This document provides a summary and review of the book "Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State" by Alan Cairns. The book addresses the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government, rejecting assimilation and questioning the legitimacy of parallelism. Instead, Cairns argues for the concept of "citizens plus," which recognizes Aboriginal difference and identity while also maintaining bonds of solidarity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The review analyzes some of the limitations of self-government and argues that "citizens plus" offers a more feasible policy approach.

1. Cairns, Alan, C. 2000. Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver: UBC
Press.
BOOK REVIEW

2. 2
Cairns, Alan, C. 2000. Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver: UBC
Press.
In Citizens Plus Alan Cairns addresses the Aboriginal peoples relations with the government of
Canada. Cairns’ book can also be thought of as a response to the increased hegemony of parallelism as
the dominant discourse influencing Aboriginal people’s relations with Canadian governments. Cairns
rejects assimilation as government policy and argues that it has had the effect of monopolizing civic
identities by way of assuming a common and uniform citizenship that is unresponsive to indigenous
difference.i He also questions the legitimacy and effectiveness of parallelism based on what he argues
is its indifference to and inability to answer the question of “what will hold us together?”ii Instead
Cairns argues for the concept of “citizens plus,” which simultaneously recognizes Aboriginal
difference which is based on their status as First Nations, while maintaining the bonds of solidarity that
will “hold us together” (201).
Using history as a framework for his arguments, Cairns shows how negative consequences can ensue
from what may appear to be sound policy decisions. He does this by discussing the “assimilationist”
policies that characterized Aboriginal people’s relations with the federal government, arguing that these
policies were detrimental. Cairns also claims that the labels we employ to describe what is happening
not only aid our interpretation but also have the potential to shape political discourse. Hence, Cairns is
not overly optimistic about the increasing hegemony of parallelism (the “nation-to–nation” discourse).
Instead he argues in favor of the need to “strike a balance” (115) between eliminating differences
between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples and recognizing Aboriginal people's differences.
Cairns suggests the need for ensuring a common Canadian citizenship based on solidarity and empathy
for one another, which is based on the recognition of commonalities between Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal peoples that are a consequence of the effects of globalization, intermarriage, and

3. 3
assimilation, rather than that of separate societies based on difference. In other words, his main
argument is that rather than pursue policy goals that are suggestive of different nations, there should be
a concerted effort by policy makers to see Aboriginals as “citizens plus,” that is, as citizens who are
members in the Canadian community with an added dimension to their citizenship that stems from their
position as First Nations within Canada. This, Cairns suggests, is in stark contrast to the parallelism
that he argues fails to address the continued dependence that is likely to exist between the Aboriginal
peoples and Canada, a fact that ensues from several factors, including but not limited to their small and
widespread population base; their lack of resources and infrastructure; their inability to achieve
complete independence, as well as the fact that it (parallelism) alienates urban Aboriginals/off- reserve
Aboriginals who constitute over 70 percent of the Aboriginal population (Cairns 2004). Lastly, Cairns
suggests that instead of tying cultural preservation to a land base, there should be a shift towards the
recognition of a “modern aboriginality” that is not tied to traditional ways of being Aboriginal and as
such, includes all Aboriginal peoples.
Citizens Plus is one of the foremost political texts written concerning the Aboriginal peoples relations
with the government of Canada. In it Cairns makes use of numerous primary sources. These include
historical anthropological writings of Diamond Jenness, as well as other documents such as the
Hawthorne Report, reports by the Royal Commission on the Status of Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), the
Penner Report, and writings from various governments and leading Aboriginal personalities. In
addition he makes use of secondary sources, including the writings of leading political scientists,
constitutional lawyers, Supreme Court Judges and many more. Cairns also provides some sound
arguments against what he considers to be “one-sided” assimilation and parallelism policies and argues
instead for the need to exercise caution against the effects of adopting ineffective and non-

4. 4
comprehensive policies. In addition his arguments are further strengthened by his excellent analysis of
the current contextual, social, and structural factors that would affect Aboriginal self-government.
That said, this review will analyze some of the problems of self-government which relate to the
concept of “citizens plus” advanced by Cairns. I agree with his criticisms of parallelism and
assimilation and also believe that “citizens plus” is the most feasible Aboriginal policy option given the
choices that are available. However the point at which I disagree with Cairns’ arguments regards the
applicability of “citizens plus”. “Citizens plus” I will argue, has some inherent limitations which
mainly stem from its paradoxical nature, namely, its ability to function both as a unifying “force” as
well as being a source of alienation and division. In addition, changes in the political climate that have
resulted in increased Aboriginal involvement in matters relating to their future further challenge its
(“citizens plus”) applicability as a policy paradigm. It is therefore within these “contexts” that the rest
of the discussions will unfold.
“Citizens plus” and Self-governments: Addressing the Limitations in Aboriginal Policy Making
According to Cairns, the two-row wampum (the idea of separate Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal societies
moving down a stream, with each charting its own course) is problematic as it neglects the realities of
Aboriginal peoples as well as the fact that Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations have increasingly
become characterized by interdependence among the two groups. In addition he argues against what he
suggests are the negative effects of self-government on diminishing social solidarity, as well as the
decline of civic loyalties. Cairns argues that a common concept of citizenship is essential to the
maintenance of social solidarity which, in turn, is needed to bridge the differences between Aboriginals
and non-Aboriginals. Any conception of membership that rejects the needs of solidarity is problematic
on several counts. The first of these is that self-government rights according to Kymlicka (2004) are the
most complete case of differentiated citizenship as “they divide the people into separate 'peoples,' each

5. 5
with its own historic rights and powers of self-government --- and each, therefore with its own political
community”(51). In addition differentiated citizenship also gives rise to a sort of dual citizenship and
conflicts regarding the community to which citizens belong (Kymlicka 2004: 51). In the case of
Aboriginal nationhood, dual citizenship can result in members spreading their allegiance between their
nations and Canada with the effect being that their allegiance to Canada becomes derivative and
conditional (Kymlicka, 2004: 51). So while Aboriginal self-governance can perform a liberating and
empowering function for those formerly governed as Cairns has suggested, it can also become
problematic especially when Aboriginal peoples are encouraged to focus on their differences; this has
the effect of limiting the integrative function of citizenshipiii as “nothing will bind the ... [two
groups]...together nor prevent the spread of mutual mistrust or conflict” (Kymlicka 2004: 49). “Citizen
plus” therefore becomes a vehicle by which a common citizenship becomes a means of achieving a
civic nationalism while acknowledging Aboriginal distinctiveness, a process that is less likely to create
cleavages between Aboriginal/non-Aboriginals, and as such is more effective as a policy solution
compared to parallelism.
Secondly, Cairns rightly argues that parallelism will lead to problems in governance. Because the
Canadian federal system is characterized by the division and jurisdictional overlap of powers among
federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal governments, the creation of an autonomous “Third Order”
of government (Simeon and Robinson 2004) is likely to result in increased problems of governance as
the jurisdictions of these governments are not “water-tight” as was intended by the Fathers of
Confederation (Bakvis and Skogstad 2002). The absence of what was thought of as water-tight
compartmentalization of each government's jurisdictional powers has increasingly meant that joint
policy making has become the convention for Canadian governments’, and also that effective and
efficient policy making is often hindered by a lack of agreement between the various levels of

6. 6
government. It therefore follows that the introduction of more than one hundred Aboriginal
jurisdictions into the present system will only serve to worsen the already existent problems that have
come to characterize relations between federal and provincial/territorial governments, thereby limiting
the effectiveness of policy making (Cairns 2000). Furthermore, in an era when executive federalism has
increasingly characterized intergovernmental relations (Simeon and Robinson 2004), the addition of
numerous Aboriginal executives, even with the possible consolidation of nations, will only serve to
complicate the effects of what has become a successful partnership between Canadian governments’.
Given the realities of current intergovernmental relations “citizens plus” is an excellent alternative to
parallelism as it fits neatly into existing institutional arrangements that characterize inter and intra-
governmental relations in Canada.
Hence, the greatest strength of “citizens plus” lies in its soundness as a policy paradigm compared to
the assimilation and parallelism paradigms. This is mainly due to the fact that “citizens plus” avoids the
extremes that mark the other policy options. “Citizens plus” as a concept actively embodies the twin
premises of empathy that according to Cairns (2001) serve to reinforce the “emotional bonds of
solidarity that accompany a common citizenship,” (115) while positively recognizing Aboriginal
difference that could be realized in some versions of self-governance. This is in contrast to parallelism
that places too great an emphasis on Aboriginal people’s difference from Canadian society and
consequently the need for the creation of separate societies, and assimilation policies which sought to
eliminate Aboriginal people’s differences. However “citizens plus” as a prospective government policy
is not without its share of limitations, some of which will be discussed below.
“Citizens plus”: Inherent Challenges
While “citizens plus” is able to ensure the recognition of the diversity of Aboriginal peoples while
simultaneously achieving their full membership in Canadian life and culture (common citizenship), it

7. 7
can also lead to feelings of alienation among non-Aboriginal peoples. This is largely due to the fact that
according certain groups with special rights can sometimes result in feelings of alienation among non-
“designated groups.” A case in point is the centrality of central Canada in Canadian political life and
the feelings of alienation that have risen in the West due to what many Westerners feel is their
exclusion from central government institutions and therefore their inability to effect policy at the
national level. Other groups that could also be affected are immigrants who already feel somewhat
alienated from Canadian cultural life. While an official multiculturalism policy has accorded
immigrants with constitutional recognition, it has still not translated into their inclusion into the
dominant structures of Canadian society. So, like Westerners who already feel alienated from the
central government institutions, the adoption of a “citizen plus” as official government policy in their
relations with Aboriginal peoples is also likely to increase new Canadians’ feelings of alienation.
Consequently while the concept of common citizenship accompanied by special rights that ensue by
virtue of being First Nations in Canada is beneficial for Native peoples, governments choosing to adopt
“citizens plus” as official policy risk alienating non-Aboriginals in what is already a tense political
situation given the multicultural layout of Canadian society and Quebec's demands for constitutional
recognition as a distinct society.
Secondly implementation of “citizens plus” as official government policy risks giving rise to anti-
Canadian sentiment among Aboriginal peoples. Anti-Canadian sentiment among Aboriginals can occur
to the effect that Aboriginal supporters of parallelism may feel resentment towards the Canadian
government for what they will perceive as the government's denial of their rights to self-governance as
a people, further contributing to Aboriginal people’s mistrust of Canadian governments. In addition, the
former might feel that “citizens plus” is really a continuation of the imperialist ideology and
subsequently interpret it as the federal government's unwillingness to relinquish its “paternal rights”

8. 8
over Aboriginals. Furthermore, the concept might not be embraced by Aboriginals who do not see
themselves as Canadians. While Cairns acknowledges this fact, he devotes little attention to it, and
nonetheless prescribes “citizens plus” as the most feasible policy option for the Canadian government,
a fact that serves to weaken its legitimacy and effectiveness.
“Citizens plus” can also give rise to Anti-Aboriginal sentiments, particularly among Canadian
supporters of individual rights over group rights. Opposition to the constitutional recognition of special
group rights is nothing new, and in fact has most recently been spearheaded by individuals such as
Diefenbaker, Manning and until recently Harper (Brooks 2004: 62). Nowhere has this been
prominently displayed than in the constitutional arena. The developments at Meech Lake and
Charlottetown, as well as the 1995 Referendum for example, in which Canadians mostly rejected the
conference of special rights (group rights) to Quebec are notable examples of how Canadians feel about
the relegation of special rights to some groups vis-a-vis the equality of all Canadians. Therefore when
Canadians cannot agree on whether they value the recognition of individual right versus group rights,
especially given the constitutional fatigue that many political scientists argue has characterized this
generation, “citizens plus” as official government policy could very well result in an environment
marked by division rather than the solidarity Cairns deems so important.
“Citizens plus” is not a new policy paradigm, but has rather had its “hey-day” in the late 1960s. The
use of this concept to defeat the “assimilationist” 1969 White Paper by Indian leaders of the time, does
not immediately translate to what Cairns feels is its effectiveness at the present. While it may have been
the most effective policy option of the 1960s, attempts by Cairns to suggest it as an equally valid policy
ideal for the present time are hindered by profound transformations in the current political climate
which has resulted from the introduction of Aboriginal “voices” in policy matters regarding their
futures--- an event that has led to the emergence of new policy paradigms such as that of parallelism for

9. 9
example. In short, while “citizens plus” was embraced by Aboriginal leaders as a concept that they
were willing to adopt in the 1960s, the shift in Aboriginal “thought” towards parallelism limits the
extent of its applicability today. As a result an excellent recourse would be as Cairns has also argued,
for increased dialogue between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples, a factor that will lead to
sound and innovative policy making in Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations.
Finally, it can be suggested that Cairns arguments lacks objectivity. In fact Tom Flanagan (2001), one
of the foremost critics of “citizens plus” has argued that Cairns writing is heavily influenced by his
former membership in the Hawthorne Report Commission--- a fact that Cairns has also acknowledged.
Consequently his discussions are shaped by this factor, thereby raising questions about their validity
and effectiveness.
Conclusion
Overall Citizens Plus is an excellent source for those interested in Aboriginal/non-aboriginal relations
in Canada. Cairns is able to engage the reader with some of the policy issues that have arisen given the
complex nature of Aboriginal peoples relations with the government of Canada. His concern with the
“workability” of parallelism leads him to examine the previous assimilation policies before that, as well
as to compare and analyze the effects that parallelism will have on Aboriginal relations with the
government and people of Canada. The discussions and questions that he raises are timeless and are
bound to be part of the fabric that is Canadian politics. Citizens Plus is an invaluable tool for students
of politics and public policy as it not only addresses the various issues that are inherent in and
necessary for effective policy making, but also because it brilliantly addresses the negative effects that
ineffective policies have on those whose “plight”/“problems” it is meant to address.

10. 1
0
Endnotes
i Adapted from Cairns’ discussion in Inroads (2001: 115).
ii Ibid.
iii Kymlicka argues that citizenship serves an integrative function and is essentially what is needed to
secure bonds of solidarity and caring as Cairns has argued throughout Citizens Plus.

11. 1
1
Bibliography
Bakvis, Herman and Grace Skogstad. 2002. “Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectively and
Legitimacy.” In Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectively and Legitimacy, eds., Herman
Bakvis and Grace Skogstad. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. 3-23.
Brooks, Stephen. 2004. “Political Culture in Canada: Issues and Directions.” In Canadian Politics,
eds., James Bickerton and Alain G. Gagnon. 4th
ed. Peterborough: Broadview Press. 55-78.
Cairns, Alan C. and Tom Flanagan. 2001. “An Exchange.” Inroads. Vol. 10, pp. 101-122.
Cairns, Alan C. 2004. “First Nations and the Canadian Nation: Colonization and Constitutional
Alienation.” In Canadian Politics, eds., James Bickerton and Alain G. Gagnon. 4th
ed.
Peterborough: Broadview Press. 349-367.
Kymlicka, Will. 2004. “Citizenship, communities, and Identity in Canada.” In Canadian Politics, eds.
James Bickerton and Alain G. Gagnon. 4th
ed. Peterborough: Broadview Press. 35-54.
Simeon, Richard and Ian Robinson. 2004. “The Dynamics of Canadian Federalism.” In Canadian
Politics, eds., James Bickerton and Alain G. Gagnon. 4th
ed. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
101-126.