December 4, 2018 - No. 43

Supplement

Unwavering Opposition to Government's Bogus "Recognition and Implementation
of Indigenous Rights Framework"

PDF

• Indigenous Youth Action in Ottawa to Stop the Framework
- Barbara Biley -
• Trudeau Liberals' New Attempt at a "Final Solution"
to Extinguish Hereditary Rights
- Pauline Easton -
• Trudeau's Dance of Deception on Indigenous Rights
- Pam Palmater -
• Rejection of Federal Recognition of Rights
and Implementation Framework
- Resolution 32-18 Passed at All Ontario Chiefs Conference,
June 26-27, 2018 -
• Rights Recognition Framework Engagement Needs a Hard Reset
- Ontario Regional Chief RoseAnne Archibald, September 12, 2018 -

Testimony to Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples,
Inuit and Métis (Excerpts)
• Aaron Detlor, Haudenosaunee Development Institute
- October 2, 2018 -
• Ghislain Picard, Chief, Assembly of First Nations
of Quebec and Labrador
- June 12, 2018 -
• Christopher Sheppard, President, National Association
of Friendship Centres
- May 9, 2018 -
• Francyne Joe, President, Native Women's Association of Canada
- May 9, 2018 -

On the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls
• National Inquiry "A Complete Waste of Time"
Unless It Dramatically Transforms Power Structures
- Union of BC Indian Chiefs -

Reference Material from Government of Canada
• New Ministers to Support the Renewed Relationship
with Indigenous Peoples
- August 28, 2017 -
• Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's
Relationship with Indigenous peoples
- Department of Justice, February 14, 2018 -

Unwavering Opposition to Government's Bogus "Recognition
and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework"

Indigenous Youth Action in Ottawa
to Stop the Framework

-  Barbara Biley -

On December 4, under the banner Stop the Framework, Indigenous youth and allies are holding a demonstration on Parliament Hill at 11 am, followed by a march to the Ottawa Westin Hotel where the youth will address the Chiefs and delegates attending the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs Assembly taking place there December 4-6. The initiative was taken by the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians (AIAI) who issued "A Call to Action to Protect Our Ways -- Empowering the Youth to Stop the Framework." The Indigenous Activist Network -- Idle No More, Truth Campaign and Defenders of the Land -- are calling for a national day of action across the country in solidarity with the AIAI and youth leading the Ottawa demonstration.

Youth raise funds at special assembly of Chiefs of Ontario, November 21, 2018, to bring more
youth to December 4 rally in Ottawa.

Meanwhile, the Special Chiefs Assembly organized by the Assembly of First Nations is being held on the theme "Acknowledging our Challenges, Successes, and Opportunities." More than four hours are allotted for federal Ministers and Party Leaders; no details are provided. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Development, is expected to speak on the "Indigenous Rights Framework."

The Trudeau Liberals have been attempting throughout the past year to bully or cajole selected Indigenous individuals and groups to sign onto their plans for new legislation, which they call "Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework." This plan was introduced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the House of Commons on February 14, Valentine's Day, which is also the day of the annual Women's Memorial March in various cities across the country to honour murdered and missing Indigenous women and demand solutions.

The announcement on February 14 says, "To truly renew the relationship between Canada and Indigenous Peoples, the Government of Canada must make the recognition and implementation of rights the basis for all relations between Indigenous Peoples and the federal government." It says, "The Contents of the Framework will be determined through national engagement activities led by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs." Minister Bennett is known to have held spurious meetings with selected groups and individuals. This process was to have been carried out throughout the spring so as to be able to table legislation in the House of Commons before the end of this year with the aim of having it passed before the 2019 election.

Both the content of the government's proposals and the method of "consultation" have been condemned by Indigenous organizations and many individuals, including legal experts and people who have participated in studies and negotiations in the past.

Women's Memorial March, Vancouver, February 14, 2017. (M. Bush)

In response to the firestorm of opposition and the demand that the process be stopped or 'reset' which culminated in the summer, on September 7 the government issued a lengthy document entitled "Overview of a Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework." The document caused even more concern. It lays out in no uncertain terms that the Liberal government's conception of "rights," a word which appears 83 times in the document, is actually a cover for extinguishing rights and dispossessing Indigenous peoples of their lands and resources. Among its many proposals it repeats time and again that the recognition of Indigenous nations and collectives is the prerogative of the government. Everything that flows from the concept of rights -- not as inherent, hereditary and treaty rights, but as privileges flowing from whether or not there is recognition by the federal government -- is precisely designed to dress the old colonial rule in modern garb.

One of the themes that the government has stressed in its attempt to impose the Indigenous Rights Framework is the need for "certainty." The Trudeau government, which belatedly "signed on" to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2016 for self-serving reasons, continues to substitute phony "consultations" for Free, Prior and Informed Consent, forcing Indigenous peoples and others to repeatedly take governments to court over projects such as pipelines and hydro dams that affect the environment and violate the rights of Indigenous peoples and others. Minister Bennett argues that the "Framework" will bring "certainty" and save Indigenous peoples the cost of going to court. But Trudeau and his ministers have made it crystal clear throughout the year that the "certainty" they are seeking is the certainty that whatever projects the international oligarchs want and need will be made to happen.  If it were otherwise it would not be the federal government that is found to have failed to even "consult" and which is virulently opposed to the court challenges that it must defend Indigenous rights in the here and now. It would not be the stand of the federal government which admits the courts keep saying the government has to consult so it goes through the motions on the basis of saying "Make no mistake -- the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project will go ahead."

The stand to "Stop the Framework!" is needed. Nation-to-nation relations demand the establishment of a process which adheres to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These principles recognize hereditary rights and existing treaties. The aim is to provide real problems with real solutions that recognize the right of the people to take the decisions which affect their lives. They have to put racism, paternalism and colonial arrangements into the garbage once and for all.

Community meeting in Oneida, Ontario on the Framework, November 25, 2018.

Trudeau Liberals' New Attempt at a "Final Solution"
to Extinguish Hereditary Rights

-  Pauline Easton -

To explain its new Indigenous rights framework and what it is up to, the Trudeau government says: "A clear Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework across the federal government will provide clarity and certainty on Canada's responsibilities toward engaging with Indigenous Peoples in a respectful, cooperative partnership -- from coast to coast to coast. " (TML Weekly emphasis). The key words are "clarity," "certainty," "Canada's responsibilities," "a respectful, cooperative partnership." What do these things even mean?

TML Weekly is using the occasion of the action on Parliament Hill, organized by the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, to inquire into what the government is up to. We deduce the meaning of what the government says it seeks to accomplish from what it is doing and what various Indigenous chiefs and organizations are telling the government.

When Europeans first set foot on this land, the original inhabitants established nation-to-nation relations between themselves and the Crown. Their explanation of what nation-to-nation relations are -- what they meant at the time of contact and thereafter and what they mean today -- is as clear as clear can be. Canada's attempts to carry out the genocide of the original inhabitants and implement a "final solution" to get rid of "the Indian problem" once and for all are also as clear as clear can be. Nonetheless, all relations must be carried out on a nation-to-nation basis. What this means will be resolved by actually doing it. But this is not what the government is doing. It is imposing arrangements on the descendants of the original inhabitants of this land called Canada, which define this country in a manner which stinks of colonial injustice, paternalism, racism and genocide. This concerns the descendants of the original inhabitants referred to variously as First Nations, Aboriginal Peoples, "Indians" and Inuit, as well as the Métis nation who are the victims of government attempts to impose the so-called new arrangements and framework. It also concerns every man, woman and child who lives on this land.

The new arrangements and framework the government is trying to establish as the law of the land are dictated to it by the international financial oligarchs and money lenders, resource extraction conglomerates and their hangers-on. Canada is doing the bidding of the United States, the Pentagon, and NATO and its North Atlantic Council. The buzz words about "clarity," "certainty" and "responsibilities" to establish "respectful, cooperative partnerships" come from them, their think tanks, security services and secret meetings. They reveal a very pathetic Prime Minister who clings to a sycophantic (obsequious, servile, subservient, deferential, groveling, toadying, fawning, flattering, ingratiating, cringing, unctuous, slavish...) belief that he can present a sow's ear as a silk purse.

The problem the victims of this framework face -- both those referred to as Aboriginal peoples, in lieu of names they use to refer to themselves, Inuit and Métis and the members of the Canadian polity -- is that everything is being done on the basis of secret backroom deals, signed between nobody knows who and murky counterparts, in exchange for what benefits, nobody knows and to whom these benefits accrue, nobody knows.

To use the powers of the state to expropriate the people and erase all trace of hereditary, treaty and constitutional rights on the basis that they are legally replaced with new arrangements without anyone knowing what is going on is, to say the least, cowardly. To then speak about achieving "clarity" and "certainty" merely shows that the people must speak out and denounce them.

The government obviously has the power to pass laws and declare what it is doing is legal and necessary and a matter of national security but there is a sea of humanity lying between what it is doing and is considered legal and what constitutes justice. Rights cannot be given or taken away and they cannot be forfeited in any way. They belong to the people by virtue of their being. This fact the government cannot overcome. It is as clear as clear can be and we are certain of that.

Join the Youth to Stop the Framework!

Editor's Note

In this issue, TML Weekly is reproducing extracts from statements which clearly explain what the government is up to as concerns the "Indigenous Rights Framework" as well as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. It is also reproducing the government's so-called ten principles on which it bases its framework, all of which put decision-making in the hands of treacherous lying characters who emit a very bad smell.

Trudeau's Dance of Deception on Indigenous Rights

- Pam Palmater -

On Feb. 14, 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his plan to develop a new legislative framework called the "Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework" intended to recognize Indigenous rights and avoid litigation. This announcement came after the incredible not guilty verdict in the Gerald Stanley murder trial -- the farmer who killed Colten Boushie from Red Pheasant First Nation -- and the subsequent nationwide rallies and protests by Indigenous peoples.

There is no doubt that Trudeau was trying to deflect attention from the deep-rooted racism within Canada's justice system -- but also in his own government's failure to take substantive action on any of the injustices facing Indigenous peoples. Despite his many pre- and post-election promises to Indigenous peoples -- Trudeau has been all talk and little action.

Aside from the opportunistic nature of his announcement, it is important to note that this is nothing new. Since his election, Trudeau has made the same core promises to recognize and implement Indigenous rights in a multitude of strategically timed announcements. He campaigned on reviewing and repealing all laws imposed on First Nations by the former Conservative government headed by Stephen Harper. He promised to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the provision of free, prior and informed consent which he confirmed meant a veto for First Nations.

After he was elected he reconfirmed that his government would renew the nation-to-nation relationship based on rights recognition. However, his mandate letters to his cabinet tended to focus more on specific social programs than any rights-based agenda. Despite these very telling mandate letters, Trudeau managed to maintain the fanfare around his government's commitments at the Assembly of First Nations' (AFN) Chiefs in Assembly meetings in 2015 and 2016. With very similar impassioned speeches, he re-announced his government's commitment to repeal all of Harper's laws, review all Canadian laws to ensure their compliance with section 35 Aboriginal and treaty rights and implement UNDRIP.

However, year after year, he has not taken any substantive steps in this direction. Therefore, when yet another announcement was made in June 2017, this time about a Memorandum of Understanding between the AFN and Canada, there was some expectation of concrete deliverables. Like all other announcements to date, the pomp and circumstance celebrating the MOU overshadowed the fact that the only hard commitment in the MOU was to meet with the AFN three times a year to talk.

This is the well-choreographed dance used by Trudeau to make Canadians and Indigenous peoples believe that he is making great strides, "absolutely historic" advancements, or engaging in a "fundamental rethink" of the relationship with Indigenous peoples. Sadly, the AFN has become a willing partner in this deception. Had the AFN been doing its job, it would have advised First Nations not to count on the speeches and announcements, but to force hard commitments on paper. It should have been concerned that Trudeau's legislative framework idea is yet another federal government idea, much like the creation of two Indian Affairs departments -- neither of which was requested or developed by First Nations.

We know from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the most recent Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that every time Canada imposes solutions on us -- our lives get much worse. This announcement is no exception. Despite trying to distance himself from his father's legacy, Justin Trudeau is covertly trying to do what his father Pierre Trudeau tried to do directly.

In 1969, then Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, together with his Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chretien released the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy. The goal was to repeal the Indian Act, dissolve Indian Affairs, eliminate Indian status, get rid of reserves and treaties.

There was tremendous opposition to this plan by First Nations, including protests and several official responses, including Citizens Plus -- dubbed the Red Paper -- from First Nations in Alberta and Wahbung: Our Tomorrows from First Nations in Manitoba. In both of these responses, First Nations said they did not want the Indian Act repealed and that any amendments had to be done with their consent. They also said that their separate status as Indians and treaty beneficiaries were to stay. Most importantly, they reconfirmed what First Nations have long said: that they need their lands, resources and jurisdictions recognized so they can rebuild their Nations. Trudeau abandoned the 1969 White Paper, but subsequent governments have never stopped trying to fulfil its objectives.

Now, Justin Trudeau, who did not consult with First Nations nationally, has made unilateral decisions about Indigenous peoples including changing the name of the department, creating two new departments, limiting nation-to-nation relations to meetings with the AFN and a new legislative framework to limit Indigenous rights. We know that this legislation will limit rights because of the code words used by Trudeau during his announcement. His focus on "certainty" is a Justice Canada word used to extinguish Indigenous rights and title. His comment that this process is not about getting back what was lost -- is code for no return of lands and resources or compensation for the loss of use or benefit.

Trudeau's confirmation that no amendments would be made to the Constitution means that no substantive recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction will be made. Finally, his focus on doing this to avoid the courts is another way of saying that he doesn't want any more court cases upholding our rights to land and our right to decide what happens on our lands. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould made it very clear that free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in UNDRIP "does not equate to a veto" -- a stark contrast from Trudeau's promise that FPIC "absolutely" equates to a veto.

Trudeau's dance of deception has the potential to gut Indigenous rights, treaties, title and jurisdiction in Canada, especially if he is permitted to ride the pomp and circumstance of these carefully worded, flowery announcements to royal assent before the next election -- as he promised. Conflict is coming and the true test of reconciliation will be over our right to say no.

Pam Palmater is a Mi'kmaw citizen and member of the Eel River Bar First Nation in northern New Brunswick. She has been a practicing lawyer for 18 years and is currently an Associate Professor and the Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University.

(Originally published in The Lawyer's Daily, February 26, 2018)

Rejection of Federal Recognition of Rights and Implementation Framework

- Resolution 32-18 Passed at All Ontario Chiefs Conference, June 26-27, 2018 -

Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Grand Chief Joel Abram, surrounded by chiefs from Ontario, speaks against the Framework at a press conference September 12, 2018.

WHEREAS:

1. First Peoples on Turtle Island have inherent rights recognized in their own Indigenous legal systems and Nations. There are pre-existing Nation-to-Nation agreements between many of these Nations that existed well before Europeans arrived in Canada. The First Nations in Ontario are descendants of those First peoples and the communities today safeguard those laws, customs, and traditions of the pre-existing societies as recognized in the Calder Decision of [1973].

2. Guided by the Chiefs in Assembly, the Chiefs in Ontario observe and recognize the self-determination efforts of all the nations, the Anishinaabek, Mushkegowuk, Onkwehonwe, and Lenape peoples in protecting and exercising their inherent rights and responsibilities;

3. On February 14th, 2018, Prime Minister Trudeau announced the government's intention to table a Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework and Legislation, to be passed before the October 2019 federal election. The Rights Framework and associated processes will only support the further infringement of jurisdiction and rights for First Nations in Ontario and is separate from the fulfilment of long-held Canadian treaty obligations;

4. The federal government continues to emphasize the supremacy of the Canadian constitutional order and Section 35 jurisprudence, which almost fully constrains any true exercise of self-determination by First Nations and Indigenous Nations in Ontario; and

5. Canada is bound by legally enforceable obligations in both Canadian and Indigenous law to the treaty First Nations, especially in regard to the sharing of land, and those First Nations continue to hold legal systems of land tenure over those shared lands, and that must be fully understood by both Ontario and Canada. Canada represents the Crown who we entered into Treaties with and the "Framework" erodes not only the "Honour of the Crown, but also the honour of our sacred Treaty relationship.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Chiefs in Assembly:

1. Reject the Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework, and will take all necessary steps to prevent the passing of any legislation, especially "opt-in" legislation created by the federal government in 2018-2019;

2. Develop an educational strategy, in partnership with the treaty regions, about the legally enforceable obligations held by Ontario and Canada in the region of Ontario. These Crown obligations include understanding and legally defining the land rights of First Nations in a fair and independent process that is consistent with International law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This should be done through an Indigenous lens, recognizing our views of the land;

3. Direct the Regional Chief to establish a working group to give life to Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians (AIAI) thirteen Principles, and report to the Assembly of First Nation Assembly;

4. Encourage like-minded First Nations to continue to assert their sovereignty through our own nation-to-nation governance structures and processes.

Rights Recognition Framework Engagement
Needs a Hard Reset

- Ontario Regional Chief RoseAnne Archibald, September 12, 2018 -

The federal government continues to advance a deeply flawed engagement process concerning the Rights and Recognition Framework after significant resistance from not only Indigenous legal and cultural experts, but First Nations from across Canada.

On other issues, we have made positive forward movement with the federal government. That's why its troubling that while they are listening, they aren't hearing the First Nation voices and the messages being conveyed. First Nations across Ontario are opposed -- and do not believe this framework was made in collaborative partnership.

The Chiefs of Ontario stand by our RESOLUTION 32-18 REJECTION OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK, passed by the Chiefs in assembly at the June 2018 All Ontario Chiefs Conference. We continue to encourage like minded First Nations to assert their sovereignty through their own nation-to-nation governance structures and processes.

The federal government must do a hard reset on this process so that we may examine the best way forward together. First Nations need to be leading the efforts on anything that affects their inherent and treaty rights. These joint principles cannot be developed unilaterally -- this must be a collaborative partnership with mutually agreed upon terms -- that will form a strong foundation for our relationship going forward. We have a real opportunity to take a hard pause and transform the current relationship between First Nations and the federal government -- a process to the benefit of all.

I also need to be clear that the Chiefs of Ontario do not purport to speak on behalf of or over any of the other regions. We respect their decisions, processes and opinions on their views. This is Ontario's point and state of opposition to the process that has happened.

Testimony to Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples,
Inuit and Métis (Excerpts)

Aaron Detlor, Haudenosaunee Development Institute

- October 2, 2018 -

[...] the Haudenosaunee would very much oppose and object to a characterization of them as Indigenous, Aboriginal and/or Indian. [...] The term Aboriginal is racist, the term Indigenous is racist and obviously the term Indian is racist. They attempt to aggregate different groups of people into one preconceived notion of what is easiest to manage from an administrative perspective. This is what the Indian Act did back in 1860s. I'm going to use the terms Aboriginal, Indigenous and First Nations somewhat interchangeably, but I'm going to do it with that objection noted.

[...] Beginning back into the 1600s, the Haudenosaunee have a number of treaty relationships with the Crown. I'm going to refer to the Crown as not the Government of Canada. The Crown, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, is a different entity from the Government of Canada. [...] the Haudenosaunee perspective, from a historical framework, is this long treaty relationship dating back to the two-row wampum. [...] The basic principle of the two-row wampum is that it's a white background with two blue solid lines running through, and there's usually three wampum in between. The agreement was that the Crown was going to stay in their boat and that their government was going to govern their people, and the Haudenosaunee would stay in their canoe and they would not attempt to colonize the settlers. That was the agreement that went on for decades, if not hundreds of years.

The Two-Row Wampum.

We come forward today to the process that Canada is envisioning with respect to this quote/unquote new relationship. This new relationship is a relationship that undermines and denigrates sacred and solemn promises that were made vis-à-vis the two-row wampum.

I'm just going to go through the working group structure. As far as I can tell, these 10 principles on the new relationship were struck by a working group that was commissioned by the Prime Minister. This working group was structured and struck without any input or engagement, without any consultation. It absolutely frustrates me and astounds me that you can say that you're going to start a new relationship with someone and not engage or consult with them on who is going to be steering the boat with respect to the relationship moving forward. It's mind-boggling from the Indigenous perspective. I want to start a new relationship with you, and I'm going to unilaterally choose the people who are going to make a determination on what that relationship looks like.

The second issue is that this working group then comes up with these 10 principles. I have no evidence that has been given to me or that I've found through reasonably diligent research that these 10 principles were ever rolled out to anyone in an engagement or consultation process prior to their finalization.

So you've got a working group that's been established and been appointed solely by the Prime Minister, and the working group has no relationship with the Crown. The working group then comes up with 10 principles that look to me -- I've been a lawyer since 1996 and I've been doing negotiations and litigation with the Department of Justice in and around land claims for 20-plus years -- like something that just came out of DOJ. This looks to me like the white paper was dusted off and someone got the thesaurus out and said, "We need some new words on how to reconstitute the municipalization of Indigenous people in Canada."

I'm going to drop down to the fourth paragraph, and this is the first principle: "The Government of Canada recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government."

I'm here to say that this is a falsehood approaching a lie. The Government of Canada wants to begin a new relationship by saying something that is a falsehood approaching a lie. The reason I say that is because they talk about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and then they go on to say, "Canada's constitutional legal order recognizes the reality that Indigenous peoples' ancestors owned and governed the lands which now constitute Canada prior to the Crown's assertion of sovereignty."

How did the Crown get to assert sovereignty? If you're going to have a nation-to-nation relationship, how does one group get to say, "We're sovereign and you're not?" That's racism. One group has rights, power and control that they get to exert over another, regardless of what the other thinks about it. The Haudenosaunee have never agreed to this. Never have the Haudenosaunee said, "I give you the right to colonize me and turn me into a Canadian." When did this happen? How did this happen?

This is what the Government of Canada does when they come up with these well-meaning principles. They perpetuate a falsehood and a lie.

In the 1780s, when the Haudenosaunee came north to what is now Canada, after the American Revolution, the group that had come up settled at two different places primarily. There had already been a significant Haudenosaunee presence in Ottawa and Montreal. One was Tyendinaga, where I'm from, and one was Six Nations, near Brantford. They came up with something in the range of 265,000 British pounds. My numbers might be off here.[...]

The Crown said to Joseph Brant, "We're going to take the monies that you have and we're going to put them in a trust fund. The money that's coming off of your land, we're going to lease out your land and sell some of your land and it's going to go into a trust fund."

Joseph Brant said to them, "That's excellent. That's a great idea. We should put this in trust for the benefit of the Haudenosaunee people. I would like to be a trustee. I want to be a trustee."

And they put up their hands and said, "Oh, no, you are not a British subject." Joseph Brant was not a British subject by the acknowledgment of the British Crown.

So my question is: How and when do Indigenous people become British subjects? How do they become Canadian citizens? When did this happen? How did this happen? More importantly, if I hold up the two-row wampum, or if the Cree hold up any number of their treaties, or if any of the Indigenous people in Canada hold up their relationship and their original treaties with the Crown, none of them make them subjects of the Crown.

So I hold up my two-row treaty and say, "You know what, I've just read through your principles on a new relationship. The principle that you claim to have sovereignty over me impairs, interferes and otherwise infringes my right to self-determination, which is memorialized in the two-row wampum. So explain to me how and when you reserved to yourself the unilateral right in a colonial manner to tell me that I have to be you." It's the ultimate insult.

Number two, the Government of Canada recognizes that reconciliation is a fundamental purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Again, a falsehood. Section 35 was originally supposed to be an open box. I trust some of you have heard the open box, closed box theories about who has to prove what a right is and who doesn't have to prove what a right is. It still boggles my mind that as soon as the British Crown arrives in North America, suddenly, as an Indigenous person, I have to prove that I have a right to them. I don't understand why the onus isn't reversed, why they don't have to say they have a right. But in the mists of time somewhere, there's some doctrine of discovery that they are relying upon -- sorry to get off track -- and where is the doctrine of discovery mentioned in this new relationship? It's not.

They say in the first item that Canadian sovereignty is a given. Why? Canadian sovereignty is premised on the doctrine of discovery. The doctrine of discovery is premised on the idea of terra nullius. Terra nullius is premised on the idea that Indigenous people don't have souls and aren't people. So the only way Canada can maintain its sovereignty is to maintain the legal fiction that I don't have a soul, that I'm not a real person? That's what's going on.[...]

Number two talks about reconciliation as a fundamental purpose of section 35. That's what the Government of Canada wants section 35 to be. The Government of Canada wants section 35 to be about reconciliation. That's not what section 35 says. The Supreme Court of Canada has inferred that reconciliation is one of the primary motivations or one of the primary directives informing an analysis on section 35, but that's not what section 35 says. It simply says they're going to recognize rights that are existing or that come along. The reason that they want to infuse this idea of reconciliation is because it denies to Indigenous people choice. It denies choice to Indigenous people to say, "You must reconcile yourself to Canadian sovereignty. You have no choice."

We're going to recognize rights, but we're not going to recognize or address the underlying falsehoods that have gotten us to where we are, so we're essentially building this new relationship on something that is a fiction, in its most innocuous -- and if I was skeptical and bitter and jaded after 20 years of doing this, I would say it's a purposeful lie.

When they say that the Government of Canada -- this is number three -- recognizes that the honour of the Crown guides the conduct of the Crown and all of its dealings with Indigenous peoples. This is not a new relationship. This is a cut and paste from the Supreme Court of Canada. This is DOJ apparatchiks cutting and pasting something from the Supreme Court of Canada that is, in my opinion, empty and meaningless words.

The Government of Canada recognizes that it must uphold the honour of the Crown, which requires the federal government and its departments, agencies and officials to act with honour, integrity, good faith and fairness, while we pick the working group that's going to decide all these issues. How the heck do you get to honour, integrity, good faith and fairness when the Government of Canada says, "We're going to decide who is on the working group that is going to come up with the answers and the solutions." It's ridiculous. It's farcical.

Number four is that the Government of Canada recognizes that Indigenous self-government is part of Canada's evolving system of cooperative federalism and distinct orders of government. I'm going to repeat that: "... the Government of Canada recognizes that Indigenous self-government is part of Canada's evolving system of cooperative federalism and distinct ...." This one sentence on this principle encapsulates Canada's new passive-aggressive approach to colonization. We're going to recognize that you have a right to self-government, but it's ours. It's Canada's. It's not your right. So I'm going to say to you, in government speak, that I am going to recognize your right to self-government as part of Canada.

I have taken any number of choices off the table for you, as an Indigenous people, to actualize your aspirations, individually, clan, nations and confederacies. I'm going to remove your ability to self-actualize as an individual. I'm going to remove your ability to self-actualize as a clan. I'm going to remove your ability to self-actualize as a nation and/or as a confederacy. And regardless of what you decide that you want based upon government structures that have existed since time immemorial, I'm going to say you're now part of us. That's not honest. That's not fair. That's not equitable and it's not justified. Where is the justification for this?

Number five: The Government of Canada recognizes that treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and respect.

That's not true. That is simply not true. The two-row wampum isn't about reconciliation. It's not about the Haudenosaunee reconciling themselves to Canadian sovereignty. The Nanfan Treaty of 1701 was not about the Haudenosaunee reconciling themselves to Canadian sovereignty. There is a famous quote after the 1701 negotiations, and it concludes -- and this is the 1701 of Port Alberni. At the same time, contemporaneously, the Haudenosaunee were negotiating a treaty of peace in Montreal. With respect to the British negotiations, the British representative steps forward and says, "If you think that the Haudenosaunee surrendered anything or agreed to British sovereignty, you better have a good army at your back." That's what the Crown understood and recognized. So what happened?

Number six: The Government of Canada recognizes that meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples aims to secure their free, prior and informed consent when Canada proposes to take actions which impact them and their rights, including their lands, territories and resources. This is reciting much of the language that comes out of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It's important to recognize how they fudged -- sorry for using such a technical, legal term -- the UNDRIP and the idea of consent that the Supreme Court of Canada articulates in the case of Delgamuukw. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Delgamuukw, contemplate veto power to First Nations, so you actually have to get their consent. What the Government of Canada is doing with these fudgey words is saying, "We're aiming." Aims to secure. What does that mean? We aim to secure, which means we don't have to secure it. I do not have to obtain your consent if I'm just aiming for it because maybe I'm playing lawn darts. I'm getting close, but not that close. I gave some perfunctory words about trying to get your consent, but I never took it seriously. That's exactly what just occurred with Trans Mountain.

[...]

I think you have to take seriously and meaningfully the right of someone to say no. If you and I are in a relationship and I get to say to you every single time, "I'll take what your concerns are but it's always going to be my way," then that's going to build up some resistance in you over time. You will likely get a little irritated. What happens is that you begin to lose track of the substantive issue of the goodness of any particular project. You have so much pent-up angst over the fact that I just told you it's going to be my way.

If I say to you, "Listen, I'm going to give you the right to say no," then you will likely not exercise that right very often. You'll sit down with me in a much more comfortable position, much more prepared to engage and much more confident about your ability to articulate your needs and desires. If I continue to say, "No, you can't," that's the problem. The Canadian government doesn't take the idea seriously that an Indigenous group can say no. Some of them will say yes.

On the pipeline, maybe you move the pipeline. If I said to you, "I want to run something through your backyard," and you tell me no, and then I say, "Well, your neighbours over here don't seem to mind," then you might say to me, "Well, run the whole thing through there." That's not what's on the table, this idea of respect and respecting your ability to say no.

[... The explanation of the 10 principles gets cut off after Number 6 when time is called. A question and answer session follow. ...]

After the announcement [about the framework] was made in February, a number of Haudenosaunee representatives came up to speak to members of government about what this new framework was going to look like, and we asked to participate. We met with the Department of Justice, we met with a number of entities, and we never heard from them again. The reason we never heard from them again is because they and the framework indicate that they're only dealing with band governments. This engagement process that's going on is only being undertaken with political territorial organizations and with band entities. The Haudenosaunee do not acknowledge that any kind of band, Indian Act entity, is capable of representing their interest as a confederacy or a nation. That's the technical part.

The engagement is cursory, to say the least, because much of the engagement that has been done, in my opinion, has been done in a non-transparent and non-accountable fashion with political territorial organizations that do not hold treaty or Aboriginal rights. That's my initial statement.

Certainly there is room in reworking a legislative framework to accommodate these issues, but I will ask a question back to you, senator. Why would anyone suggest that the resolution of dealing with my right to self-determination needs to be articulated in legislation that you pass? If I'm self-determining, why wouldn't I pass my own legislation and you adopt it? That's the fundamental issue here. They're trying to do heart surgery with Band-Aids, and they have Band-Aid after Band-Aid piled up on top without addressing fundamentally the issue of relationship. Why would I get to legislate to you about your self-determination? [...] I went to law school, and one of the things I remember is something that made no sense to me. It's called the nemo dat quod non habet principle: You can't give what you don't have. It's a maxim that informs much of the Canadian legal processes, from commercial law and constitutional law. It actually goes on a little longer, but you can't give what you don't have.

I desperately wish that the Government of Canada would come to grips with that in terms of its legislative approach. You can't give someone self-government. It's not yours. [...]

On Bill C-262 [ An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ], first off, I'm going to make some comments that might sound counter-intuitive to my earlier positions because there's a lot of positive movement in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, if it's taken seriously.

However, as an Indigenous nation, why are you putting me at the back of the bus? I don't want to be UNDRIP. I want a seat at the General Assembly. Even if UNDRIP was passed in its entirety, it is discriminatory and racist because it accepts the Westphalian system of nation states that says that Indigenous people do not get a place at the table. "We are going to recognize your right to not be a full partner in an international setting." [...]

Article 18 (of UNDRIP, which basically says that First Nations get to choose their own governments) says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions.

That's all well and good, and if that got implemented I would be very happy, but it still doesn't give me the ability to talk to my representative who is a member of the General Assembly.

As well, if you take seriously what article 18 says, I get to choose my government, and I don't know if I necessarily would choose Canada. Maybe I do. Maybe I don't. The Government of Canada doesn't appear to be open-minded, fair and honest about the discussions that flow from things like article 18.

[...]

There is an increasing corporate influence. I've been doing this for 20 years so I know how things work. I know how Members of Parliament make decisions, I know how MPPs make decisions and I know how municipal governments make decisions. They don't make decisions after talking to Indigenous people. They make decisions based upon who is giving them money. So let's just say it: They make decisions based upon who is giving them money to get elected. So all of this stuff that's been written down, all of these fancy words and these laudable goals and aspirations, I'll say it again, it's farcical in the face of what's really going on.

This goes to the issue of clan mothers, because the framework of clan mothers is often one that has a broader generational view. Until you support broader generational views, institutionally and structurally, you're going to have trouble getting them to come forward to participate because their primary concern -- I'm speaking generalities and I apologize because it's not always true. But when you have short-term decision-making that's often fuelled by men and money, that's diametrically opposed to what many clan mothers tell me are their motivators in terms of decision-making.

Structurally, how do clan mothers, and/or women, for that sake -- how do the institutions provide support for women to participate in governance? Take, for instance, Question Period. If a clan mother or a woman wants to participate in Question Period, the role is for one side to get up and say something and the other side to stand up and yell at them. [...]

Again turning back to structural, I'm not suggesting that you necessarily rewrite the parliamentary rules of order, but there has to be some way to start to have a broader imagination about what a new relationship looks like. Going back to the framework and going back to the principles, it has had its imagination neutered. There's no sense of wonderment. There's no sense of discovery. There's no sense of anticipation or of excitement. These things that the Government of Canada is doing aren't opening up the idea of the promise of a new and better future. What they're doing is saying, "We're going to rest our platform on the cold hard table of the past," and there's not much room for women or clan mothers in that system.

Ghislain Picard, Chief, Assembly of First Nations
of Quebec and Labrador

- June 12, 2018 -

Good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished senators. I am certainly pleased to be here along with my colleague, Chief Karen Loran from the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, who is also co-chair of our AFNQL Elected Women for Quebec and Labrador. I felt it important for her to join me this morning because it is very clear to me that the perspectives of leadership from women are very key and very important.

I also want to acknowledge the Algonquin Nation and the fact that they are welcoming these proceedings on their traditional unceded territory.

I certainly want to more specifically acknowledge the community of Kitigan Zibi. I believe they just had an election this past Sunday and their chief, Jean Guy Whiteduck, has been re-elected as leader of that community.

I am going to make my presentation in French. I know that my colleague, Chief Loran, will make hers in English. Although I have my presentation in both languages, and even though Quebec is not represented at this table, I am still going to do it in French.

Once again, thank you.

[Translation]

The purpose of your reflection is important, fundamental and necessary, but to begin this reflection I would like to ask a question: how can we synthesize over 500 years of history and relationships in an exchange lasting less than two hours? In other words, how can we discuss solutions that can restore balance in the face of the injustices experienced by our nations, who have never surrendered or abandoned their territories?

First and foremost, our shared history does not date from the first year of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government. Rather, it is a history with many setbacks, but which, at least initially, was one of allies and based on a nation-to-nation relationship. The doctrine of terra nullius was not part of the equation at the time.

History consistently reminds us of how the eradication of the "Indian" problem was the aspiration of the colonizer. Our presence in our territories had become problematic. It was an obstacle to accessing resources and territory.

This is how the rupture of the nation-to-nation relationship occurred. We went from being allies to becoming undesirables on our own lands. A problem, a serious problem that meant that the Indian question had to find its solution in assimilation policies and a process of settlement, to pave the way for the seizure of our territories to the benefit of the colonizers. Not surprisingly, for a time the Indigenous question was the responsibility of the Department of Forestry and Mines.

Subsequently, other attacks on this relationship were carried out to eliminate our relationship and our presence. The adoption of the Indian Act -- remember that its original name was the "Act of the Savages" -- the creation of reserves, the carrying out of a policy of assimilation, and the implementation of Indian residential schools are some historical examples that I will not dwell on since they are widely documented, although they are important to remember.

Now, attempting to reflect on the notion of a nation-to-nation relationship in 2018 will take more time than can be manufactured by the ambition to fix everything within a political mandate that has a fixed duration, and which must culminate in the fall of 2019. The openness expressed by this government must be recognized as an opportunity, but at the same time as a certain threat, because to us, failure is not an option. Failure would risk driving us too far away from a necessary perspective of reconciliation. This reconciliation, this renewal of the relationship, so often spoke about and desired by the Liberals, requires adequate time, and trying to fit it into one electoral mandate is not a condition for success. The emergence of unilaterally defined conditions for the renewal of this relationship opens the door to the development of yet another episode of failure and leads us to fear the worst, that is to say, another attempt to settle the Indian question under the pretext of reconciliation.

By definition of the federal government itself, the Government of Canada is working to advance reconciliation and renew the relationship with Indigenous peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

However, the current dialogue all too often resembles a monologue. The proposed co-development and partnership is not in keeping with our definition of respect and co-operation: an imposed legislative framework, rapid-fire consultations in which Minister Bennett is quick to set the tone, the flip-flop of Prime Minister Trudeau on the Trans Mountain file, the multiple "transformations" imposed on national "Indigenous" organizations to render the provisions of the Indian Act obsolete one by one, surreptitiously and without even involving the primary parties concerned. These are just a few of the examples, important indications that represent anything but a foundation of respect, co-operation and partnership.

One nation in Quebec, the Cree Nation (Eeyou), is a signatory to a modern treaty that satisfies them and which we respect, because if it corresponds to their aspirations, we too are satisfied. Other communities are in the process of completing a negotiating process that has gone on for nearly 40 years; we understand that this approach seems to match their aspirations as well. Other nations defend their historic treaties to assert their rights. However, we must not forget that beyond these realities, many communities are at a standstill in their relationship with the Government of Canada. To whom should we attribute this uncertainty, this void?

We are the first founding peoples of the Americas and, all too often, we are reduced to the status of underdeveloped, undereducated, and poor peoples who always ask and never give, while we all aspire to individual and collective wellness. We do not need pity or criticism, even less do we need racism and discrimination, prejudice and myths that we never get free of. What we need is true respect, true co-operation and partnership, equality in all government systems and an equal opportunity to flourish in our territories, to exercise our rights and customs, to speak our languages, to be considered as allies and not victims.

The government has unilaterally adopted 10 principles guiding the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples. The government has also adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We cannot rewrite history, but its course has definitely changed. It remains to be seen how the government will, in fact, show its willingness to renew our relationship by implementing this new law in all the proposed domains, in its own way.

In Quebec, we are well aware that the government is struggling to make progress in recognizing our Aboriginal and treaty rights. The already fragile political relationship is fraught with failures. We are painting a grim picture, but in the context where the provincial authorities are trying to reproduce a system of dependencies that has harmed and destroyed us, how else can we see it?

Denying us access to our territories, denying us access to our resources, reducing us to being observers, leads to the eradication of our millennial bond to our territory, the very source of our identity, and will always remain a factor contributing to the failure of a true nation-to-nation relationship.

Who we are as first nations has its source in our sacred relationship with our territories, denied to us through the pursuit of a known ambition, that of seeing us disappear, of integrating and assimilating us. This is exactly how this form of cultural genocide that we know all too well is cultivated, despite the resilience shown by our peoples.

We face enormous challenges, including in our communities, because we have a duty to ensure that our youth have a future filled with hope and opportunity. We also have enormous challenges dealing with governments that come and go election after election. But one thing is certain, each of these governments will find us standing in front of them, no matter the election, the party or the term of office.

In conclusion, this reflection session raises many more questions than answers. Suspicions as to the government's real intentions regarding the relationship with First Nations, the historic ambitions in place since the 1969 White Paper, seem to be back on the agenda. What is the real plan of this government?

We are the first to say that things must change and that this change must also come from ourselves, but how can this change come about without true partnership? This is a question that remains unanswered.

Christopher Sheppard, President,
National Association of Friendship Centres

- May 9, 2018 -

I would like to begin by acknowledging the Algonquin territory whose unceded land we are meeting on today.

I want to thank you, Madam Chair and members for the committee, for the opportunity to visit with all of you to discuss the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis people on behalf of the National Association of Friendship Centres.

My name is Christopher Sheppard, I am an Inuk from Nunatsiavut. I now live and work in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. I grew up in the Friendship Centre Movement, beginning at the age of 19 on our youth council, and I am now President of the NAFC.

With our time together I would like to give you a brief overview of the NAFC, the urban Indigenous population and the new relationship between Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Metis people of Canada, and to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability.

According to the 2016 census, more than 1.6 million people identified as Aboriginal. Of these, more than one million people or 61.1 per cent lived in one of Canada's cities. This number is up from approximately 623,000 in 2006, meaning that the urban Indigenous population has increased by more than 60 per cent in just 10 years.

Furthermore, the Indigenous youth population, including those who live in the city, are among the fastest growing population in Canada. As the general population is aging with many baby boomers set to retire in the very near future, young Indigenous people are increasing expected to play a vital role in ensuring Canada's future economic growth.

Many of today's Indigenous people migrate to urban centres from reserves and northern or remote communities for a number of reasons, including but not limited to employment, education and improved quality of life, while others represent the second, third and even the fourth generation of urban Indigenous people who have only ever known life in the city.

Unfortunately, we as urban Indigenous people face multiple challenges. We experience racism and discrimination. We are more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed or underemployed, and suffer homelessness, experience violence and be affected by the criminal justice system.

Overcoming these challenges can be a complicated and arduous process, one that requires various levels of support, and sometimes this support must be individualized to ensure that people are met where they are. This is the role of the Friendship Centre Movement. Urban Indigenous migration has been happening since the inception of friendship centres. This is not a new concept, nor a new reality for friendship centres or the NAFC.

As data proves, the urban Indigenous community continues to grow. Now is the time to recognize the impact of an inequitable distribution of resources based on population data and an identified need. To be clear, the resourcing has never been adequate to properly support Indigenous people regardless of where they live, and in a distinctions-based approach urban Indigenous people are oftentimes invisible.

As a status-blind organization from the very beginning, friendship centres have been community-driven, grassroots organizations guided by volunteers in the community at every level and serve everyone, whether they be First Nations, Inuit or Metis. They serve as sites of reconciliation and play a vital role in the broader community by bridging a cultural divide.

In 2015, friendship centres saw over 2.3 million client contacts, and they provided over 1,800 different programs and services in the areas of health, housing, education, recreation, language, justice, employment, economic development, culture and community wellness. Friendship centres are known for meeting people where they are and for creating much-needed support structures that help people move forward in their healing journeys. They transform lives, families and communities.

While this has enabled friendship centres to be responsive to community needs, in the current distinctions-based, nation-to-nation atmosphere our organizations have been left out of many important conversations around the new this relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis people across this country.

As we all move through this new approach to working with Indigenous people, what has become clear is that any previous challenges in friendship centres receiving support and being engaged in core areas will be compounded by friendship centres not being included in the more complex discussions about nations. For example, the Government of Canada announced the development of what it calls its Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework and, as a result, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs has recently begun its consultation process regarding the framework.

In the past, the NAFC would have been invited to participate in such a consultation process. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The NAFC has not received an invitation to participate in what the department has deemed an invitation-only process. Moreover, the new Urban Programming for Indigenous Peoples or UPIP, which the NAFC administers to friendship centres on behalf of the department, does not provide salary dollars to ensure that we can engage in processes such as this one.

Funds associated with UPIP can only be spent on activities directly related to the administration of the program. This means that work, such as proposal development, partnership development and preparing presentations such as the one I am doing right now, must be done off the sides of our desks by staff who are paid through project dollars that we can mesh together.

We remain hopeful that this will change, as we have a long-awaited meeting with Minister Bennett. We hope that we will be able to access funds to ensure that the urban Indigenous populations can be meaningfully engaged in the process that is currently underway.

Any changes and decisions made as a part of this rights recognition framework, and particularly a distinctions-based approach, could have real impacts in the lives of Indigenous peoples in terms of access to equitable services. This is why Indigenous service providers in urban areas like the Friendship Centre Movement need to be included in this current engagement process.

The reason why the NAFC is here before you today is to ensure the legacy the Friendship Centre Movement has established is not lost in the shuffle as this new nation-to-nation landscape continues to emerge.

For a minute, I would like you to imagine a family of four who has just moved to Ottawa from Halifax. One of the parents is Mi'kmaq and is registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act, and the other parent is non-Indigenous. As a result, neither child is eligible to be registered. As they are new to the city, they are in need of support to successfully start a new life. They need to find housing. Their kids need to be registered for school. They need furniture, and one of the parents needs to find a job.

Where does this family access services? Would the Mi'kmaq Nation have a service delivery infrastructure in Ottawa? If they did, would this mean that every nation would have a similar program and service infrastructure, or would this family access services through the Algonquin Nation? If this were the case, then it really wouldn't be distinctions based at all.

Who would pay for these services? Would the Algonquin Nation have to absorb the costs even though it likely doesn't have the financial resources to meet the needs of its own citizens, or would it bill it back to the Mi'kmaq Nation? If this were the case, then the costs of administering programs and services would rise exponentially, leaving fewer resources for actual programs and services.

Another question that would need to be asked is: Who in this family would even be eligible to access programs and services? After all, only one member is registered under the Indian Act. Again, would the Algonquin Nation be able to meet the needs of the entire family when they are likely struggling to meet the needs of their own people?

I'll leave you with one final example from a friendship centre that shows the opportunity to avoid some of the above complexities when working with friendship centres, and then I'll follow with my few recommendations.

An Indigenous woman arrives at a friendship centre, escaping a violent relationship. She isn't from that province. Her wish is to go back to her home province to be with her family. What nation she belongs to is of no concern to the friendship centre, only her safety, and therefore preparations are made to ensure she can get home safely to her family. Connections were made with the friendship centre in the destination city to have someone there when she arrived until she could be picked up by her family.

This is the strength of friendship centres in practice and only one of many examples of how the status-blind approach truly supports people on the ground.

My recommendations are as follows:

1. That the federal government provide an adequate level of support to friendship centres so they can continue to serve as hubs for urban Indigenous communities;

2. That the federal government provide the NAFC and its provincial and territorial associations with the financial support necessary to ensure that they can work to inform policies that affect those whom they serve;

3. That the federal government provide the NAFC and its provincial and territorial associations with adequate funding support to ensure that Indigenous people who live in urban centres have the opportunity to be engaged in discussions concerning their futures; and

4. That the Government of Canada engage with friendship centres and their communities on issues that affect them within the nation-to-nation context.

Francyne Joe, President, Native Women's
Association of Canada

- May 9, 2018 -

Madam Chair, committee members, distinguished witnesses and guests, I am Francyne Joe, President, Native Women's Association of Canada, and next to me is Veronica Rudyk, Policy Adviser, Native Women's Association of Canada.

I acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg, with special acknowledgement to the women and their families for whom NWAC exists.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to the study of the new relationship between Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples. This study is historic as it reflects this government's commitment to a genuinely new relationship with Indigenous peoples.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is a long-standing advocate of Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. We work to preserve Indigenous culture, achieve equality for Indigenous women, and develop and change legislation that affects women, girls and gender-diverse peoples as well as their communities.

We are here to discuss the central principles of this new relationship. The main component of this framework creates a nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and three national Indigenous organizations [NIOs] through a permanent bilateral mechanism. This table is meant to discuss the issues affecting Indigenous peoples today from coast to coast to coast.

As it currently stands, the nation-to-nation approach is derived from the long-standing practice for the federal government to include NIOs in discussions about the issues concerning Indigenous peoples. However, by prioritizing race over other distinctions such as gender, the government has created a hierarchy that largely excludes NWAC from negotiations and partnership. We believe that as chosen representatives of Indigenous women we need to be active participants in any decision-making that could affect Indigenous women, girls, gender-diverse peoples, and their communities. It is particularly important for a feminist government to respect and hear the voices of all Indigenous women.

The way the current framework is structured, gender issues are treated separately from housing, employment, health, community safety, policing, child welfare and education. In reality, gender intersects with all of these issues and a gender lens must be applied to analyze these issues.

In terms of recommendations, we must stress that inclusivity should be a top priority when the Government of Canada is forming partnerships with NIOs. Our collective voices must be heard and taken into account when making policy decisions and creating legislation. This is particularly true for issues related to the environment which affect us all.

Historically, we as Indigenous women have had important roles as stewards of the land and water. As well, we have been vital to the development and attainment of sustainability environments. These practices have built communities where children grow up with a strong identification and relationship with the environment and are in relation to the land.

By supporting the inclusion of ancestral knowledge and Indigenous people's effective participation in environmental protection and climate change programs, a more comprehensive and meaningful approach will be ensured. To support this, there is a need for clear, cross-jurisdictional guidelines for the maintenance and protection of Indigenous hunting, fishing, logging and land rights.

The importance of including us as Indigenous women must not continue to be overlooked. Including an active voice from Indigenous women allows to us take our inherent place in moving toward Indigenous self-determination. Processes must be developed and recognized to ensure the unique, important and integral roles Indigenous women have provided and continue to provide in Indigenous government.

Funding is necessary for Indigenous nations to provide job security and education for community members. Investing in Indigenous nations and communities means investing in women and vice versa.

We should note that the importance of priorities differs from community to community as well as among First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples. Our diversity and unique distinctions must be respected throughout our full inclusion in the development, implementation and evaluation of all action plans and future processes. Indigenous women will then have the political space and opportunity to balance discussions and reclaim our traditional governing roles.

An enormous issue regarding the safety and well-being of Indigenous women is housing. Socio-economic disadvantages facing Indigenous women and girls regularly impact housing, leaving many Indigenous women and girls in precarious housing situations. Women and girls are more susceptible to poverty and financial dependence and thus are more likely to end up missing, murdered, trafficked or targets of racialized violence.

Closing the education gap for Indigenous women will broaden our opportunities and provide the tools needed to succeed and be self-reliant. Quality education is an essential human right. There is relative importance on the success in education and training linked to living conditions. Appropriate housing, good health and the ability to meet physical, financial and social needs are critical. We need to build a curriculum that accurately reflects Indigenous history in Canada. This can be done through the collaborative work of the federal, provincial and territorial governments and the inclusion of Indigenous authorities.

Finally, numerous studies, including the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples [RCAP], have confirmed that one of the leading causes of violence against Indigenous women is their exclusion from decision-making tables. Thus, the Native Women's Association of Canada is seeking a renewed relationship with the federal government to provide a gender lens to the federal government's policy development and to finally fulfill RCAP'S Calls to Action. A decision-making framework inclusive of NWAC and Indigenous women from coast to coast to coast is a move toward achieving our policy goals, reducing violence against Indigenous women, and ultimate reconciliation.

Including women in the decision-making that affects our lives allows for evidence-based policy decisions and produces a better socio-economic outcome that provides for a safer home. When women are made to feel safer, communities are made stronger. The well-being and advancement of all Indigenous peoples rest largely on the strength and safety of Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. For these reasons, we must emphasize the inclusion of Indigenous women in the nation-to-nation framework and at all forums that impact Indigenous women's lives.

Kukstemc, meegwetch and thank you for your time.

On the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls

National Inquiry "A Complete Waste of Time"
Unless It Dramatically Transforms Power Structures

- Union of BC Indian Chiefs -

On November 26, Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) Secretary Treasurer Kupki7 Judy Wilson told the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls to hold the Canadian state, in all its forms, accountable for "gross acts of violence, injustice, purposeful marginalization, and exclusion."

After years of advocacy by grassroots women, organizations, and UBCIC to bring this inquiry into being -- the inquiry has a duty to challenge the systemic and root causes of the violence faced by Indigenous women and girls. Specifically, the UBCIC called on the Commissioners to speak truth to power and make "bold" recommendations that give governments, the police, and colonial structures a clear roadmap to stop the loss of life and fully implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; anything less would render the inquiry a waste.

In this statement, Kukpi7 Wilson re-emphasized a concern that Indigenous women and organizations have expressed repeatedly throughout the inquiry: if no deep change comes from this Inquiry, the shameful legacy of Canada's treatment of Indigenous women and girls will continue. Without explicit recommendations focused on uprooting colonial violence and state-led oppression, the inquiry's findings will be just another report collecting dust on a shelf.

Despite the profound limitations of the current inquiry, Indigenous activists, organizations, families, and women are not stalled or deterred in their pursuit of security, justice, visibility, and power for Indigenous women and girls. Kupki7 Wilson stated: "Indigenous women and girls will not be erased; we are strong, and we will demand justice every day, for all our days. Our calls for justice will not be silenced with the closing of this inquiry, but instead, this will be another platform on which we will stand to demand justice."

The closing oral submission is reproduced in full below.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson Oral Closing Submission
Calgary, Alberta, November 26, 2018

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

1. I am Chief Judy Wilson, the Secretary-Treasurer on the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Executive.

2. I am here on behalf of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

3. I am also a survivor. My sister was murdered 23 years ago. My mother and brother told their story at the hearings in Vancouver, for the first time. I am here to ensure that their stories, and the stories of others do not go silent, and that justice is realized for everyone.

What is UBCIC?

4. The UBCIC represents First Nations in British Columbia. We are dedicated to affirming and defending the inherent Title and Rights of First Nations people.

5. The UBCIC is made up of representatives elected by band councils of BC. Currently over half the first nations in BC are represented by UBCIC.

6. The UBCIC is the only organization of Chiefs in BC that has been granted standing in this Inquiry.

7. The UBCIC was formed in 1969 in response to the "White Paper", which tried to be Canada's "final" solution to the "Native Problem". The main goal of the White Paper was to lay out a plan for Aboriginal Title and Rights to be extinguished, either through treaties or through governments imposing their will.

8. True respect for aboriginal peoples requires that their inherent Title and Rights be recognized and respected without being extinguished.

9. Displacement of Indigenous peoples from their territorial lands has resulted in state controlled reserve systems, dependency, and poverty.

10. The UBCIC advocates locally, provincially, federally and around the world to demand that the colonial government meet its obligations to finally restore Indigenous people with the security and liberty they had before being colonized.

11. Governments must take every ordinary and extraordinary step to continue the healing and reconciliation of Aboriginal people. This includes repudiating genocidal doctrines of discovery and superiority, and respecting our rights to our lands and our own ways of living.

12. Currently, UBCIC is involved in the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This week we released a paper titled "True, Lasting Reconciliation" a paper that guides the BC government on implementing the UN Declaration. This paper outlines steps for the government to take in addressing its unfinished business in decolonizing our lands and our way of life.

13. Canada has ratified 7 major UN human rights treaties:

a. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
b. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
c. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
d. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
e. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
f. Convention on the Rights of the Child
g. International Convention on Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

14. The UBCIC will continue to make all efforts to ensure Canada complies with all of its international obligations.

15. The Truth and Reconciliation calls to action cannot be implemented without the UN Declaration being fully adopted and implemented without qualification.

UBCIC and Indigenous Women and Girls

16. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he wants a new relationship with Indigenous peoples based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. Mr. Trudeau has betrayed his election-time promises to Indigenous peoples, like buying a pipeline that crosses our beautiful Secwepemc territories without our consent.

17. Mr. Trudeau's government has taken the first nations to court, and gone around the will of First Nations people. We want governments we can rely on in all cases, not just when it suits them.

18. On the issue of missing Indigenous women and girls, the government has not done enough.

19. The government spared no effort in colonizing our land and brutalizing our people. They used and continue to use every legal and illegal tactic to keep our people in their colonial courts, fighting for clean water, our land, our children. They kidnapped our children into residential schools and now the child welfare system. They use tremendous efforts and resources to hold us down and prop themselves up.

20. But when we ask for help, we hear, 'that's too expensive', 'solutions are too complex'. The government spares no expense and effort to keep us down and erase us. Pipelines are complex and expensive. But the government finds a way. If we are in the new "era of reconciliation' the government must stop making excuses and act with the same dedication they used to colonize us.

21. The UBCIC's written closing submissions will focus on many issues, but today I am going to focus only on two systemic issues:

a. police and Indigenous women and girls, and
b. support services for Indigenous women and girls.

22. Although some reports suggest as many as 3000 women and girls have gone missing and been murdered, the data is unreliable and incomplete. Many women and girls have not been added to these lists. Three thousand is a gross under-estimation.

23. For years we have demanded action by government and police to properly investigate the murders and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls.

24. White women and girls do not worry about their safety the way Indigenous women and girls do.

25. I am inspired by the movements in various communities that have become allies in advocacy and fellow agitators for change.

26. For instance, Idle No More powerfully highlighted the many ways in which our people experience discrimination, oppression, and especially police brutality.

27. The 'Me Too' movement has highlighted the everyday criminal treatment of women in all areas of life.

28. I stand with these movements, amplify their voices, and raise my own voice in solidarity to call for immediate change, justice, and equality for Indigenous women and girls.

29. For far too long the lives of Indigenous women and girls have been ignored. We will not stand for this anymore. I take strength and inspiration from these movements for change. There can be no more discussion about whether we are discriminated against and treated unfairly. We are. And we want solutions NOW. In fact, we wanted these solutions decades ago when we first began calling for a national inquiry.

30. The UBCIC received standing at the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry in BC, but refused to participate because of a denial of just process.[1] Indigenous women and our organizations were purposely excluded, denying our voices and our experiences once again.

31. The UBCIC has called for a national public inquiry with many of our sisters, and once again, we were shut out by the process. We were not able to meaningfully participate.

32. We are here today, to let you the Commissioners and the Government know, that after years of advocacy, from many others, and us to bring this Inquiry into being, this Inquiry is not enough. We expected more, we deserved more, and we will continue to demand more.

33. Indigenous people have no confidence in the justice system. Be it police, the courts, or lawmakers. Whether in the Downtown Eastside or the Highway of Tears, we have seen lawmakers drag their heels and police turn a blind eye while women were being murdered by the dozens.

34. It breaks my heart to think of the hundreds of fathers, mothers, sisters and aunties that have walked highways, riverbanks and forests looking for their daughters.

35. It is clear to me that the murders of Indigenous women and girls are not treated with respect and urgency.

36. Let me say in this forum, for you the Commissioners, and for the Government to hear, that Indigenous women and girls will not be erased, that we are strong, and we will demand justice every day, for all our days. Our calls for justice will not be softened with the closing of this Inquiry, but instead, this will be another platform on which we will stand to drum, sing, and call for justice.

Empty red dresses have come to symbolize the Indigenous women and girls who have been murdered or gone missing and the peoples' demand for redress. Top: dresses line the steps to the parliament buildings in Ottawa; bottom: alongside the Highway of Tears in northern British Columbia.

Police and UBCIC

37. The UBCIC has worked tirelessly to educate police on how to behave ethically. This is work we should not have to do. Police treat Indigenous people as though being Indigenous is a crime.

38. We have advocated for the appointment of an Indigenous person as the Police Complaint Commissioner, but this has not happened

39. We call for an end to the practice of police investigating their own. There must be police accountability for Indigenous people to have any faith in policing.

40. We need to look no further than the case of Cindy Gladue to demonstrate the shameful way in which the justice system treats Indigenous women.

41. An Edmonton jury acquitted Bradley Barton in the violent death of Cindy Gladue. Her physical remains were scrutinized inside the courtroom, which was a gross violation of her physical and spiritual integrity, and extremely hurtful to her family, to Indigenous women, and an affront to all.

42. The court proceedings were racist. How can we believe in the justice system when the highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an absurd appeal of her killer? We will be keenly watching for their decision, but don't have high hopes.

43. We have lost many Indigenous and women and girls in horrific ways. Robert Pickton murdered dozens of women with police just looking on.

44. The Government called the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, led by Wally Oppal. That Inquiry is a study on 'how NOT to run an Inquiry.' It marginalized the very groups and people affected by the missing women tragedy, it was plagued by scandal, and then issued a report that found no specific fault by any police officer, and held no one accountable for their mistakes.

45. To make matters worse, recommendations from the Commission have been largely ignored. In 2016 the Auditor General released a report that found that the government has not been transparent in reporting its progress on implementing recommendations, and has only implemented the 'intent' of 8 of the 23 recommendations. And as far as the 8 that have been implemented, there has been very little consultation with stakeholders.

46. We strongly urge this Inquiry not to follow in the footsteps of the Oppal Inquiry.

47. This Inquiry's Institutional and Expert hearings process was not adequate -- it did not properly dive into the systemic issues in the justice system which need to shift to bring about change.

48. It is clear a National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls will likely not be re-called. This is why it is important that the Commissioners are brave and bold, and speak the truth to incite a societal shift in Canada.

Police and Women - Deep Distrust and Lack of Help

49. Given UBCIC's history with policing issues, we can speak with authority that women and girls feel a deep distrust of police. And this deep distrust is justified.

50. Indigenous women have a higher vulnerability to violence simply because they live in a society that poses a risk to their safety.[2] This statement deserves pause and reflection. This statement must be understood and internalized, especially by the police forces in BC and across Canada.

51. We must ask the tough questions:

a. What makes society more risky for indigenous women?
b. Who in society is directly responsible for this risk?
c. Who is indirectly responsible for this risk?

52. The Commissioners must answer these questions decisively. Politics must be put aside.

53. Indigenous women live in a more dangerous world than the average person and as such are deserving of the best protection from the state and its police forces.

54. This is not the case. In fact the opposite is often true. In the Report of Commissioner Oppal, he asked the question of whether "police met their obligation to provide equal protection, specifically to vulnerable groups." He concluded that the police investigations of missing and murdered women and girls did not live up to this obligation in several important ways. However, Commissioner Oppal found that the "failings are attributable neither to overt or intentional police bias nor to generalized institutional bias, but to the operating of negative stereotypes and systemic bias.[3] Two and a half years, and $10 million dollars, and all he came up with is a defense of the police, and their deliberate racist behavior.

55. The UBCIC agrees with Commissioner Oppal on the latter, but not the former. Indigenous people experience discrimination by police in every single way. I have experienced it. Believe me. Believe the stories you have heard.

56. We can only make lasting changes if the Commissioners believe women and girls when they tell you that the police are deeply racist at every level.

57. The Police forces in BC and Canada must lead the charge in mending the deep distrust between them and Indigenous women and girls.

58. In June Brenda Lucki, the RCMP Commissioner, apologized to the families and communities of missing and murdered woman and girls.

59. This apology was a welcome first step, that the RCMP finally are recognizing their role in creating this crisis, and are acknowledging that they need to do better. But apologies without action and without change are meaningless.

60. We call on each of you Commissioners to speak truth to power and make recommendations that will make these statements more than hollow words. We call on the Commissioners to make findings that assign clear and specific responsibility for failures, and make effective recommendations that give all of us a road map to stop this loss of life. ANYTHING LESS THAN THIS WOULD RENDER THIS INQUIRY A WASTE.

Lack of Support Services

61. Apart from help from police and the courts, Indigenous women need support services.

62. Supports for Indigenous women and girls, lack in quality, quantity, and relevancy.

63. When women and girls are seeking help from the police, it is because the harm they are facing, is about to be realized. These women and girls deserve and require help and supports long before issues in their lives reach a crisis point.

64. Indigenous women and girls need support services that are indigenized and decolonized. These support services must be driven by Indigenous people and grass roots organizations. Government programs that fail to consult with us, result in meaningless programs that don't work. The programs must ensure that as women and girls move through urban and rural areas, or through different stages of their lives, their care is continuous, well-funded and responsive to the women and girls' changing needs.

65. The Commissioners are well aware of the issues women and girls face that are involved in the child welfare system. The Commissioners are also well aware of the issues girls face as they 'age out' of the system. This is just one issue we face, but a good example of an issue that has been widely and thoroughly discussed, but the government has not implemented enough changes.

66. We have seen child welfare systems treat women and children with no regard. We know that when Indigenous children are in care they are at risk of serious harm. The state must STOP taking Indigenous children from our communities. We know how to raise our families. And any disruption in this knowledge is because of residential schools and colonization. Support us in re-building our ways of life. And STOP taking our children from us.

67. Paying white people to raise our children, and often harm them, is residential school by another name.

68. Support Indigenous women and children and finally get on our side.

What now?

69. So what now? For some people, the final days of the Inquiry will provide closure. But for many, it is just the beginning. For many, if the Inquiry's report accurately reflects the concerns of the families and the community, the report will be the first step on the journey to healing, truth and reconciliation.

70. It is not enough to simply repeat our stories and say you heard us. We need ACTION. If no deep change comes from this Inquiry, the shameful legacy of Canada's treatment of Indigenous women and girls will continue. And we have had ENOUGH.

71. The questions that we have for you today, are 'Now What?' - 'Where do we go from here?'

72. We ask that the Commissioners do everything they can to make bold recommendations and to ensure that the recommendations in the report are implemented in a timely, thorough and urgent manner.

73. We ask that this Inquiry, continue to recognize the various complex causes for marginalization, deeply consider the role of the state that creates and maintains vulnerabilities of Indigenous women and girls, and inspire all levels of government to afford not just basic, but the very best quality of rights for Indigenous women and girls.

74. And of utmost importance, to re-cast Indigenous women and girls as valuable members of Canadian society that hold positions of high regard including and as givers of life.

The Canadian state has been perpetuating violence against Indigenous women and girls since contact. This is a position that the State has benefitted from by stealing our lands, territories and resources, and this violence at a State and individual level continues today. We call on this inquiry to hold the government accountable for these gross acts of injustice and purposeful marginalization and exclusion. Reclaim this Inquiry for people to speak their truth; Create a safe space and clear a path for all the people here today to feel safe; Encourage everyone to listen to one another and continue to fight for justice.

Notes 

1. Resolution 2011-29

2. Beverly Jacobs & Andrea Williams, "Legacy of Residential Schools: Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women" in Marlene Brant Castello, Linda Archibald & Mike DeGagne, eds, From Truth to Reconciliation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2008) 121, p. 134.

3. Forsaken: The report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. Volume III page 56.

---

Reference Material from Government of Canada

New Ministers to Support the Renewed
Relationship with Indigenous Peoples

- August 28, 2017 -

The Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

We have worked to implement this vision along two interrelated tracks: closing the socioeconomic gap between Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Canadians, and making foundational changes to our laws, policies and operational practices based on the recognition of rights to advance self-determination and self-government.

We recognize that relationships built on colonial structures have contributed to the unacceptable socio-economic gap. While day-to-day realities in Indigenous communities must continue to be addressed directly, there must also be a path to systematic change.

Progress is already being made on both tracks, including:

- We have lifted the 2 per cent funding cap and have made a historic investment of $8.4 billion over five years towards building a better future for Indigenous Peoples in Budget 2016 with an additional $3.4 billion invested in Budget 2017.

- Results so far include 135 projects underway to build and refurbish schools, 6,400 homes being built or renovated, and 29 long-term drinking water advisories eliminated.

- We have placed a moratorium on the own-source revenue policy so that self-governing nations can keep all the funds that they generate through economic development.

- We have signed the largest self-government agreement in Canada so that the Anishnabek Nation in Ontario can take control of its own education.

- Our government has also created new structures to give life to this relationship, including permanent bilateral meetings to make progress on shared priorities with National Indigenous Organizations and the rights holders they represent.

- We have created the Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples, chaired by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The Working Group has publicly released the Principles that guide its vital work.

These structures are advancing important work, but existing colonial structures have not helped us work coherently on both tracks. We believe that we need to do more to be able to construct a relationship that has never before been achieved with success.

In particular, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) -- which serves as a focal point in the government's relationship with Indigenous Peoples -- is charged with implementing the Indian Act, a colonial, paternalistic law. INAC was also not designed or conceived of to support and partner with Inuit and Métis peoples, based on their unique histories, circumstances and aspirations. To put it plainly, the level of the ambition of this government cannot be achieved through existing colonial structures.

Over twenty years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples acknowledged that a new relationship with Indigenous Peoples would require new structures. It recommended that we dramatically improve the delivery of services while accelerating a move to self-government and self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. One mechanism to achieve this was the dissolution of INAC and the creation of two new ministries to facilitate this work.

We agree with the Royal Commission that rights recognition must be an imperative, and that is why today we are announcing the dissolution of INAC.

In its place, we will be establishing two new departments: a Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and a Department of Indigenous Services. These changes are modelled on the recommendations of the Royal Commission and will be finalized in cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.

The dedicated public servants at INAC work hard every day to help build a better country and improve the lives of Indigenous Peoples. This work will continue, but under new structures that will better position the Government of Canada for success.

What we are doing today is also a next step toward ending the Indian Act, but the pace of transition will also require the leadership of Indigenous communities themselves.

Today's announcement is an important step in building a true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown, and government-to-government relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada.

This dissolution of INAC will be staged. Today, we are immediately creating two new Ministerial roles that will take on distinct, but complementary objectives within the existing legislated structures:

- The new Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs will guide the Government's forward-looking and transformative work to create a new relationship with Indigenous Peoples. A key part of the Minister's mandate will be to lead a consultation process to determine how best to replace INAC with the two new departments. The Minister will also be tasked with better whole-of-government coordination on our nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown, and government-to-government relationships, to accelerate self-government and self-determination agreements based on new policies, laws and operational practices, and to develop a framework to advance a recognition of rights approach that will last well beyond this government.

- The new Minister of Indigenous Services will continue the important work of improving the quality of services delivered to First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. This will include ensuring a consistent, high quality, and distinctions-based approach to the delivery of those services. A rigorous results and delivery approach will be adopted, focused on improving outcomes for Indigenous Peoples. Over time, one fundamental measure of success will be that appropriate programs and services will be increasingly delivered, not by the Government of Canada, but instead by Indigenous Peoples as they move to self-government. At the conclusion of this consultation, services currently delivered to Indigenous Peoples by other departments shall be considered for transfer into the new department (e.g. health delivery).

The dissolution of INAC will require legislative amendments. In addition, formalization of Ministerial titles and responsibilities will be finalized following Royal Assent of proposed amendments to the Salaries Act, which is currently before Parliament.

Both Ministers will be members of the Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples, whose work and Principles will help guide and support the work of both Ministers. Mandate letters for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and the Minister of Indigenous Services will be released publicly in the weeks ahead.

As mentioned today in a personal message from the Prime Minister to INAC employees, we need to shed the administrative structures and legislation that were conceived in another time for a different kind of relationship. The moment is upon us to work with even more focus with Indigenous Peoples and our provincial and territorial partners toward making our national journey of reconciliation a reality.

Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's Relationship with Indigenous peoples

- Department of Justice, February 14, 2018 -

The Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through a renewed, nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership as the foundation for transformative change.

Indigenous peoples have a special constitutional relationship with the Crown. This relationship, including existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, is recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 contains a full box of rights, and holds the promise that Indigenous nations will become partners in Confederation on the basis of a fair and just reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the Crown.

The Government recognizes that Indigenous self-government and laws are critical to Canada's future, and that Indigenous perspectives and rights must be incorporated in all aspects of this relationship. In doing so, we will continue the process of decolonization and hasten the end of its legacy wherever it remains in our laws and policies.

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires transformative change in the Government's relationship with Indigenous peoples. The UN Declaration is a statement of the collective and individual rights that are necessary for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples around the world, and the Government must take an active role in enabling these rights to be exercised. The Government will fulfil its commitment to implementing the UN Declaration through the review of laws and policies, as well as other collaborative initiatives and actions. This approach aligns with the UN Declaration itself, which contemplates that it may be implemented by States through various measures.

This review of laws and policies will be guided by Principles respecting the Government of Canada's Relationship with Indigenous peoples. These Principles are rooted in section 35, guided by the UN Declaration, and informed by the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)'s Calls to Action. In addition, they reflect a commitment to good faith, the rule of law, democracy, equality, non-discrimination, and respect for human rights. They will guide the work required to fulfill the Government's commitment to renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationships.

These Principles are a starting point to support efforts to end the denial of Indigenous rights that led to disempowerment and assimilationist policies and practices. They seek to turn the page in an often troubled relationship by advancing fundamental change whereby Indigenous peoples increasingly live in strong and healthy communities with thriving cultures. To achieve this change, it is recognized that Indigenous nations are self-determining, self-governing, increasingly self-sufficient, and rightfully aspire to no longer be marginalized, regulated, and administered under the Indian Act and similar instruments. The Government of Canada acknowledges that strong Indigenous cultural traditions and customs, including languages, are fundamental to rebuilding Indigenous nations. As part of this rebuilding, the diverse needs and experiences of Indigenous women and girls must be considered as part of this work, to ensure a future where non-discrimination, equality and justice are achieved. The rights of Indigenous peoples, wherever they live, shall be upheld.

These Principles are to be read holistically and with their supporting commentary. The Government of Canada acknowledges that the understandings and applications of these Principles in relationships with First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit will be diverse, and their use will necessarily be contextual. These Principles are a necessary starting point for the Crown to engage in partnership, and a significant move away from the status quo to a fundamental change in the relationship with Indigenous peoples. The work of shifting to, and implementing, recognition-based relationships is a process that will take dynamic and innovative action by the federal government and Indigenous peoples. These Principles are a step to building meaning into a renewed relationship.

1. The Government of Canada recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government.

This opening Principle affirms the priority of recognition in renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationships. As set out by the courts, an Indigenous nation or rights-holding group is a group of Indigenous people sharing critical features such as language, customs, traditions, and historical experience at key moments in time like first contact, assertion of Crown sovereignty, or effective control. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples estimated that there are between 60 and 80 historical nations in Canada.

The Government of Canada's recognition of the ongoing presence and inherent rights of Indigenous peoples as a defining feature of Canada is grounded in the promise of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in addition to reflecting articles 3 and 4 of the UN Declaration. The promise mandates the reconciliation of the prior existence of Indigenous peoples and the assertion of Crown sovereignty, as well as the fulfilment of historic treaty relationships.

This principle reflects the UN Declaration's call to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples. This includes the rights that derive from their political, economic, and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories, laws, and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.

Canada's constitutional and legal order recognizes the reality that Indigenous peoples' ancestors owned and governed the lands which now constitute Canada prior to the Crown's assertion of sovereignty. All of Canada's relationships with Indigenous peoples are based on recognition of this fact and supported by the recognition of Indigenous title and rights, as well as the negotiation and implementation of pre-Confederation, historic, and modern treaties.

It is the mutual responsibility of all governments to shift their relationships and arrangements with Indigenous peoples so that they are based on recognition and respect for the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government for Indigenous nations. For the federal government, this responsibility includes changes in the operating practices and processes of the federal government. For Indigenous peoples, this responsibility includes how they define and govern themselves as nations and governments and the parameters of their relationships with other orders of government.

2. The Government of Canada recognizes that reconciliation is a fundamental purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Reconciliation is an ongoing process through which Indigenous peoples and the Crown work cooperatively to establish and maintain a mutually respectful framework for living together, with a view to fostering strong, healthy, and sustainable Indigenous nations within a strong Canada. As we build a new future, reconciliation requires recognition of rights and that we all acknowledge the wrongs of the past, know our true history, and work together to implement Indigenous rights.

This transformative process involves reconciling the pre-existence of Indigenous peoples and their rights and the assertion of sovereignty of the Crown, including inherent rights, title, and jurisdiction. Reconciliation, based on recognition, will require hard work, changes in perspectives and actions, and compromise and good faith, by all.

Reconciliation frames the Crown's actions in relation to Aboriginal and treaty rights and informs the Crown's broader relationship with Indigenous peoples. The Government of Canada's approach to reconciliation is guided by the UN Declaration, the TRCs Calls to Action, constitutional values, and collaboration with Indigenous peoples as well as provincial and territorial governments.

3. The Government of Canada recognizes that the honour of the Crown guides the conduct of the Crown in all of its dealings with Indigenous peoples.

The Government of Canada recognizes that it must uphold the honour of the Crown, which requires the federal government and its departments, agencies, and officials to act with honour, integrity, good faith, and fairness in all of its dealings with Indigenous peoples. The honour of the Crown gives rise to different legal duties in different circumstances, including fiduciary obligations and diligence. The overarching aim is to ensure that Indigenous peoples are treated with respect and as full partners in Confederation.

4. The Government of Canada recognizes that Indigenous self-government is part of Canada's evolving system of cooperative federalism and distinct orders of government.

This Principle affirms the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right within section 35. Recognition of the inherent jurisdiction and legal orders of Indigenous nations is therefore the starting point of discussions aimed at interactions between federal, provincial, territorial, and Indigenous jurisdictions and laws.

As informed by the UN Declaration, Indigenous peoples have a unique connection to and constitutionally protected interest in their lands, including decision-making, governance, jurisdiction, legal traditions, and fiscal relations associated with those lands.

Nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationships, including treaty relationships, therefore include:

a. developing mechanisms and designing processes which recognize that Indigenous peoples are foundational to Canada's constitutional framework;

b. involving Indigenous peoples in the effective decision-making and governance of our shared home;

c. putting in place effective mechanisms to support the transition away from colonial systems of administration and governance, including, where it currently applies, governance and administration under the Indian Act; and

d. ensuring, based on recognition of rights, the space for the operation of Indigenous jurisdictions and laws.

5. The Government of Canada recognizes that treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and respect.

This Principle recognizes that Indigenous peoples have diverse interests and aspirations and that reconciliation can be achieved in different ways with different nations, groups, and communities.

This principle honours historic treaties as frameworks for living together, including the modern expression of these relationships. In accordance with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, many Indigenous nations and the Crown historically relied on treaties for mutual recognition and respect to frame their relationships. Across much of Canada, the treaty relationship between the Indigenous nations and Crown is a foundation for ongoing cooperation and partnership with Indigenous peoples.

The Government of Canada recognizes the role that treaty-making has played in building Canada and the contemporary importance of treaties, both historic and those negotiated after 1973, as foundations for ongoing efforts at reconciliation. The spirit and intent of both Indigenous and Crown parties to treaties, as reflected in oral and written histories, must inform constructive partnerships, based on the recognition of rights, that support full and timely treaty implementation.

In accordance with section 35, all Indigenous peoples in Canada should have the choice and opportunity to enter into treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements with the Crown as acts of reconciliation that form the foundation for ongoing relations. The Government of Canada prefers no one mechanism of reconciliation to another. It is prepared to enter into innovative and flexible arrangements with Indigenous peoples that will ensure that the relationship accords with the aspirations, needs, and circumstances of the Indigenous-Crown relationship. The Government also acknowledges that the existence of Indigenous rights is not dependent on an agreement and, where agreements are formed, they should be based on the recognition and implementation of rights and not their extinguishment, modification, or surrender.

Accordingly, this Principle recognizes and affirms the importance that Indigenous peoples determine and develop their own priorities and strategies for organization and advancement. The Government of Canada recognizes Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, including the right to freely pursue their economic, political, social, and cultural development.

6. The Government of Canada recognizes that meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples aims to secure their free, prior, and informed consent when Canada proposes to take actions which impact them and their rights, including their lands, territories and resources.

This Principle acknowledges the Government of Canada's commitment to new nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationships that builds on and goes beyond the legal duty to consult. In delivering on this commitment, the Government recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples to participate in decision-making in matters that affect their rights through their own representative institutions and the need to consult and cooperate in good faith with the aim of securing their free, prior, and informed consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified that the standard to secure consent of Indigenous peoples is strongest in the case of Aboriginal title lands. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that Aboriginal title gives the holder the right to use, control, and manage the land and the right to the economic benefits of the land and its resources. The Indigenous nation, as proper title holder, decides how to use and manage its lands for both traditional activities and modern purposes, subject to the limit that the land cannot be developed in a way that would deprive future generations of the benefit of the land.

The importance of free, prior, and informed consent, as identified in the UN Declaration, extends beyond title lands. To this end, the Government of Canada will look for opportunities to build processes and approaches aimed at securing consent, as well as creative and innovative mechanisms that will help build deeper collaboration, consensus, and new ways of working together. It will ensure that Indigenous peoples and their governments have a role in public decision-making as part of Canada's constitutional framework and ensure that Indigenous rights, interests, and aspirations are recognized in decision-making.

7. The Government of Canada recognizes that respecting and implementing rights is essential and that any infringement of section 35 rights must by law meet a high threshold of justification which includes Indigenous perspectives and satisfies the Crown's fiduciary obligations.

This Principle reaffirms the central importance of working in partnership to recognize and implement rights and, as such, that any infringement of Aboriginal or treaty rights requires justification in accordance with the highest standards established by the Canadian courts and must be attained in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown and the objective of reconciliation.

This requirement flows from Canada's constitutional arrangements. Meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples is therefore mandated whenever the Government may seek to infringe a section 35 right.

8. The Government of Canada recognizes that reconciliation and self-government require a renewed fiscal relationship, developed in collaboration with Indigenous nations, that promotes a mutually supportive climate for economic partnership and resource development.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the rights, interests, perspectives, and governance role of Indigenous peoples are central to securing a new fiscal relationship. It also recognizes the importance of strong Indigenous governments in achieving political, social, economic, and cultural development and improved quality of life.

This Principle recognizes that a renewed economic and fiscal relationship must ensure that Indigenous nations have the fiscal capacity, as well as access to land and resources, in order to govern effectively and to provide programs and services to those for whom they are responsible.

The renewed fiscal relationship will also enable Indigenous peoples to have fair and ongoing access to their lands, territories, and resources to support their traditional economies and to share in the wealth generated from those lands and resources as part of the broader Canadian economy.

A fairer fiscal relationship with Indigenous nations can be achieved through a number of mechanisms such as new tax arrangements, new approaches to calculating fiscal transfers, and the negotiation of resource revenue sharing agreements.

9. The Government of Canada recognizes that reconciliation is an ongoing process that occurs in the context of evolving Indigenous-Crown relationships.

This Principle recognizes that reconciliation processes, including processes for negotiation and implementation of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, will need to be innovative and flexible and build over time in the context of evolving Indigenous-Crown relationships. These relationships are to be guided by the recognition and implementation of rights.

Treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements should be capable of evolution over time. Moreover, they should provide predictability for the future as to how provisions may be changed or implemented and in what circumstances. Canada is open to flexibility, innovation, and diversity in the nature, form, and content of agreements and arrangements.

The Government of Canada also recognizes that it has an active role and responsibility in ensuring the cultural survival of Indigenous peoples as well as in protecting Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Government of Canada will continue to collaborate with Indigenous peoples on changes to federal laws, regulations, and policies to realize the unfulfilled constitutional promise of s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

10. The Government of Canada recognizes that a distinctions-based approach is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests and circumstances of the First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit are acknowledged, affirmed, and implemented.

The Government of Canada recognizes First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit as the Indigenous peoples of Canada, consisting of distinct, rights-bearing communities with their own histories, including with the Crown. The work of forming renewed relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership must reflect the unique interests, priorities and circumstances of each People.

Summary

The Government of Canada recognizes that:

1. All relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government.

2. Reconciliation is a fundamental purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

3. The honour of the Crown guides the conduct of the Crown in all of its dealings with Indigenous peoples.

4. Indigenous self-government is part of Canada's evolving system of cooperative federalism and distinct orders of government.

5. Treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and respect.

6. Meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples aims to secure their free, prior, and informed consent when Canada proposes to take actions which impact them and their rights on their lands, territories, and resources.

7. Respecting and implementing rights is essential and that any infringement of section 35 rights must by law meet a high threshold of justification which includes Indigenous perspectives and satisfies the Crown's fiduciary obligations.

8. Reconciliation and self-government require a renewed fiscal relationship, developed in collaboration with Indigenous nations, that promotes a mutually supportive climate for economic partnership and resource development.

9. Reconciliation is an ongoing process that occurs in the context of evolving Indigenous-Crown relationships.

10. A distinctions-based approach is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests and circumstances of the First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit are acknowledged, affirmed, and implemented.

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca