Canadians have only just begun to grapple with the many challenges facing Aboriginal Peoples and First Nations in Canada. There is an urgent need for action to raise awareness of the historical reality and legacy of Canada’s colonial origins, the current social and economic conditions of Canada’s Aboriginal population, the numerous outstanding treaties and land claim negotiations, and the vast numbers of Aboriginal Peoples living off reserve who may not benefit from federal programs and do not have access to governance structures. Notwithstanding these stark realities, the federal Liberal government has, to date, implemented only a few of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

New Democrats understand and share the immense frustration of Aboriginal groups about the lack of meaningful progress toward implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In recent years, New Democratic governments have made great strides towards settling outstanding claims and finding new ways to work with Aboriginal governments. Recent land agreements, such as those reached with the Nisga’a and Sechelt peoples, are particularly significant, but there are many other achievements that should be acknowledged. Participants in our Yukon roundtable, for example, were proud of the partnerships that Aboriginal, municipal and territorial governments have developed. And the panel was reminded that the 1982 Constitutional package recognized Aboriginal rights only because the federal NDP Caucus succeeded in their fight to have Aboriginal rights included.

In our meeting with the Assembly of First Nations, National Chief Phil Fontaine emphasized that First Nations see themselves as "unique", as another government. Like the provinces, they want to exercise some jurisdictional control over programs and services. But the restoration of jurisdiction from the federal and provincial governments must still take place. First Nations don’t want to see offloading. Instead, they want clear definitions of responsibilities. The AFN wants the federal government to come forward with a policy statement recognizing First Nations as a legitimate form of government, with clearly defined responsibilities. A new fiscal relationship between the three levels of government also needs to be established.

Harry Daniels of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples pointed out some of the inequities in constitutional language regarding Aboriginal Peoples. Many Aboriginal People do not fall under the category of "First Nations"; they fall through the cracks in current constitutional language, despite what were thought to be gains made in previous constitutional negotiations. Another key problem that both Chief Fontaine and Harry Daniels identified is the refusal of federal and provincial governments to take responsibility for dealing with Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve. The federal government insists that they are a provincial responsibility. The provinces resist this, particularly as they are already suffering from massive cuts to transfer payments. Meanwhile, there are some serious problems that need to be addressed, especially in urban centres. "Our place in Canada is very fragile", said Daniels. "We’re caught up in the whims of governments". Despite this uncertainty, many First Nations and Aboriginal organizations are making significant efforts to address the many challenges facing Aboriginal Peoples living off reserve and in urban centres.

The New Democratic Party must work closely with Aboriginal groups to develop more comprehensive policies on Aboriginal issues, and to determine the best avenues for securing justice for Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. In this respect, our dialogue has just begun.

Participants in the Forum overwhelmingly expressed a desire to find a way to recognize Quebecers as a people. Most Forum participants were supportive of accommodations which would allow Québec an opportunity to opt out of Canada-wide social programs with compensation, largely because they see a great commitment to social democratic principles in Québec - a spirit of collective responsibility that stands as an example to the rest of Canada. There was a clear consensus supporting the NDP’s long-standing policy that Quebecers must determine their own future. As well, many participants agreed that English Canada has a responsibility to "accept the ways in which Québec enriches the rest of Canada" (Saanich-Gulf Islands Submission). One participant remarked, "the probability that cooperative federalism will ‘stick’ depends upon the protections offered by a social charter, and the unequivocal respect and sensitivity needed by other Canadians and their representatives." Prince Edward Island participants stated that

In Alberta, participants pointed out that English Canadians need to educate themselves about the importance of language to Quebecers - to break the barriers between provinces and between cultures in order to understand each other better.

Responsive Federalism must include a recognition, enshrined in the Constitution, of Quebecers as a people. Canada as a society has not yet found a form of words that would express this recognition in a meaningful way. We believe that these words must be found.

Canada is diverse in four distinct ways: Aboriginal Peoples; multiculturalism; two official languages; and the two immigrant societies that converge around each of these languages. The first three are already recognized in the Constitution. We are determined to find the best way of recognizing the fourth - that is, the reality of Canada as a dual immigrant society is at the heart of Quebecers’ existence as a people.

We call for a new understanding of what constitutes a people - one not based on the narrow confines of ethnicity but on the recognition that a community is united by shared values and common goals. Contemporary Québec society is dynamic and diverse, shaped and enriched by several waves of immigration from all corners of the globe as well as by the contribution of Aboriginal Peoples. As the centre of one of two linguistic societies to which immigrants to Canada have come to belong, Québec has a role in the federation that is different from that of all other provinces. Responsive federalism recognizes this, for example, by applying the principle of asymmetry to the development of a Social Union.

Forum participants overwhelmingly affirmed the New Democratic Party’s policy that the people of Québec have the right to decide, democratically, their own future. Although the NDP opposed the reference to the Supreme Court, the panel notes that the court’s judgement did in fact reinforce the long-standing NDP view that the future of Quebec within Canada is ultimately a political question and not a legal one.

Francophone communities outside Québec also face tremendous challenges in trying to preserve their culture. Cutbacks in the federal public service, the cancellation of federal programs and downloading to provinces and territories have meant a significant reduction in services to Francophones outside of Québec. These minority communities, however, have shown impressive determination to fight for their survival. As proof we offer the remarkable show of solidarity displayed by Ontarians - both Francophone and non-Francophone - as they rallied in convincing numbers last year to save the province’s only French-language teaching hospital.

The New Democratic Party has a proud history of defending linguistic minorities in Canada, both in Parliament and in provincial legislatures. In Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and British Columbia, NDP governments have adopted important legislation to protect and promote French language minority institutions: in some cases establishing French language school boards, in others setting up or expanding French language services.

NDP members of provincial legislatures have also fought tough battles to defend rights of French-speaking citizens in provinces where we have not yet formed government, such as Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We are proud to say that no other Canadian political party has such a consistent record of commitment to Francophone minority rights at the provincial, territorial and the federal level.

It is clear from Forum discussions that Canadians feel detached from the democratic process and from governments in general. There is a tremendous amount of cynicism about governments’ role in our society, and about governments’ ability to make Canadians’ lives better. Many feel that their vote does not make a difference, that citizens have no voice between elections, that politicians in general are untrustworthy. Participants of all ages expressed a great deal of concern about the lack of hope among young Canadians in particular.

This is a disturbing and destructive trend - particularly for New Democrats, who believe strongly in the democratic process and in the role of government. In democratic societies, electoral politics is the main avenue for building public institutions and programs that cradle the equality of citizens. With a weakening of these institutions and of the democratic culture that sustains them, individuals face a world of even greater inequality of power than exists now.

Many Forum participants commented on the important role of grassroots community organizations, advocacy groups, NGOs and coalitions - in other words, social movements - to enhance democracy and foster a commitment to the public good. The New Democratic Party is in a unique position to recognize and embrace this fact, given the Party’s formal recognition and relationship with the trade union movement, as well as the active participation of many members in community-based, provincial and national organizations. The NDP has elaborated on this issue in the report of the 1995 Renewal Process.

The growing cynicism about electoral politics has been exploited and fueled by powerful interests on the right, which have a clear motive in discrediting public institutions. Tragically, some of those active in advocacy groups that share our progressive goals have also grown cynical about electoral democracy. It is therefore an urgent task for all Canadians to work towards the revitalization of our democratic culture and institutions.

The task of revitalizing democracy in Canada is made all the more challenging by the threats posed to democratic institutions by international trade agreements. With trade rules that allow unaccountable tribunals to override the legitimate decisions of elected governments, and procedures that allow corporations to challenge governments as equals under trade rules, public institutions are losing ground to powerful private interests. The recent success of the campaign to stop the MAI, waged in Parliament by the NDP and in civil society by citizens’ organizations, shows that, together, we can fight back.

Panel members agree that Responsive Federalism must include a commitment to make our federal institutions more democratic and responsive to the realities of Canada’s federal character and its geographic and cultural communities. This reform would encompass the following four areas.

Electoral Reform: Many participants were firmly committed to implementing some form of proportional representation. Many advantages to some form of PR were suggested. In the present system, a majority of Canadians almost always vote for unsuccessful candidates. As a result, many feel they have "lost" their vote and are not represented in Parliament. This contributes to the sense of estrangement many Canadians have regarding Ottawa. A system of PR would increase the percentage of Canadians with someone in Ottawa who represented both their region and their political perspective. This would not only contribute to Canadians' sense that the House of Commons belonged to them, it would also reduce regional frictions. Most participants agreed that proportional representation would result in a more dynamic and equitable democracy in Canada.

While few participants were specific about which model of PR they favoured, there was clear consensus that the New Democratic Party should take this on as a major campaign. The Forum notes that a discussion paper has already been prepared and distributed within the New Democratic Party, and we look forward to a comprehensive policy proposal coming from the Sub-committee on Proportional Representation.

Senate: There was clear consensus that the current undemocratic Senate is unacceptable. Participants reaffirmed the Party’s traditional position that the current Senate must be abolished. There was no agreement, however, on whether it should be replaced. Bob Rae told the Forum that there is no federation in the world that does not have a second chamber. Many Forum participants felt that a house of sober second thought is important to keep the federal government accountable - it just shouldn’t be the second chamber we have now. Some participants advocated learning from the German , Indian or Irish examples.

Howard Pawley suggested that abolishing the Senate and electing 60 additional members to the House of Commons through proportional representation would be more appropriate than Senate reform. Some participants thought a constituent assembly might be a good alternative. It is significant that there were no advocates of the triple-E senate at Forum events.

Strengthening social movements: The importance of advocacy groups to protect and invigorate democracy in Canada and provide a voice for the voiceless has recently been demonstrated in Geneva, where advocacy groups presented an alternative report on Canada’s human rights record to a UN committee assessing our compliance with the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. As a result of the intervention of those groups, the committee condemned Canada for several violations of human rights by the federal Liberal government and by some provincial governments.

The Chrétien government has made it difficult for many groups to function. Changes to the funding mechanisms for social movement groups have put the future of many valuable organizations into question. Some provincial governments are also making changes that are stifling the voice of this important sector of our society. At a meeting with several advocacy groups (including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the National Farmer’s Union, the Canadian Federation of Students, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization) we heard a great deal about the impacts of the loss of core funding upon some organizations, and the effects that threats of changes have had on others. Participants in that meeting stated that, by undermining democratic organizations fighting for social and economic rights, the government was undermining democracy.

The Canadian Ethnocultural Council, an umbrella organization that includes about 30 national ethnocultural groups, pointed out that there must be a place for groups to participate as part of a civil society. It’s a way of leveling the playing field. The Council expressed concern about the increasingly narrow definition of equality and its impact on their communities. Equality shouldn’t mean treating everyone the same. According to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, it should mean ensuring that everyone is able to participate in a democratic society

Head of State: Somewhat surprisingly, the question of the future of the head of state resonated with many participants - although most feel that this is not a priority for Canadians at this time. A significant number of respondents suggested that Canada should begin the process of Canadianizing the head of state. But they advocated a cautious approach; one that, for example, involves keeping a close eye on Australia as that country undertakes its process of becoming a republic.

• a form of proportional representation that is appropriate for Canada - a system of proportional representation would contribute to Canadians' sense that the House of Commons belonged to them and would reduce regional frictions, resulting in a more dynamic and equitable democracy in Canada.
• the abolition of the existing undemocratic Senate - New Democrats maintain that the existing undemocatic Senate is unacceptable and must be abolished.
• strengthening the independent social movements - independent social movements protect and invigorate democracy in Canada. We must ensure that these groups are able to pursue their important role in building a better Canada.
• canadianizing the head of state -- Canada should begin to explore the possibility of Canadianizing the head of state. However, this is not a priority for Canadians at this time. We advocate a cautious approach, one that involves, for example, keeping a close eye on Australia as that country undertakes its process of becoming a republic.
• A system of state-funded campaign financing, possibly modeled after the system currently being used in Quebec, must be implemented to curb that influence that business and the rich have over the democratic and electoral process.

These democratic reforms should provide for an array of democratic institutions that are responsive to particular traits of the Canadian reality. New Democrats look forward to a future where Canadians will have a greater sense of control over their lives because they have greater confidence in an enhanced Canadian democracy.