that fail to regain control of

by the constitutionally entrenched recognition ofAboriginal people’s inherent right to live by theirown cultural and political norms bear witness to theeminently political and ideological nature of thestakes involved in any consideration of how toimprove Aboriginal quality of life. This speaks, ofcourse, to the presence of opposite world views andstrongly competing interests; more significantly, itreveals the great discomfort of mainstream Canadiansociety at the prospect of radically transformed socialhierarchies and patterns of power should Aboriginalclaims of cultural otherness and political autonomybe one day fully and unequivocally accepted andactually realized.

Yet perhaps the most surprising observation one isforced to make at the end of this survey of the litera-ture is that the fundamentally political character ofAboriginal quality of life remains insufficientlyacknowledged by the vast majority of the authorsreviewed. To be sure, the particular views of writerssuch as Alfred, Monture-Angus and Flanagan can besaid to be driven by intensely political motivations.The radical and uncompromising tone of their respec-tive positions and their emphasis on issues of iden-tity, sovereignty and constitutional law lend theirwork a political — some would say ideological — res-onance. That said, their analysis, like a good deal ofthe rest of the literature for that matter, does not real-ly address the politics of Aboriginal quality of life.Notwithstanding the richness, usefulness and diversi-ty of the insights and data delivered by the approach-es reviewed, few authors actually seek to tackle thereasons the socioeconomic conditions of Aboriginalpeople still remain substandard in the aggregate andhave even deteriorated further in some cases.

This absence of focus on the politics of Aboriginalquality of life may well have to do with the analyticalangle of much of the research. The emphasis onsocial cohesion, for example, tends to depoliticizesocial relations: it masks the expression of contradic-tory interests, the dynamics of power and resistancethat gives them life, the inevitable social hierarchiesand the relations of domination and ruling thatenforce and maintain them. Social cohesion or, moreprecisely, the veneer of social and political stability itevokes is not a natural, felicitous state of society. It isusually the end result of a sociopolitical processwhereby cultural norms, social codes of conduct, ide-ological parameters and mechanisms of moral andsocial regulation have been internalized by themajority of the population after having been imposed

25

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eways, more promising path to understanding whythings hardly ever change for Aboriginal people.Further research and analysis are needed, though, toelucidate the reasons that make this force of inertiaso unflinching and intractable.

Personal and collective well-being, a life of goodquality, fulfilling both mentally and physically, can-not just be willed or engineered to happen throughgiven policy choices. Differences in quality of life aresteeped in relations of power, in social hierarchiesand in societal processes whereby the state or somegroups or individuals monopolize and restrict accessto resources, knowledge or privileges known to pro-mote well-being and prevent others by their actionfrom enjoying to the same extent they do what makeslife good. Whether individuals or whole communitiescan experience a life blessed with decent measures ofgood quality largely depends on how well they farein the dynamics of power that characterize their soci-ety, on how successful they are at imposing their ownterms and conditions of social cohabitation or atsecuring for themselves an enviable place in thesocioeconomic pecking order. One cannot stressenough, therefore, the importance of properly grasp-ing the politics of Aboriginal quality of life. Newresearch must be developed to understand the linkbetween the glacial pace of improvement of thesocioeconomic conditions of Aboriginal people andthe political obstacles to real change, be they institu-tional or bureaucratic sclerosis (as Ladner and Orsinisuggest), deeply entrenched vested interests, marketforces, systemic discrimination, Eurocentric culturalconceit or a combination of all these.

Existing research on capacity-building, communityeconomic empowerment and psychological healing hasyielded undeniably crucial insights that can contributeto the formulation of workable solutions. However,they risk being of limited effect if the institutionalenvironment works in the end against any initiative ofsocioeconomic improvement. The recounting of suc-cessful stories of community economic empowerment,for example, points to interesting possibilities. Yet notall communities have the same agenda or the sameobjectives, and exportability need not be an importantstandard of success. Still, one cannot help but wonderwhy some communities rally behind a collective proj-ect of economic recovery and succeed, while otherscannot seem to pull it together despite genuinely goodintentions. Why, when there is no want of reliabledata, good policy ideas or proven approaches to whatails Aboriginal communities, is so little progress

their destiny and to function well are seen, implicitly,as communities where the bulk of individuals haveyet to heal their psychological wounds, rebuild theirrelations and take charge of their lives. This emphasison the individual as the key to increased well-being,however, fails to consider the impact of socioenviron-mental stress factors on the ability of individuals tosucceed in their attempt to heal. The willpower tochange oneself and transform one’s community maywell be active and genuine, but it could also be ham-pered by structural and systemic impediments thatare far-reaching and stronger than the resolve of allthe well-intentioned individuals of a community.

The research surveyed here reveals that Canadianpolicy-makers have at their disposal a wealth ofcutting-edge research and information on the extentof the socioeconomic deficit of Aboriginal people, onthe roots of this deficit, on its long-term social andpsychological consequences and on several policychoices and courses of action that have been triedand others that could conceivably yield better out-comes. Yet the persistence of adverse social, humanand economic conditions in a still large number ofAboriginal communities across the country raises notso much issues of capacity, expertise or resources —clearly, Canada has them — but the question of thepolitical willingness to do what is most appropriate toreverse the situation. As the chasm between the poli-cies purportedly designed to improve Aboriginalquality of life and the actual social and economicreality of Aboriginal people endures, it may now benecessary to complement the foci of currentAboriginal quality-of-life research with analyticalperspectives and questions geared to address and bet-ter understand the reasons for this persistence.

Political scientists Kiera Ladner and Michael Orsiniargue, using the neo-institutionalist concept of pathdependency, that Canada’s Aboriginal policy is deeplyset in a long-standing colonial paradigm that so thor-oughly pervades the whole bureaucratic and politicalmindset that it has become virtually impossible toeffect any real modification of the unequal dynamicsof power relations between Aboriginal people andnon-Aboriginal Canadians. A kind of bureaucraticand political inertia is at play, casting Aboriginalpeople as inferior, subaltern beings, precluding as aresult the establishment of a truly egalitarian rela-tionship between them and the Canadian state andblocking any possibility of renewing Aboriginal gov-ernance (Ladner and Orsini 2004, 2005). Such anexplanation steers us on a different and, in many

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

26

there is much at stake for the state and non-AboriginalCanadians in settlements that would, in some cases,allow Aboriginal people control over large pools of eco-nomically sensitive natural resources. Why does theCanadian state, which is theoretically prepared to recog-nize Aboriginal titles and other rights, willfully createobstacles to the full enjoyment by Aboriginal people ofready sources of economic well-being? Questions of thisnature need to be examined thoroughly, for there is lit-tle sense in calling for ways to reinforce social cohesion,create social capital or build capacity if direct access tokey economic tools, one of the fundamental means tocounteract social disintegration and inequality, contin-ues to elude Aboriginal people.

Looking into patterns of exclusion. The primaryfocus of evidence-based studies on documenting theend results of the socioeconomic marginalization ofAboriginal people neglects in the end to engage in amuch-needed examination of the social processes ofexclusion that are at work. Social relations of poweraround the market are definitely important, but themarket is not the only locus of exclusionary socialpractices. Racism, cultural ostracism and delegitimiza-tion in the public sphere also factor into the social sub-ordination of minority groups. Although Canada hasclear and uncompromising antidiscrimination policies,mechanisms of social exclusion and suspicion towardthe other may still operate in subtle, unsuspected ways.A poll conducted in 2004 by the Centre for Researchand Information on Canada suggested that almost onein two Canadians (49 percent) believe that the livingconditions of Aboriginal people are on an equal footingwith or better than those of non-Aboriginal Canadians.Only 29 percent of respondents rated improving thequality of life of Aboriginal people a high policy pri-ority. Respondents were also asked to place in order ofpriority a list of 11 government tasks: improving thequality of life of Aboriginal people came in second-to-last. More recently, a report on a study done inNovember 2005 by Ipsos Reid for Indian and NorthernAffairs Canada revealed that “Canadians, depending ontheir education, either question the fairness of aborigi-nal entitlements or believe they foster a culture ofdependency” (Aubry 2006, A11).

How does the disinclination of non-AboriginalCanadians to support Aboriginal claims manifest itself?To what extent does it hold back the improvement ofthe socioeconomic conditions of Aboriginal people?Questions such as these speak directly to the nature ofthe social interface between Aboriginal people andnon-Aboriginal Canadians. We need to develop a better

actually made on the whole? These simple questionsraise complex political considerations and systemicissues that need to be identified and understood inorder to grasp the reasons why solutions that seem towork are not universalized.

The findings of the research examined in thispaper have taken the policy community quite a longway toward better appreciating the reality of quality-of-life issues for Aboriginal people in Canada. Futureresearch should definitely build on and deepen thatbody of knowledge, but should now include as wellmore explicit attempts at elucidating the reasons whyunrelenting obstacles to tangible, positive changecontinue to go unchecked.

The search for ways to remove obstacles to realchange hinges largely on the development of agreater analytical willingness to contextualizeAboriginal quality-of-life issues within dynamics oftensions resulting from competition over scarce orcontested resources, the maintenance of social hierar-chies disadvantageous to Aboriginal people and thesocial processes of racialization and marginalizationinherited from past colonial practices. In order to fur-ther our understanding of Aboriginal quality of life,future research should seek to explore the nature andimpact of such dynamics. Concretely, this couldtranslate into a variety of research endeavours thatare sketched briefly below. They do not exhaust thefull range of research projects that could be devised.They are presented here in broad outlines to suggestavenues to push forward our thinking on Aboriginalquality of life and inform concrete action for change.

Questioning the market. Economics is by allaccounts a prime determinant of quality of life.Several authors insist on the importance of communi-ty economic empowerment as a crucial vector of well-being for Aboriginal people. However, few, if any,address the social rigidities of market forces, the diffi-culty of transforming market-driven social relations ofpower to the advantage of groups that have not his-torically benefited from a position of strength in themarket. We need to know with more precision howmarket imperatives and the actions of groups thatexercise significant control over market forces affectthe economic possibilities of Aboriginal communities.To be sure, a number of studies attest to the ability ofquite a few communities to cope with and even thriveunder market conditions, but those are the exceptionsrather than the norm. The reluctance of governmentsto settle land claims quickly to the unequivocal bene-fit of Aboriginal communities clearly indicates that

27

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eand eventually act upon the dynamics of oppositionthat are likely to affect negatively the capacity of acommunity to create and maintain proper conditionsof general well-being. Different communities willcope differently with the challenges of conflict. Itwould therefore be useful to produce a number ofethnographic studies of diverse cases to draw as com-prehensive a picture as possible of the impact ofinternal community politics on quality-of-life issues.

Policy audits. While it is true that governmentscontribute a significant amount of financial andhuman resources to improve the socioeconomic con-ditions of Aboriginal people, many programs andpolicies are not as efficient as might be expected inenhancing their quality of life. A renewed researchagenda should incorporate a policy audit related toAboriginal quality of life. Do governments fullydeliver on their promises to Aboriginal people? Werethe programs and policies adequately conceived toachieve tangible goals of positive social changewithin the relevant communities? We need studiesthat closely examine governmental action onAboriginal quality-of-life issues and set benchmarksfor evaluation. Government rhetoric is often self-congratulatory and tends to inflate the significance ofits action with respect to Aboriginal people. Policyaudits would serve to separate fact from fiction.

The above suggestions imply that new researchquestions need to be formulated. They may take usaway from research predicated on adjusting orimproving upon existing Aboriginal policy, but 40years after the Hawthorn Report, how much moretweaking of Aboriginal policies must Aboriginalpeople tolerate before things really change for thebetter? How much longer can they submit to thestate’s guessing game as to what may or may notwork to improve their situation? Hard questionsabout how to transform the structures that constant-ly preclude the real advancement of Aboriginal peo-ple now need to be asked and elucidated, andconsequent action taken.

In fairness, one must acknowledge that such hardquestions have already been asked, more than once.One need only remember the probing voice of HaroldCardinal, whose incisive The Unjust Society (1969)and The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians (1977) clearlyconfronted not only the Canadian state and settlersociety, but also Aboriginal people themselves, andproposed distinct courses of action toward social andcultural revitalization. The Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples certainly raised a multitude of

understanding of the relations of social power anddomination that inevitably create a distance betweenthe two groups and likely foster the socioeconomicmarginalization of Aboriginal people. Striving totransform these relations into a truly egalitarian rap-port would create a more level playing field thatcould facilitate the positive evolution of Aboriginalsocioeconomic conditions. The work of Joyce Green(1995, 2003, 2005) on the colonialist nature ofCanadian state power and of Sherene Razack (2002)and Bonita Lawrence (2002, 2004) on the racial hier-archies that pervade Canadian society and keepAboriginal people on the outer edges of the publicspace constitutes in that regard an emerging body ofcritical analysis that forces a more attentive consider-ation of the sources of Aboriginal marginalizationand compromised quality of life.

The effects of welfare retrenchment. Like most otherWestern jurisdictions, the Canadian state has madeappreciable cuts in welfare programs, unemploymentassistance and social services over the past decades.These cuts have had a direct, usually negative effect onthe most vulnerable groups of society, includingAboriginal people. We need new research on theimpact of Canada’s recent social policies on the well-being of Aboriginal people. How has welfare retrench-ment affected their quality of life? This is a fairlyimportant question, for if one establishes that thestate’s social policies do little to improve the socioeco-nomic conditions of Aboriginal people, it raises thequestion of its role in the persistence of considerablegaps in social and economic performance betweenAboriginal people and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

Internal sociopolitical dynamics. Aboriginal com-munities are no more immune to internal social andpolitical strife than any other human communities.How do existing modes of governance, the controlexercised by local elites over access to and distribu-tion of collective resources and the political andadministrative proximity of some chiefs and bandcouncils to the Canadian state bureaucracy affect theability of community members to enjoy a fair meas-ure of well-being? Are internal community tensionsresolved with relative ease to the satisfaction of allparties, or do they compromise the development of asocial environment conducive to both individual andcollective well-being? These questions are not meantto raise doubts about the ability of Aboriginal com-munities to govern themselves; they suggest, rather,that the reality of sociopolitical conflict must beacknowledged and better understood so as to grasp

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

28

uneasy questions as well, and called for clear alterna-tives designed to empower Aboriginal people andestablish their relationship with non-AboriginalCanadians on a more equal footing. Over the pastthree decades Aboriginal people have formulated self-determining choices, often in confident and unequiv-ocal terms, with a view to exercise their own poweroutside the boundaries of the colonial parameters thathave historically defined their existence within theCanadian state. They have, in so doing, calledCanadians and even their own leadership to accountin no uncertain terms.

Still, chances are that “progress will not material-ize,” as scholars Roger Maaka and Augie Fleras argue,“until Aboriginal peoples-state relations areaddressed within the context of rights not needs, ofrelationships not restitution, and of engagement notextinguishment” (Maaka and Fleras 2005: 209-210).Today, this particular challenge of reconceptualizing,as it were, the social and political sphere withinwhich Aboriginal people must exist is being taken upby a number of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalscholars concerned with issues underlying Aboriginalquality of life. The works of political scientist KieraLadner (2005), political theorist James Tully (1995)and legal scholars John Borrows (2002) and PatrickMacklem (2002), to name but some of the more com-pelling voices, suggest paths of institutional reconfig-uration that can potentially address and resolve thedifficult political questions. But as Maaka and Flerasremind us, “any moves to re-prime the constitutionalagenda by re-configuring the political landscape willremain muddled without a political will to absorb thepending shocks” (2005: 210).

In the end, it all boils down to one inescapablereality: significant improvements to Aboriginalquality of life hinge on a fundamental, genuine andwidespread political commitment to social changeand social justice for Aboriginal people. How deep-reaching must this commitment be, and just how farare Canadians prepared to go to ensure that it paysmore than lip service to some democratic ideal?Those are probably the toughest questions. The factis, as things stand now we cannot sincerely carry onwithout coming to terms with them. True democracyrequires no less.

29

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

ethe government vows (in addition to “renewing the part-nerships” with Aboriginal peoples, “strengtheningAboriginal governance” and “developing a new fiscalrelationship”) to support strong communities, people andeconomies by “improving health and public safety,investing in people and strengthening Aboriginal eco-nomic development,” which the government claims willmaterialize into providing “adequate housing and cleanwater; access to education and training opportunities;the opportunity to participate in the economy and earn ameaningful livelihood; and access to the health, socialand cultural supports needed to ensure that people canremain healthy.”

The provinces have articulated similar goals. TheWeb site of the Manitoba Department of Aboriginal andNorthern Affairs, for instance, informs readers that thedepartmental vision is “an improved quality of life andopportunities for Aboriginal and northern Manitobans,”and lists among its goals “to support the mental, emo-tional, physical and spiritual health of northern commu-nities and Aboriginal people” and to “strengthen theparticipation of Aboriginal and northern people inManitoba’s economy.” In its Aboriginal policy frame-work, Strengthening Relationships (Alberta 2000),Alberta claims to foster “goals of individual and commu-nity well-being and self-reliance” for its Aboriginal con-stituents. The business plan of the Ministry of AboriginalAffairs and Northern Development lists among its strate-gic priorities for the next three years “[the enhancementof] the quality of life of First Nation and Métis peoplethrough the coordination and facilitation of cross-min-istry partnerships with First Nation and Métis organiza-tions to address early childhood development, familyviolence, public and post-secondary education, trainingto employment and healthy families.” Ontario, for itspart, claims that it is “charting a new course for con-structive, cooperative relationships with Aboriginal peo-ples of Ontario — a relationship sustained by mutualrespect and that leads to improved opportunities and abetter future for Aboriginal children and youth.” Thepolicy narratives of the other provincial governmentsexhibit, with some variants, the same insistence on fos-tering a better quality of life for Aboriginal people.

4 Among these indices Sharpe reviews five that providehistorically consistent estimates of trends of well-beingin Canada: the Measure of Economic Welfare, developedby William Nordhaus and James Tobin and estimated forCanada by Statistics Canada; the Genuine ProgressIndicator, developed by the Redefining Progress Instituteand estimated for Canada by Statistics Canada; the Indexof Economic Well-Being, developed by the Centre for theStudy of Living Standards; the Index of Social Health,developed at Fordham University and estimated forCanada by Human Resources Development Canada; andthe Index of Living Standards, produced by the FraserInstitute. Sharpe also looks at three cross-nationalindexes: the Human Development Index, developed bythe United Nations Development Program; the Quality ofLife Index, developed by Ed Diener of the University of

Notes1 In this paper, the term “Aboriginal” is generally used to

refer to First Nations, Inuit and Métis. In this, I followaccepted Canadian usage as well as the definition insection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The appear-ance of other terms, such as “Indian” or “native,”reflects usage in certain official documents and quota-tions from some of the authors reviewed. I haverefrained from using the term “Indigenous,” which usu-ally refers to Aboriginal peoples in the context of inter-national organizations and political movements.

2 On May 22, 2006, the Committee on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights of the United Nations Economicand Social Council released its assessment of Canada’sfourth and fifth periodic reports on the implementationof the International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights. The committee expressed serious con-cerns about the social and economic well-being ofAboriginal people in Canada — notably, the fact that“significant disparities still remain between Aboriginalpeople and the rest of the population in areas ofemployment, access to water, health, housing and edu-cation,” and that “the long-standing issues of discrimi-nation against First Nations women and their children,in matters relating to Indian status, Band membershipand matrimonial property on reserve lands have stillnot been resolved,” much to the detriment of “theenjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights ofFirst Nations women and their children under theCovenant.” The committee also noted with someunease that, despite the state’s commitment to refrainfrom resorting to the extinguishment of Aboriginalrights and titles, Canada’s current approaches to landclaims “do not differ much from the extinguishmentand surrender approach” (United Nations 2006, 4).

In 2004, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the SpecialRapporteur of the United Nations Human RightsCommission, presented a report on the condition ofAboriginal people in Canada that was equally trou-bling. Following fact-finding missions in May 2003and May 2004, Stavenhagen concluded that muchwork remains to be done to improve the social, eco-nomic and environmental conditions of Aboriginalpeople in Canada: “Poverty, infant mortality, unem-ployment, morbidity, suicide, criminal detention, chil-dren on welfare, women victims of abuse, childprostitution, are all much higher among Aboriginalpeople than in any other sector of Canadian society,whereas educational attainment, health standards,housing conditions, family income, access to economicopportunity and to social services are generally lower”(United Nations 2004, 2). The Special Rapporteur alsoargued that Canada has disregarded the socioeconomicobjectives to which it is committed under internationalhuman law.

3 The best known of these is the federal government’sGathering Strength: Canada’s Aboriginal Action Plan(Canada 1997), released in direct response to the reportof the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In it

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

30

reverse. Their discourse is a minority, outsider discourse.They clearly distrust established governing elites…Theconstitution is now the central arena within which thegroups of an increasingly plural society defined, interalia, by gender, ethnicity, and language vie with eachother for recognition and acceptance. That competitionunderlines the dissensus in Canada over the criteria tobe employed which, in turn, has the effect of makingparticular constitutional outcomes unstable. Canadianshave stumbled into a constitutional game without hav-ing agreed on the rules to govern the competition orthe norms that the results are to serve. (1988, S139-S140, S-138)

10 As one early document of the Policy ResearchInitiative (PRI) notes: “[A]s we approach the 21st centu-ry, our sense of common purpose is being eroded by anumber of trends, some within the federal govern-ment’s control, others outside it. Our research indicatesthat these trends, if not recognized and dealt with overthe next few years, could fragment and polarize oursociety, put individuals and communities under pres-sure and undermine the consensus that has under-pinned social cohesion in the country for most of thepast century” (Policy Research Initiative 1996, 1). ThePRI was created in 1996 to enhance the policy capaci-ty of the federal government, and brought togethermost of the key policy and research outfits of the statein a collective and focused effort to identify and actupon important social and economic issues likely toaffect the future of Canada.

11 Some estimate that, “in any given year, the Aboriginalpolicy agenda accounts for anywhere from 10 to 30percent of Parliament’s time, and litigation cases per-taining to Aboriginal issues have no rival in terms ofthe dollar amount in contingent liability that is at riskto the Crown” (Beavon, White, and Maxim 2004, 1:2).

12 This actually seldom happens; see Rodon (2003). 13 Funding is regularly extended and opportunities have

been created through Indian and Northern AffairsCanada, Human Resources Development Canada,Canadian Heritage and several other federal govern-ment agencies to help band and tribal councils meetthe demands of program management and equip themembers of their communities with the necessary skillsand education to adjust to labour market imperativesand to take control of their own community economicdevelopment. For an overview of key programs, seeNewhouse, Fitzmaurice, and Belanger (2005).

14 CANDO was founded in 1990 by economic develop-ment officers (EDOs) from across Canada to provide anational body to focus on the training, education andnetworking opportunities necessary to serve their com-munities and/or organizations as professionals.CANDO is Aboriginal controlled, community basedand membership driven, and is directed by a national,regionally represented volunteer board of electedEDOs. CANDO’s stated mission includes, among otherobjectives, building capacity both for individualsengaged in economic development and for the com-munity; actively supporting community economicdevelopment initiatives toward strong, competitive andself-sustaining Aboriginal economies; and providing

Illinois; and the Index of Social Progress, developed byRichard Estes of the University of Pennsylvania.Finally, Sharpe reviews three other indexes that pro-vide estimates of trends in well-being for Canadianprovinces and communities: the Quality of Life Index,developed by the Ontario Social Development Council;the Ottawa-Carleton Quality of Life Index, developedby the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton,and the BC Stats Index of Regional Indicators. The twosets of social indicators he surveys are the Quality ofLife Template, developed by the Canadian Federationof Municipalities, and the Oregon Benchmarks, devel-oped by the Oregon Progress Board.

5 Among these are the Ryerson Social ReportingNetwork’s Structural Exclusion Index (Burke andShields 2000) and the Economic Freedom for the Restof Us Index (Brown and Stanford 2000), which havebeen devised to better reflect the structural vulnerabili-ty to which Canadians’ standard of living and sourcesof income are exposed, as well as Alberta’s GenuineProgress Indicator (GPI) Sustainability Circle, GPIAtlantic and Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness(Findlay and Russell 2005), which put community val-ues at the centre of considerations of well-being.

6 See the Web site of the Quality of Life Research Unit:http://www.utoronto.ca/qol/concepts.htm

7 Good examples of such references are Four WorldsInternational Institute (n.d.) and Mussell (2005).

8 The literature reviewed here includes almost exclusive-ly works published in English. I chose to do so deliber-ately, in part for reasons of space, as the literature onAboriginal people produced in French by Quebecscholars and researchers is as important as, if not morevoluminous than, its anglophone counterpart, but alsobecause questions related to Aboriginal quality of lifedo not figure as prominently or as explicitly in Quebecas in the rest of Canada. In order to maintain coher-ence, I opted to focus only on the English-Canadianliterature that directly addresses Aboriginal quality oflife. It would be instructive eventually to examine bothQuebec and English-Canadian scholarship onAboriginal people in comparative perspective. SeeTremblay and Lévesque (1993); Lévesque (2002).

9 In his 1988 diagnosis of the debacle of the Meech LakeAccord, Alan Cairns wrote:

The bitterness and passion that inform the presenta-tions of the numerous groups objecting to the Accordare not based on a narrow instrumental calculation ofits effects on the future flow of material benefits. Theiranger is not driven by the fear of tangible gains fore-gone, but by a more complex battery of emotions. Therepresentatives of women’s groups, of aboriginals, ofvisible minorities, of supporters of multiculturalism,along with northerners and basic defenders of theCharter employ the vocabulary of personal and groupidentity, of being included or excluded, of being accept-ed or being treated as an outsider, of being treated withrespect as a worthy participant or being cast into theaudience as a spectator as one’s fate is being decidedby others. They employ the language of status — theyare insulted, wounded, hurt, offended, bypassed, notinvited, ignored, left out, and shunted aside. They evalu-ate their treatment through the lens of pride, dignity,honour, propriety, legitimacy, and recognition — or their

31

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eand facilitating educational and training opportunities(see CANDO’s Web site at http://www.edo.ca).

15 The journal’s current editorial board includes Robert B.Anderson, Faculty of Administration, University ofRegina; David Newhouse, Department of NativeStudies, Trent University; Robert Oppenheimer, JohnMolson School of Business, Concordia University;Frank Tough, School of Native Studies, University ofAlberta; Fred Wien, Maritime School of Social Work,Dalhousie University; Yale Belanger, Department ofNative American Studies, University of Lethbridge;Warren Weir, MBA Indigenous ManagementSpecialization, College of Commerce, University ofSaskatchewan; and Wanda Wuttunee, Native Studiesand Aboriginal Business Education Program, I.H. AsperSchool of Business, University of Manitoba.

16 Despite its commitment in principle to recognizingAboriginal and treaty rights (as per the ConstitutionAct, 1982) and the inherent right of Aboriginal peoplesto self-government (as in Canada 1997), the Canadianstate regularly backs away from fully implementingthis commitment. In Van der Peet (1996), for example,the Supreme Court of Canada imposed restrictive crite-ria for the recognition of Aboriginal rights, in effectlimiting to Eurocentric norms the application of thoserights (see Barsh and Henderson 1997). The 2002 FirstNations Governance Act, though it died on the orderpaper, was a clear attempt to enforce greater manage-rial accountability on band councils and restrainAboriginal self-government (see Ladner and Orsini2005). More recently, in June 2006, the Harper govern-ment refused to ratify the United Nations DraftDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, whichproclaims, among other things, the right of Indigenouspeoples to self-determination.

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

32

Beavon, Dan, Jerry White, and Paul Maxim. 2004.“Introduction.” In Aboriginal Policy Research: Settingthe Agenda for Change, vol. 1, edited by Jerry P.White, Paul Maxim, and Dan Beavon. Toronto:Thompson Educational Publishing.

Bennett, Marilyn, and Cindy Blackstock. 2002. A LiteratureReview and Annotated Bibliography Focusing onAspects of Aboriginal Child Welfare in Canada. Ottawa:First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.

Bhabha, Homi. 1990. “The Third Space: Interview withHomi Bhabha.” In Identity: Community, Culture,Difference, edited by Jonathan Rutherford. London:Lawrence and Wishart.

Blackstock, Cindy, Sarah Clarke, James Cullen, JeffreyD’Hondt, and Jocelyn Fromsma. 2004. Keeping thePromise: The Convention on the Rights of the Childand the Lived Experience of First Nations Children andYouth. Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family CaringSociety of Canada.

Borrows, John. 2002. Recovering Canada: The Resurgence ofIndigenous Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” InHandbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology ofEducation, edited by J. Richardson. New York:Greenwood Press.

_____. 1993. Sociology in Question. London: Sage.Briggs, J.L. 1985. “Socialization, Family Conflicts and

Responses to Culture Change among Canadian Inuit.”Arctic Medical Research 40: 40-52.

Brown, Amanda, and Jim Stanford. 2000. Flying without aNet: The “Economic Freedom” of Working Canadiansin 2000. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for PolicyAlternatives.

Burke, Mike, and John Shields. 2000. “Tracking Inequalityin the Canadian Labour Market.” In Restructuring andResistance: Canadian Public Policy in an Age of GlobalCapitalism, edited by Mike Burke, Colin Mooers, andJohn Shields. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Cairns, Alan C. 1988. “Citizens (Outsiders) andGovernments (Insiders) in Constitution-Making: TheCase of Meech Lake.” Canadian Public Policy 14 (sup-plement): S121-45.

_____. 2000. Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and theCanadian State. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press.

Canada. 1969. Statement of the Government of Canada onIndian Policy. Presented to Parliament by the Hon.Jean Chrétien, Minister of Indian Affairs and NorthernDevelopment. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs.

_____. 1996. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.Report, 4 vols. Ottawa.

_____. 1997. Minister of Indian Affairs and NorthernDevelopment. Gathering Strength: Canada’s AboriginalAction Plan. Ottawa: Public Works and GovernmentServices Canada.

Cardinal, Harold. 1969. The Unjust Society. Edmonton:M.G. Hurtig.

__________. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians.Edmonton: Hurtig Publishers.

ReferencesAbele, Frances. 2004. Urgent Need, Serious Opportunity:

Towards a New Social Model for Canada’s AboriginalPeoples. CPRN Social Architecture Papers, ResearchReport F39. Ottawa: Canadian Policy ResearchNetworks.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Christina Gabriel. 2002. SellingDiversity: Immigration, Multiculturalism, EmploymentEquity, and Globalization. Peterborough, ON:Broadview Press.

Adelson, Naomi. 1998. “Health Beliefs and the Politics ofCree Well-Being.” Health 2 (1): 5-22.

_____. 2000a. ‘Being Alive Well’: Health and the Politics ofCree Well-Being. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

_____. 2000b. “Re-imagining Aboriginality: An IndigenousPeoples’ Response to Social Suffering.” TransculturalPsychiatry 37 (1): 11-34.

Alberta. 2000. Strengthening Relationships: TheGovernment of Alberta’s Aboriginal Policy Framework.Edmonton: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs andNorthern Development.

Alfred, Taiaiake. 2000. “Of White Heroes and Old MenTalking.” Eastern Door 9: 19.

_____. 2004. “Warrior Scholarship: Seeing the University asa Ground of Contention.” In Indigenizing theAcademy: Transforming Scholarship and EmpoweringCommunities, edited by Devon Abbott Mihesuah andAngela Cavender Wilson. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.

_____. 2005. Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action andFreedom. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Alfred, Taiaiake, and Jeff Corntassel. 2005. “Being Indigenous:Resurgence against Contemporary Colonialism.”Government and Opposition 40 (4): 597-614.

Allard, Jean. 2002. “Big Bear’s Treaty: The Road toFreedom.” Inroads 11: 111-71.

Archibald, Linda. 2006. Decolonization and Healing:Indigenous Experiences in the United States, NewZealand, Australia and Greenland. Ottawa: AboriginalHealing Foundation.

Assembly of First Nations. 2004. First Nations HealthAction Plan. Ottawa: Assembly of First Nations.

Aubry, Jack. 2006. “Canadians Wary of First NationsEntitlements.” Gazette (Montreal), July 19, A11.

Bannerji, Himani. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation.Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Baron, Stephen, John Field, and Tom Schuller. 2000. SocialCapital: Critical Perspectives. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Barsh, Russell, and James Youngblood Henderson. 1997.“The Supreme Court’s Van der Peet Trilogy: NaïveImperialism and Ropes of Sand.” McGill Law Journal42 (4): 993-1009.

Beavon, Dan, and Martin Cooke. 2003. “An Application ofthe United Nations Human Development Index toRegistered Indians in Canada, 1996.” In AboriginalConditions: Research as a Foundation for PublicPolicy, edited by Jerry P. White, Paul S. Maxim, andDan Beavon. Vancouver: UBC Press.

33

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eElias, Brenda, and John O’Neil. 2004. “The Politics of Trust

and Participation: A Case Study in Developing FirstNations and University Capacity to Build HealthInformation Systems in a First Nations Context.” Journalof Aboriginal Health (January): 68-78.

Findlay, Isobel M., and John D. Russell. 2005. “AboriginalEconomic Development and the Triple Bottom Line:Toward a Sustainable Future?” Journal of AboriginalEconomic Development 4 (2): 84-99.

Fine, Ben. 2001. Social Capital Versus Social Theory: PoliticalEconomy and Social Science at the Turn of theMillennium. London: Routledge.

Fiss, Tanis. 2002. The Lost Century: Moving Aboriginal Policyfrom the 19th Century to the 21st Century. Victoria, BC:Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Centre for AboriginalPolicy Change. Accessed June 1, 2006.www.taxpayer.com.

_____. 2004. Apartheid: Canada’s Ugly Secret. Victoria, BC:Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Centre for AboriginalPolicy Change. Accessed June 1, 2006.www.taxpayer.com.

_____. 2005a. Dividing Canada: The Pitfalls of NativeSovereignty. Victoria, BC: Canadian TaxpayersFederation, Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change.Accessed June 1, 2006. www.taxpayer.com.

_____. 2005b. Road to Prosperity: Five Steps to ChangeAboriginal Policy. Victoria, BC: Canadian TaxpayersFederation, Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change.Accessed June 1, 2006. www.taxpayer.com.

Fixico, Donald L. 2003. The American Indian Mind in aLinear World. New York: Routledge.

Flanagan, Tom. 2000. First Nations? Second Thoughts.Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Four Worlds International Institute. n.d. Community Healingand Aboriginal Social Security Reform. Accessed May14, 2006. www.4worlds.org.

Graham, Katherine A.H., and Evelyn Peters. 2002. “AboriginalCommunities and Urban Sustainability.” DiscussionPaper F27. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Green, Joyce. 1995. “Toward a Detente with History:Confronting Canada’s Colonial Legacy.” InternationalJournal of Canadian Studies 12: 85-105.

_____. 2003. “Decolonization and Recolonization in Canada.”In Changing Canada: Political Economy asTransformation, edited by Wallace Clement and Leah F.Vosko. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

_____. 2005. “Self-Determination, Citizenship andFederalism: Indigenous and Canadian Palimpsest.” InReconfiguring Aboriginal-State Relations, edited byMichael Murphy. Kingston, ON; Montreal: Institute ofIntergovernmental Relations/McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress.

Hawthorn, H.B., ed. 1966. A Survey of the ContemporaryIndians of Canada: Economic, Political, EducationalNeeds and Policies. Ottawa: Indian Affairs Branch.

Helliwell, John F. 2005. “Well-Being, Social Capital andPublic Policy: What’s New?” NBER Working Paper 11807.Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Accessed May 13, 2006. www.nber.org/papers/w11807

Chandler, Michael, and Christopher Lalonde. 1998.“Cultural Continuity as a Hedge against Suicide inCanada’s First Nations.” Transcultural Psychiatry 35(2): 191-219.

_____. 2004. “Culture, Selves, and Time: Theories of PersonalPersistence in Native and Non-Native Youth.” In ChangingConceptions of the Psychological Life, edited by CynthiaLightfoot, Christopher Lalonde, and Michael Chandler.Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum and Associates.

_____. Forthcoming. “Cultural Continuity as a Moderator ofSuicide Risk among Canada’s First Nations.” In TheMental Health of Canadian Aboriginal Peoples:Transformations, Identity, and Community, edited byLaurence Kirmayer and Gail Valaskakis. Vancouver:University of British Columbia Press.

Chataway, Cynthia. 2002. “Successful Development inAboriginal Communities: Does It Depend upon aParticular Process?” Journal of Aboriginal EconomicDevelopment 3 (1): 76-88.

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation ofHuman Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94(supplement): 95-120.

Cooke, Martin, Dan Beavon, and Mindy McHardy. 2004.“Measuring the Well-Being of Aboriginal People: AnApplication of the United Nations HumanDevelopment Index to Registered Indians in Canada,1981-2001.” In Aboriginal Policy Research: Setting theAgenda for Change, vol. 1, edited by Jerry P. White,Paul Maxim, and Dan Beavon. Toronto: ThompsonEducational Publishing.

Cornell, Stephen, and Joseph Kalt. 1992. “Reloading theDice: Improving the Chances of EconomicDevelopment on American Indian Reservations.” InWhat Can Tribes Do? Strategies and Institutions inAmerican Indian Economic Development, edited byStephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt. Los Angeles:University of California at Los Angeles, AmericanIndian Studies Center.

_____. 1998. “Sovereignty and Nation-Building: TheDevelopment Challenge in Indian Country.” AmericanIndian Culture and Research Journal 22 (3): 187-214.

_____. 2000. “Where Is the Glue? Institutional and CulturalFoundations of American Indian Economic Development.”Journal of Socio-Economics 29 (5): 443-70.

Dion-Stout, Madeleine, and Gregory Kipling. 2003.Aboriginal People, Resilience and the ResidentialLegacy. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 1997. Quaqtaq: Modernity andIdentity in an Inuit Community. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

Dossa, Parin A. 1989. “Quality of Life: Individualism orHolism? A Critical Review of the Literature.” InternationalJournal of Rehabilitation Research 12 (2): 121-36.

Dowling, Christina. 2005. “The Applied Theory of FirstNations Economic Development: A Critique.” Journalof Aboriginal Economic Development 4 (2): 120-28.

Duran, Eduardo, and Bonnie Duran. 1995. Native AmericanPostcolonial Psychology. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

34

_____. 2005. “The Persistence of Paradigm Paralysis: TheFirst Nations Governance Act as the Continuation ofColonial Policy.” In Canada: The State of theFederation 2003: Reconfiguring Aboriginal-StateRelations, edited by Michael Murphy. Kingston, ON:Institute of Intergovernmental Relations and McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Lalonde, Christopher. Forthcoming. “Identity Formation andCultural Resilience in Aboriginal Communities.” InPromoting Resilience in Child Welfare, edited by R.J.Flynn, P. Dudding, and J. Barber. Ottawa: University ofOttawa Press.

Lawrence, Bonita. 2002. “Rewriting Histories of the Land:Colonization and Indigenous Resistance in EasternCanada.” In Race, Space and the Law: Unmapping aWhite Settler Society, edited by Sherene H. Razack.Toronto: Between the Lines.

_____. 2004. “Real” Indians and Others: Mixed-BloodUrban Native Peoples and Indigenous Nationhood.Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Lemchuk-Favel, Laurel, and Richard Jock. 2004. “AboriginalHealth Systems in Canada: Nine Case Studies.” Journalof Aboriginal Health (January): 28-51.

Lévesque, Carole. 2002. “La culture entre mémoire et sens :parcours de l’anthropologie amérindianiste québé-coise.” In Traité de la culture, edited by DeniseLemieux. Quebec City: Presses de l’Université Lavaland les Éditions de l’IQRC.

Maaka, Roger, and Augie Fleras. 2005. The Politics ofIndigeneity: Challenging the State in Canada andAotearoa New Zealand. Dunedin: University of OtagoPress.

Macklem, Patrick. 2002. Indigenous Difference and theConstitution of Canada. Toronto: University of TorontoPress.

Manson, S., J. Beals, T. O’Nell, J. Piasecki, D. Bechtold, andE. Keane. 1996. “Wounded Spirits, Ailing Hearts: PTSDand Related Disorders among American Indians.” InEthnocultural Aspects of Post-Traumatic StressDisorders: Issues, Research and Clinical Applications,edited by A.J. Marsella, M.J. Friedman, E.T. Gerrity,and R.M. Scurfield. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Memmi, Albert. 1965. The Colonizer and the Colonized.New York: Orion.

Michalski, Joseph H. 2001. Asking Citizens What Mattersfor Quality of Life in Canada: Results of CPRN’s PublicDialogue Process October 2000. Ottawa: CanadianPolicy Research Networks. Accessed May 12, 2006.www.cprn.org/en/doc.cfm?doc=90.

_____. 2002. Quality of Life in Canada: A Citizen’s ReportCard. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.Accessed May 12, 2006. www.cprn.org/en/doc.cfm?doc=47

Miller, J.R. 1996. Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of NativeResidential Schools. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Miller-Chenier, Nancy. 1995. Suicide among AboriginalPeople: Royal Commission Report. Document MR-131E. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, Research Branch.

Helliwell, John F., and Robert Putnam. 2004. “The SocialContext of Well-Being.” Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society of London, Series B 359: 1435-46.

Hunt, Janet. 2005. “Capacity Development in theInternational Development Context: Implications forIndigenous Australia.” Discussion Paper 278/2005.Canberra: Australian National University, Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy Research.

Hunter, Boyd. 2004. “Taming the Social Capital Hydra?Indigenous Poverty, Social Capital and Measurement.”Canberra: Australian National University, Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy Research.

Huppert, Felicia, and Nick Baylis. 2004. “Well-Being:Towards an Integration of Psychology, Neurobiologyand Social Science.” Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society of London, Series B 359: 1447-51.

Institute on Governance. n.d. Developing Capacity forProgram Management: Summary of the Conclusions ofthe Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. AccessedMay 28, 2006. www.iog.ca/publications/devcapeng.pdf

Kirmayer, Laurence J. 1996a. “Confusion of the Senses:Implications of Ethnocultural Variations inSomatoform and Dissociative Disorders for PTSD.” InEthnocultural Aspects of Post-Traumatic StressDisorders: Issues, Research and Clinical Applications,edited by A.J. Marsella, M.J. Friedman, E.T. Gerrity,and R.M. Scurfield. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

_____. 1996b. “Landscapes of Memory: Trauma, Narrativeand Dissociations.” In Tense Past: Cultural Essays onMemory and Trauma, edited by P. Antze and M.Lambek. London: Routledge.

Kirmayer, Laurence J., Lucy Boothroyd, and S. Hodgins. 1998.“Attempted Suicide among Inuit Youth: PsychosocialCorrelates and Implications for Prevention.” CanadianJournal of Psychiatry 43 (8): 816-27.

Kirmayer, Laurence J., Gregory M. Brass, and Caroline Tait.2000. “The Mental Health of Aboriginal Peoples:Transformations of Identity and Community.”Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 45 (7): 607-16.

Kirmayer, Laurence J., Christopher Fletcher, and LucyBoothroyd. 1998. “Suicide among the Inuit of Canada.”In Suicide in Canada, edited by A. Leenars and R.Bland. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Kirmayer, Laurence J., M. Malus, and Lucy Boothroyd.1996. “Suicide Attempts among Inuit Youth: ACommunity Survey of Prevalence and Risk Factors.”Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 94 (1): 8-17.

Labelle, Micheline, and Daniel Salée. 1999. “La citoyennetéen question : l’État canadien face à l’immigration et àla diversité nationale et culturelle.” Sociologie etsociétés 31 (2): 125-44.

Ladner, Kiera. 2005. “Up the Creek: Fishing for a NewConstitutional Order.” Canadian Journal of PoliticalScience 38 (4): 923-53.

Ladner, Kiera, and Michael Orsini. 2004. “De l’“inférioriténégociée” à l’“inutilité de négocier” : la Loi sur la gou-vernance des Premières Nations et le maintien de lapolitique coloniale.” Politique et sociétés 23 (1): 59-87.

35

Qu

ality

of L

ife o

f Ab

orig

ina

l Pe

op

le in

Ca

na

da

, by

Da

nie

l Sa

lée

, with

the

assista

nc

e o

f Da

vid

Ne

wh

ou

se a

nd

Ca

role

Lé

ve

squ

eAboriginal Peoples to Canadian Identity and Culture, edit-ed by David Newhouse, Cora Voyageur, and DanielBeavon. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Portes, Alejandro. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origin andApplications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review ofSociology 24: 1-24.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse andRevival of American Community. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Razack, Sherene H. 2002. “Gendered Racial Violence andSpatialized Justice: The Murder of Pamela George.” InRace, Space and the Law: Unmapping a White SettlerSociety, edited by Sherene H. Razack. Toronto: Betweenthe Lines.

Richards, John. 2003. “A New Agenda for StrengtheningCanada’s Aboriginal Population: Individual TreatyBenefits, Reduced Transfers to Bands and Own-SourceTaxation.” C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder 66.Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

_____. 2006. Creating Choices: Rethinking Aboriginal Policy.Policy Study 43. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Rodon, Thierry. 2003. En partenariat avec l’État: les expéri-ences de cogestion des Autochtones du Canada. QuebecCity: Presses de l’Université Laval.

Rotman, Leonard. 2001. “Book Review of First Nations?Second Thoughts.” Isuma: Canadian Journal of PolicyResearch 2 (1): 130-33.

Salway Black, Sherry. 1994. Redefining Success inCommunity Development. Richard Schramm Paper onCommunity Development. Boston: Tufts University,Lincoln Filene Center. Accessed May 10, 2006.www.firstnations.org/publications/Redefiningsuccess.pdf

Sharpe, Andrew. 2000. “A Survey of Indicators of Economicand Social Well-Being.” Background paper. Ottawa:Canadian Policy Research Networks. Accessed May 12,2006. www.cprn.org/en/doc.cfm?doc=85

Shewell, Hugh. 2004. “Enough to Keep Them Alive”: IndianWelfare in Canada, 1873-1965. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

Siggner, Andrew J., and Rosalinda Costa. 2005. AboriginalConditions in Census Metropolitan Areas, 1981-2001.Cat. 89-613-MIE, no. 008. Ottawa: Statistics Canada,Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division.

Smith, Melvin H. 1995. Our Home or Native Land? WhatGovernments’ Aboriginal Policy Is Doing to Canada.Victoria, BC: Crown Western.

Stairs, A. 1992. “Self-Image, World-Image: Speculations onIdentity from Experiences with Inuit.” Ethos 20 (1):116-26.

Tremblay, Marc-Adélard, and Carole Lévesque. 1993. Lesétudes québécoises en sciences sociales sur les peuplesautochtones du Nord, 1960-1989. Quebec City:Université Laval, Groupe d’études inuit et circumpolaires.

Tully, James.1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism inan Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

United Nations. 2004. Report of Rodolfo Stavenhagen, SpecialRapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People — Mission

Mitchell, Terry L., and Dawn T. Maracle. 2005. “Healing theGenerations: Post-Traumatic Stress and the HealthStatus of Aboriginal Populations in Canada.” Journalof Aboriginal Health (March): 14-23.

Monture-Angus, Patricia. 1999. Journeying Forward:Dreaming First Nations’ Independence. Halifax, NS:Fernwood Publishing.

Mowbray, Martin. 2005. “What Matters? Policy DrivenEvidence, Indigenous Government and the HarvardProject.” Paper presented at the Australian SocialPolicy Conference, University of New South Wales,Sydney, July 20-25. Accessed May 23, 2006.www.sprc1.sprc.unsw.edu.au/aspc2005/abstract.asp?PaperID=25

Mussell, W.J. 2005. Warrior-Caregivers: Understanding theChallenges and Healing of First Nations Men. Ottawa:Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Nair, G. 2003. “Nurturing Capacity in Developing Countries:From Consensus to Practice.” Capacity EnhancementBriefs, no. 1. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute.

Newhouse, David. 2000. “Modern Aboriginal Economies.Capitalism with a Red Face.” Journal of AboriginalEconomic Development 1 (2): 55-61.

_____. 2001. “Resistance Is Futile: Aboriginal Peoples Meetthe Borg of Capitalism.” Journal of AboriginalEconomic Development 2 (1): 75-82.

_____. 2004. “The Challenges of Aboriginal EconomicDevelopment in the Shadow of the Borg.” Journal ofAboriginal Economic Development 4 (1): 34-42.

Newhouse, David, Kevin Fitzmaurice, and Yale D. Belanger.2005. “Creating a Seat at the Table: AboriginalProgramming at Canadian Heritage: A RetrospectiveStudy for Canadian Heritage.” Peterborough, ON: TrentUniversity, Department of Native Studies.

Newhouse, David, and Evelyn Peters. 2003. Not Strangersin These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa:Policy Research Initiative.

O’Donnell, Vivian, and Heather Tait. 2004. “Well-Being ofthe Non-Reserve Aboriginal Population.” CanadianSocial Trends (Statistics Canada) 72 (Spring): 19-23.

O’Sullivan, Erin, and Mindy McHardy. 2004. The CommunityWell-Being (CWB) Index: Disparity in Well-Beingbetween First Nations and Other Canadian Communitiesover Time. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate.

Papillon, Martin, and Gina Cosentino. 2004. Lessons fromAbroad: Towards a New Social Model for Canada’sAboriginal Peoples. CPRN Social Architecture Papers,Research Report F40. Ottawa: Canadian PolicyResearch Networks.

Pelletier, Clotilde (with the collaboration of Carole Laurin).1993. État des lieux : violence et santé mentale chezles Autochtones du Québec. Montreal: Centre derecherche et d’analyse en sciences humaines.

Policy Research Initiative. 1996. Report on Growth, HumanDevelopment and Social Cohesion. Ottawa.

Ponting, J. Rick, and Cora J. Voyageur. 2005. “Multiple Pointsof Light: Grounds for Optimism among First Nations inCanada.” In Hidden in Plain Sight: Contributions of

IRP

P C

ho

ice

s, V

ol.

12

, n

o.

6,

No

ve

mb

er

20

06

36

to Canada. Geneva: Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights.

_____. 2006. Consideration of Reports Submitted by StatesParties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant.Geneva: United Nations Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights, Economic and SocialCouncil.

Waldram, James B. 1997. “The Aboriginal People ofCanada: Colonialism and Mental Health.” In Ethnicity,Immigration and Psychopathology, edited by I. Al-Issaand M. Tousignant. New York: Plenum Press.

Waldram, James B., D. Ann Herring, and T. Kue Young.1995. Aboriginal Health in Canada: Historical,Cultural, and Epidemiological Perspectives. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.

Warry, Wayne. 1998. Unfinished Dreams: CommunityHealing and the Reality of Aboriginal Self-Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wesley-Esquimaux, Cynthia, and Magdalena Smolewski.2004. Historic Trauma and Aboriginal Healing. Ottawa:Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

White, Jerry P. 2003. “Introduction: The Focus ofAboriginal Conditions.” In Aboriginal Conditions:Research as a Foundation for Public Policy, edited byJerry P. White, Paul S. Maxim, and Dan Beavon.Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

White, Jerry P., and Paul S. Maxim. 2003. “Social Capital,Social Cohesion, and Population Outcomes in Canada’sFirst Nations Communities.” In Aboriginal Conditions:Research as a Foundation for Public Policy, edited byJerry P. White, Paul S. Maxim, and Dan Beavon.Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

White, Jerry P., Paul S. Maxim, and Dan Beavon, eds. 2003.Aboriginal Conditions: Research as a Foundation forPublic Policy. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press.

_____. 2004. Aboriginal Policy Research: Setting theAgenda for Change. 2 vols. Toronto: ThompsonEducational Publishing.

Woolcock, Michael. 2001. “The Place of Social Capital inUnderstanding Social and Economic Outcomes.” Isuma:Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2 (1): 11-17.

Wuttunee, Wanda. 2004a. “Business Mind of the EconomicWarrior.” Journal of Aboriginal EconomicDevelopment 4 (2): 68-72.

_____. 2004b. Living Rhythms: Lessons in AboriginalEconomic Resilience and Vision. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

York, Geoffrey. 1990. The Dispossessed: Life and Death inNative Canada. Boston: Little, Brown.

Zagon, Sandra. 2001. Indicators of Quality of Life inCanada: A Citizens’ Prototype. Ottawa: CanadianPolicy Research Networks. Accessed May 12, 2006.www.cprn.org/en/doc.cfm?doc=91

_____. 2002. Quality of Life in Canada: A Citizens’ ReportCard. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.Accessed May 12, 2006. www.cprn.org/en/doc.cfm?doc=44

37

men de la littérature pour dresser une analyse critique dela portée des recherches et de certaines de leurs limites.L’auteur fait notamment remarquer qu’on n’a pas accordéassez d’attention à la dimension politique de la qualité devie des Autochtones. Il recommande que les futuresrecherches consacrées à cette question s’efforcent decomprendre les liens qui existent entre la lenteur del’amélioration des conditions socioéconomiques desAutochtones et les obstacles politiques qui entravent laréalisation de progrès véritables.

L es questions relatives à la qualité de vie et au bien-être des Autochtones du Canada occupent une placede plus en plus importante parmi les priorités de la

politique publique. Depuis la publication du rapport de laCommission royale sur les peuples autochtones il y a unedizaine d’années, le gouvernement fédéral et la plupartdes provinces ont formulé et mis en œuvre divers pro-grammes et plans d’action visant à offrir des réparationset à améliorer les conditions de vie et le bien-être généraldes Autochtones, tant au niveau communautaire qu’indi-viduel. Cela a entraîné la mobilisation, directe ou indi-recte, d’un large éventail d’experts et de chercheurs dansdivers domaines des sciences sociales et humaines et dessciences de la vie, pour se pencher sur l’ensemble desenjeux liés à la question de la qualité de vie et du bien-être des Autochtones. Malgré la quantité impressionnantede connaissances accumulées jusqu’à présent au sujet dela nature des problèmes et des défis à relever, les respon-sables politiques restent aux prises avec les disparitéssocioéconomiques considérables qui perdurent entreAutochtones et non-Autochtones.

Dans ce contexte, l’Institut de recherche en politiquespubliques vient de lancer un nouveau programme derecherche consacré à la qualité de vie des Autochtones duCanada. Le présent document, qui constitue la premièreétape de ce programme, trace un bilan de l’état actuel desconnaissances relatives aux principaux aspects de laqualité de vie et du bien-être des Autochtones, à certainesdes innovations qui aident à améliorer leurs conditions devie et aux liens entre la qualité de vie et la gouvernancedans les communautés autochtones. L’étude indiqueégalement quels domaines pourraient être approfondisdavantage et propose de nouvelles orientations pour larecherche en politiques publiques.

Dans la première partie, l’étude se penche sur lesnotions voisines de « qualité de vie » et de « bien-être »,qui font l’objet de définitions et d’explications variées etparfois contestées. Il importe de bien comprendre ces dé-finitions et explications, car elles ne sont pas sans mar-quer et influencer de diverses façons la littérature sur laqualité de vie des Autochtones. La deuxième partie, quiconstitue le cœur de l’étude, présente une synthèse danslaquelle sont identifiées et examinées quatre grandesapproches caractérisant la littérature sur la qualité de viedes Autochtones. La dernière partie s’inspire de cet exa-

Quality of Life of Aboriginal People in CanadaAn Analysis of Current Research

by Daniel Salée, with the assistance of David Newhouse andCarole Lévesque

Résumé

Quality of Life of Aboriginal People in CanadaAn Analysis of Current Research

by Daniel Salée, with the assistance of David Newhouse andCarole Lévesque

Summary

Q uestions pertaining to the quality of life andwell-being of Aboriginal people in Canada havebecome increasingly important priorities on the

policy agenda. Since the report of the Royal Commissionon Aboriginal Peoples was published a decade ago, boththe federal and most provincial governments have formu-lated and implemented initiatives and action plansdesigned precisely to offer redress and improve the livingconditions and general welfare of Aboriginal communi-ties and individuals. As a result, a wide variety of expert-ise and research capacity has been mobilized, bothdirectly and indirectly, across several fields of the socialsciences, the humanities and the life sciences, to examinethe many issues related to the quality of life and well-being of Aboriginal people. Yet, despite the impressiveamount of knowledge accumulated so far about thenature of the problems and the challenges, the policycommunity is still wrestling with the unrelenting persist-ence of appreciable socioeconomic disparities betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada.

In this context, the Institute for Research on PublicPolicy has launched a new research program on thequality of life of Aboriginal people in Canada. As thefirst step in this endeavour, this paper takes stock of thecurrent state of knowledge about the broad issues relatedto the quality of life and well-being of Aboriginal peo-ple, some of the innovations that are ameliorating theirliving conditions and the linkages between quality of lifeand governance in Aboriginal communities. The paperalso identifies the areas in which further explorationmight be needed, and proposes new directions for poli-cy-relevant research.

The first section considers the notion of “quality oflife” and the related concept of “well-being,” which arethe object of varied and sometimes contested definitionsand understandings. These need to be grasped, for theyinform and influence the literature on the quality of lifeof Aboriginal people in different ways. The second, coresection of the paper offers a synthesis that identifies andreviews four main approaches characterizing the litera-ture on Aboriginal quality of life. Finally, the last sectionweaves the threads of the literature review into a criticaldiscussion of the scope and some of the limitations ofthe research. It argues in particular that insufficientattention has been devoted to the politics of Aboriginal

quality of life and proposes that future research on thetopic should seek to understand the link between theslow pace of improvement of the socioeconomic condi-tions of Aboriginal people and the political obstacles toreal change.

38