Characteristics of a Nation-to-Nation Relationship ...3 In 2007 the Assembly of First Nations, and...

Characteristics of a Nation-to-Nation Relationship

Dialogue Series

National S u m m i tR E P O R TDrawing Conclusions for the Way Forward

December 2017© Institute on Governance, 2017 All conference photos by Tania Budgell.

We gratefully acknowledge that this gathering was held on unceded Algonquin territory.

Dialogue series reports and videos: iog.ca/characteristics-nation-nation-relationship/

Submitted by Marcia NickersonIndigenous Governance Consultant

ABOUT THE AUTHORMarcia Nickerson is a leader in the field of Indigenous governance, providing high-level advisory services to Indigenous organizations and governments, businesses, and public sector clients in the federal and provincial governments. Marcia has led dozens of multi-stakeholder engagement processes as well as large syndicated research projects. Marcia has authored several papers on diverse topics such as the impacts of technology on Indigenous communities, the socio-economic impacts of Indigenous cultural industries, and developmental financing for Aboriginal businesses. Formerly the Vice President of the Institutes’ Indigenous Governance knowledge area, Marcia is currently an independent consultant and the Chair of the imagineNATIVE Film & Media Arts Festival.

60 rue George StreetOttawa, ON, Canada, K1N 1J4Tel/Tel: 613-562-0090Fax/Telec: 613-562-0087https://iog.ca

https://iog.ca

https://iog.ca/characteristics-nation-nation-relationship/

Table of ContentsBackground ................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2Begin at the BeginningWalking the TalkEstablishing a Sense of UrgencyThe Principle of Respect

Indigenous Visions for Renewed Relationships ....................................................................... 5The Nation-to-Nation RelationshipThe Crown – Inuit RelationshipThe Métis Government-to-Government RelationshipIndigenous Youth Vision

Federal Vision for Indigenous-Crown Relations .................................................................... 11Department of Crown RelationsDepartment of Indigenous Services

Taking Stock of Lessons Learned ............................................................................................. 13Garnering National SupportOngoing, Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous PeoplesAvoiding Unnecessary Plebiscites

Overarching Recognition .......................................................................................................... 16Call to Action #45ChallengesFraming a new Royal ProclamationProvinces as Crown

The Way Forward ....................................................................................................................... 19Indigenous Self-GovernmentRecognition of Inherent Right of Self-GovernmentAdditional Legislative UnderpinningsMétis Access to LandInuit Implementation of Land ClaimsTreaty renewal and Treaty implementationNew Fiscal RelationshipsEqualization PrincipleIncreased Federal Accountability

Changing the Outcomes for Indigenous Peoples In Canada .................................................... 23Significant Investments: Closing the social and economic gaps Métis Specific InvestmentsBuilding InstitutionsIncreasing Public Awareness & Changing Public Opinion

Beyond the Federal Crown Relationship ................................................................................. 25Provincial Crown Relationships with the Private SectorRole of the Public ServiceRole of Academic Institutions

A Federal Blueprint ................................................................................................................... 28

Participants & Speakers List .................................................................................................... 30

Thank You & Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 33

Institute on GovernanceCanadians for a New Partnership 1

Background

The federal government has committed to pursuing a Nation-to-Nation relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation and partnership with Indigenous people in Canada, acknowledging this as both the right thing to do and a path to economic growth. Over the past year, the Institute on Governance and Canadians for a New Partnership convened a series of dialogues across Canada to provide an open and respectful forum to articulate the characteristics of the “Nation-to-Nation relationship”1, as defined and perceived by Indigenous leaders and government departments. The series culminated in a two-day National Summit on November 27-28, 2017, wherein national Indigenous leadership, Federal and Provincial Ministers, Canadian Senators, former Prime Ministers, Indigenous youth leadership and many other leaders with a vested interest, spoke to the findings of the discussions to date, as well as their visions and expectations for the future of the Crown’s relationship with the First Peoples of Canada.

This summary is meant to reflect the final dialogue, but should be considered in the context of the preceding discussions and papers that not only expound the key concepts and recommendations put forward by almost 500 participants throughout the dialogue process, but also extrapolate on some of the historical underpinnings of utmost importance to the relationships. For access to the final National Dialogue discussion paper, session summaries, or thought leader interviews, visit the IOG website, or click the links below.

• Nation-to-Nation Discussion Paper• Nation Building and Re-Building• Jurisdiction• New Intergovernmental Fiscal Relationships• Wealth Creation

Emerging from these conversations is a framework for establishing new relationships between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown that consists of significant historic underpinnings, acts of reconciliation to repair the relationship, and undertakings for nation(s) building and resurgence. It includes six fundamental pillars:

1. Indigenous self-government founded in self-determination, legal capacity and access to resources;

2. The recognition of inherent Aboriginal and Treaty rights, as well as the ability to exercise and implement inherent rights and responsibilities;

3. Treaty renewal and treaty implementation; 4. A New Fiscal Relationship: Fiscal arrangements and resource revenue sharing; 5. Changing the outcomes for Indigenous Peoples in Canada: closing the social and

economic gaps faced by Indigenous peoples; and6. Increasing public awareness and changing public opinion.

1 It is important to note that participants throughout the dialogue series emphasized that the term “Nation-to-Nation” was limiting, defining the relationship for only one of the three groups of Indigenous peoples on Canada. Therefore, while the title of this report is reflective of the name of the IOG and CFNP dialogues series, the following report will utilize the more encompassing “Indigenous / Crown relationships.”

2Characteristics of a Nation-to-Nation Relationship Dialogue SeriesNational Summit Report - Drawing Conclusions for the Way Forward

Introduction

BEGIN AT THE BEGINNINGStephen Kakfwi, President of Canadians for a new Partnership, began the dialogue by asking, “What does Canada’s commitment to the Nation-to-Nation relationship really mean?” He noted that it is completely contrary to Indigenous nationhood for Canada to have a history based on extinguishing Indigenous peoples connection to the land, the creator and each other. Historically negotiations with the Crown have been positioned to diminish and extinguish Indigenous peoples rights, a position which remains untenable.2 Participants often echoed Stephen Kakfwi’s sentiments: “let’s start from the beginning to go forward in an honourable way, which includes concrete actions, agreements, and recognizing the rights and stature of Indigenous people across the country.” The Honourable Murray Sinclair, MSC, Canadian Senator for Manitoba also emphasized that recognition and understanding of how the relationship has unfolded, and addressing historical injustices steeped in oppression, abuse and incarceration, is integral to healing and moving forward.

During the dialogues, there was a general consensus that the key first step in resetting relationships between the Crown and Indigenous peoples involves taking stock of and recognizing the legacy of colonial policies such as the Indian Act and the Residential Schools program. These policies have eroded many Indigenous nations’ governance institutions and practices, left a legacy of intergenerational trauma within Indigenous communities, and threatened the survival of Indigenous languages and cultures, which is the basis of Indigenous identity and nationhood.

All dialogues around the Nation-to-Nation relationship inevitably begin with discussions of current and past historical injustices, and how these may be addressed by new relationships and through reconciliation efforts.

“CANADA’S GREATEST FAILURE IN ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE: NOT FULLY ACCEPTING ITS TRUTH AND ITS HISTORY. CANADA PUTS ON A FACADE TO THE WORLD, THAT WE ARE A COUNTRY FOUNDED ON INCLUSION, CELEBRATION OF DIVERSITY, AND KINDNESS; AS IF THERE ISN’T STILL A HUGE POPULATION DENIED THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION AND INEQUALITIES.”

Riley Yesno, Prime Minister’s Youth Council

2 The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) noted that Indigenous peoples had lost at least two-thirds of their land base since Confederation. They found the failure to honour treaties a moral failing of government and advocated for increasing Indigenous access to lands and resources to help provide an economic base to close socio-economic gaps, to increase financing from taxation for self-government and to help resolve friction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. RCAP Commission called on federal and provincial governments to recognize of the existence of Aboriginal rights and title and treaty rights affirmed in Section 35 and not to pursue extinguishment of Aboriginal title in any ongoing negotiations.


WALKING THE TALKPicking up on this concept, the Honourable Gwen Boniface, COM OOnt, Canadian Senator for Ontario, and Member of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples noted that a key challenge moving forward is the required institutional change within the bureaucracy.

She notes it is “easy to talk the talk, but harder to walk the walk,” which will required strong government leadership informed by Indigenous peoples to build the path towards reconciliation. National Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) noted that the executive branch of the

government has to keep up with the judicial and fiduciary branches, implementing directions on the Inherent Right, Additions to Reserve, and Comprehensive and Specific Claims through policy change, legislation and statutory funding.

By way of example, the Honourable Bob Rae, PC, CC, OOnt QC and former Premier of Ontario, described the incongruence of the Crown’s legal positions and arguments in court, wherein Indigenous peoples are spending millions of dollars in court because the federal government is not living up to its existing responsibilities, the pinnacle of which is demonstrated by the First Nations Caring Society Case.3 He suggested that a new federal approach to litigation is required, rather than defending arguments that are politically unsustainable and contrary to the statements of government intent and Supreme Court findings. Chief Wayne Christian of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council also stressed that what is happening in the courts is in direct contravention of what the federal government is saying publicly, specifically around the issue cede and surrender and extinguishment, which have impeded negotiations and treaty making.

Howard Grant, Executive Director of the First Nations Summit, cited a federal government policy document, the long-term objectives of which were to support communities to take charge of own affairs, guided by financial resources, provide services comparable to neighbouring communities, negotiate comprehensive claims and resolve outstanding specific claims. While these objectives sound in keeping with current federal direction, the policy quoted is actually from the 1970s, and therefore reads like a cautionary tale, reiterating the importance of taking the necessary actions required to make change as opposed to political promises that can remain unfulfilled for decades.

3 In 2007 the Assembly of First Nations, and Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging Canada was discriminating against First Nations children by underfunding child welfare services on reserves. In January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal sided with Blackstock and the AFN, however, the federal government has continued to stall on the implementation. In 2017 it was announced as a federal priority. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/blackstock-philpott-children-welfare-1.4420658

L-R: The Rt. Hon Joe Clark, Isadore Day, The Hon. Gwen Boniface, Ovide Mercredi


“OUR HISTORY IS LITTERED WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS OF THE STATE.”

Natan Obed, President Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

ESTABLISHING A SENSE OF URGENCYAlthough this is not the first time Canada and Indigenous nations have tried to redesign their relationship, at this juncture the Prime Minister and Cabinet are highly engaged and there is an opportunity to make lasting change. Many Indigenous leaders believe that this “window of change” is slowly closing and, therefore, time is of the essence on the part of Indigenous leaders to work with the processes and structures unfolding at the federal level. After the evaporation of the Kelowna Accord, Indigenous peoples have learned not to get their hopes up with federal government promises. There is an opportunity with the current federal government that appears sincerely committed to Indigenous affairs and issues. AFN Regional Chief Morley Googoo highlighted the need to establish a sense of urgency and create unifying coalitions to ensure capitalizing on existing opportunities up until the next federal election. Many leaders emphasized the need to seize opportunities and continue to engage those invested in change in order to leverage hope and achieve concrete actions and agreements regarding nationhood, treaty implementation, and rights.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RESPECTNatan Obed, President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), envisions “a respect that breeds a higher level of prosperity.” Both the ITK and the Métis National Council have publically stressed the need for an approach that recognizes and respects the distinctions between Indigenous peoples. AFN Regional Chief Isadore Day also believes that the first requirement in relationship re-building is respect on the part of bureaucrats and politicians that begins with sharing, which acknowledges, for example, that First Nations never ceded land through the treaty process. “All resources in Canada are subject

to Aboriginal Title and jurisdiction, and this is the base of how we participate in Canada as a nation, as opposed to administering our poverty.” Respect for the first peoples of land and recognition of the Inherent right will lead to meaningfully involvement in the trade/treaty relationship, and thus meaningful economic participation.

The Honourable David Zimmer, MPP, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Government of Ontario, also touched on the notion that a more mature relationship between the parties is required moving forward, and thoughtful and respectful dialogue based on equality and respect is the way forward.

L-R: The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, Isadore Day


Indigenous Visions for Renewed RelationshipsIn late 2016 the Prime Minister committed to create permanent bilateral mechanisms with the Assembly of First Nations and First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the four Inuit Nunangat Regions, and the Métis National Council and its governing members. These national Indigenous leaders came together to articulate their visions of a renewed relationship.4

THE NATION-TO-NATION RELATIONSHIPNational Chief Perry Bellegarde prefaced his remarks by citing the recent Statistics Canada findings on the Indigenous population in Canada. According to the 2016 census:

“NEARLY 1.7 MILLION PEOPLE IDENTIFIED AS ABORIGINAL IN THE 2016 CENSUS, STATISTICS CANADA SAYS – A 4.9 PER CENT SHARE OF THE TOTAL POPULATION AND A BREATHTAKING 42.5 PER CENT INCREASE SINCE 2006, A GROWTH RATE MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THAT OF THEIR NON-INDIGENOUS COUNTERPARTS…. PARADOXICALLY, THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION IN CANADA IS BOTH YOUNG – 32.1 YEARS OLD, ON AVERAGE, COMPARED TO 40.9 YEARS OLD FOR NON-ABORIGINALS – AND AGING: 7.3 PER CENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WERE 65 OR OLDER IN 2016, COMPARED WITH 4.8 PER CENT IN 2006…. STATISTICS CANADA’S PROJECTIONS SHOW THAT THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION IN CANADA WILL TOP 2.5 MILLION OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS.”5 “FOUR OUT OF EVERY FIVE ABORIGINAL RESERVES HAVE MEDIAN INCOMES THAT FALL BELOW THE POVERTY LINE, ACCORDING TO INCOME DATA FROM THE 2016 CENSUS THAT PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO THE DEPTH OF POVERTY FACING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN CANADA.”6

National Chief Perry Bellegarde

The National Chief reflected on these statistics, to demonstrate that Indigenous peoples are not ethnic minorities in Canada, noting how the movement of First Nations people on and off reserve land raises issues of the portability of both rights and services. According to the Census, Indigenous youth is the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population, which otherwise has an aging workforce. There is no better way out of poverty than good education, both in terms of formal education and education around ceremony and custom.

According to the National Chief there are five things that bring about self-determination: land, laws, language, peoples, and identifiable forms of government. When lands are taken up for settlement Aboriginal people must be compensated on a fair and equitable basis. Bearing in mind the latest statistics when we talk land about claims, the existing 634 existing reservations represent only 2% of the land base. Although the Royal Proclamation on Aboriginal Peoples recognized Aboriginal Title, settler governments assumed Crown

4 A recording of the panel can be found on CPAC (http://www.cpac.ca/en/?s=&category=cnnr2017).5 https://globalnews.ca/news/3823772/canadas-growing-indigenous-population/6 https://globalnews.ca/news/3795083/reserves-poverty-line-census/


sovereignty and jurisdiction. But how can a better place in Canada be built, not just for common law and civil law, but Indigenous law? Self-determination means exerting Indigenous laws, occupying jurisdictional fields by asserting jurisdiction beyond the Indian Act.

In addition to revamping federal policies, priorities for the National Chief included a new fiscal relationship with Canada based on a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product as well as resource revenue sharing. He noted that the AFN is working to jointly develop a Languages Revitalization Act, and to implement Bill C-262 – the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Implementing this Act is meant to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with international standards. Finally, as with many First Nation leaders, the National Chief believes a legislative base for statutory funding is required to ensure that socio-economic gaps are addressed.

THE CROWN – INUIT RELATIONSHIPIn February 2017, the new permanent Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee (ICPC) was tasked with creating prosperity for Inuit for the benefit of all Canadians. It will advance shared priorities including implementation of Inuit land claims agreements, social development, and reconciliation and will “energetically and creatively pursu(e) the socio-economic, cultural, and environmental conditions of success through the full implementation of land claims agreements as well as reconciliation.7”

President Obed of spoke to the aspiration of the Inuit regarding the Inuit-Crown relationship. The ITK wants to make Canadians conscious of Inuit distinctions and ensure Indigenous policy is not homogeneous; an Inuit Nunangat policy space would not simply follow the 60th parallel, but follow a geo-political space occupied by Inuit. While the Inuit have self-government, they now seek a role in decision-making as well. For ITK, a renewed Inuit-Crown relationship and its priorities moving forward include:

• Protecting, promoting and revitalizing the Inuit language, not only for the Inuit as people, but also to share stories and culture ensuring Canadians know that the Inuit are one of three constitutionally recognized peoples.

• Implementing Land Claim Agreements. He noted that Inuit land claims and agreements are an intermediate step on the path to self-determination. Between 1975 and 2005 the Inuit signed comprehensive land claim agreements over 35% of Canada’s land mass, Implementation of these land claims has been a key topic areas for Inuit in the last generation. First and foremost, the agreements have given structure and certainty to economic interests under the guise of “honour of the Crown.”

Now that there is co-management of land, the Inuit are seeking structure and certainty regarding economic interests. Currently, partisanship plays a huge role in the way agreements are implemented, and therefore implementation can be mercurial and suffer from multiple levels of amnesia.

7 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership. February 9, 2017.


THE MÉTIS GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIPClément Chartier, President of the Métis National Council8, described the emergence of the Métis as a distinct people in a particular historical period (the fur trade of the 18th and 19th centuries), and in a particular region (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta). While the historic Métis nation is based primarily in western Canada9, the Métis are a distinct people evolving with their own language, geographic territory, political consciousness, and way of life: “In addition to our distinct forms of cultural and linguistic expression and economic activity, we quickly developed a political consciousness of nationalism.” Isaac uses the term “government” to refer to Métis organizations in one of two ways:

1. Traditional geographic-based governments, such as the Métis Settlements in Alberta, or

2. Governments that have the legal authority to represent their constituents/communities’ interests and, in particular, Section 35 rights.10

In April 2017, during the first Métis Nation-Crown Summit in Ottawa, the Prime Minister and the President of the Métis National Council signed the Canada-Métis Nation Accord, creating a permanent bilateral mechanism on issues, including employment, health and housing for Métis people. Canada is investing $84.9 million over five years and $28.3 million per year afterward to build the capacity of the Métis National Council and its five provincial Governing Members and work with Canada on Métis self-government and self-determination.11

According to the Métis National Council, defining the elements and priorities of this new Canada-Métis Nation relationship include:

• Negotiating a new entry into Canada with enough jurisdiction and resources to secure the Métis position as a founding nation in the federation. Establishing new relationship requires Indigenous government founded in self-determination, treaty rights renewal and implementation.

• Negotiating a land base or interests in a land base. For example, during the 1930s, the Métis Association of Alberta was successful in pressuring the Province to set aside lands for the Métis. These Métis Settlements would eventually negotiate the transfer of title to these lands to their government, making them the largest landowner in Alberta outside the Crown, with their own distinct form of self-government.

• Ensuring a distinctions-based approach to Canada’s new relationships with Indigenous peoples, acknowledging, affirming and implementing the unique rights, interests and circumstances of the First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit. This is one of the 10 Principles that Canada is committed to in its relationship with Indigenous peoples, and is absolutely critical for the Métis Nation.

8 The Métis Nation is represented by the Métis National Council and its Governing Members: the Métis Nations of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

9 Under the leadership of Louis Riel, this Métis Nation population formed the first Métis Provisional Government that negotiated the admission of the Red River Settlement as the Province of Manitoba into Confederation. The Manitoba Act 1870 enshrined that status and made specific provision for a land grant to the Métis majority.

10 Tom Isaac. A Matter of National and Constitutional Import. Report of the Minister’s Special Representative on Reconciliation with Métis: Section 35 Métis Rights and the Manitoba Métis Federation Decision. June 2016. Pg13.

11 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Prime Minister of Canada and President of the Métis National Council welcome the Signing of the Canada-Métis Nation Accord. April 13, 2017.


• Establishing the criteria for new fiscal relationship. To ensure the Métis Nation has the fiscal capacity to govern and provide services, Métis governments should share in the personal income tax paid by Métis citizens. The Charlottetown Accord provided terms for this that could be resurrected as a source of financing for the Métis Nation.

• The Métis have built their systems and accountability outside of the rubric of the Indian Act; therefore they want to ensure that the federal bureaucracy does not impede new Canada-Métis Nation relations by doubling. The Métis preference is to deal directly with Finance and/or the Treasury Board on federal fiscal transfers to the Métis Nation along the same lines as its fiscal transfers to the provinces.

Finally, President Chartier noted that the Métis Nation is well placed to move quickly on the self-government front, to engage meaningfully in Section 35 rights reconciliation and to fully participate with the other two orders of government, which will provide the Métis Nation with the authority and resources to secure its place within the federation.

INDIGENOUS YOUTH VISIONOne of the key recommendations made by Indigenous leaders throughout the dialogues is to invest in Indigenous youth. Participants emphasized the need to give Indigenous youth hope and a vision for the future of their communities. The Right Honourable Paul Martin, PC CC, Canada’s 21st Prime Minister and founder of the Martin Aboriginal Education Initiative, chaired a session with Indigenous youth leaders discussing their vision of the future of a renewed relationship. He spoke to the future economic effects that recent population trends will have, the main implication being that the Indigenous population will soon represent 20% of the work force, situating them as a driver of the national economy.

Riley Yesno of the Prime Minister’s Youth Council is from Eabametoong First Nation (also known as Fort Hope), a fly-in community of 1200, about 300 km Northeast of Thunder Bay in Treaty 9 territory. Her community remains one of the 80+ still on boil water advisory. One her most distinct memories is brushing her teeth in a cup of boiled water. Both Riley’s grandparents are residential school survivors and language carriers and have informed her personal reconciliation journey. As has the city of Thunder Bay, which has been described as “a microcosm of racism, and mistreatment of Indigenous people that is taking place all across this country.”

Focusing on Canada’s approach to reconciliation and its reputation as a country of inclusion and kindness, Ms. Yesno cited a 2016 study released at the World Economic Forum which ranked Canada second only to Germany in the category of world’s “best country.” “The analysis evaluates 60 nations across 24 rankings lists on a wide range of criteria, from sustainability to economic influence12.” Canada tops the list of countries with the best quality of life.

12 Paul Dallison, Germany the ‘best country in the world’ New rankings look at global perception. Politico.eu: 1/20/16, 7:30 AM CET Updated 1/20/16, 11:15 PM CET


“CANADA MAY BE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IF YOU’RE NOT LIVING IN ONE OF THE 80 OR SO COMMUNITIES THAT STILL HAVE TO BRUSH THEIR TEETH IN A CUP; AND IF YOU’RE NOT ONE OF THE WOMEN OR FAMILY MEMBERS OF A MURDERED OR MISSING INDIGENOUS WOMAN. CANADA MAY BE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO LIVE IN IF YOU’RE NOT ONE OF THE CHILDREN THAT MAKE UP ALMOST HALF OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM; AND IT MAY BE THE BEST IN THE WORLD IF YOU’RE NOT JOSIAH BEGG, TAMMY KEEASH, OR ANY OF THE OTHER 7 TEENS FOUND DEAD IN THUNDER BAY’S RIVER OF TEARS. CANADA MAY BE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO LIVE IF YOU’RE NOT INDIGENOUS. OR AT LEAST THIS IS HOW IT FEELS AT TIMES... I IMAGINE A CANADA, WHERE THUNDER BAY IS NOT IN COMPETITION FOR “MOST RACIST CITY IN THE COUNTRY.” AND A CANADA THAT IS NOT ASKING FOR RECONCILIATION, BUT THAT IS ASKING FOR EQUITY, AND BASIC RESPECT.”

Riley Yesno, Prime Minister’s Youth Council

Having studied acts of reconciliation in Berlin, Ms. Yesno compares Canada’s recent efforts to those following the Second World War, a key distinguishing factor being the prevalence of monuments and acknowledgement of atrocities by German school systems. She noted that the idea of the renewal of relationships with the Crown seems based on false historical premises rather than Indigenous resurgence and revival. Reconciliation is not an act, but a generational process. True reconciliation is the amalgamating the consequence of smaller acts of reconciliation. Fulfilling the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action is necessary to achieve equality. Indigenous peoples also need look beyond reconciliation with the federal state when rebuilding relationships. Provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction over a number of important aspects of Indigenous lives, including the one most essential to reconciliation – education – which will expedite the reconciliation process.

Andre Bear, the youth representative for the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and youth advisor for Minister Carolyn Bennett, spoke of how being raised Cree in Treaty 6 has formed his ideas regarding the Nation-to-Nation relationship. Mr. Bear cites the learning of language and ceremony – the physical aspects of nationhood – as the protocols wherein Indigenous laws resides. Inherent rights stem from nationhood, based on a relationship with the Creator.

Characteristics of a Nation-to-Nation Relationship Dialogue Series, national summit, youth panel


The original relationship, as expressed by Chief Poundmaker and Chief Big Bear of Treaty 6, consisted of agreements with Crown to ensure lives of future generations would be met in basic sense. Land was meant to be shared, never ceded or surrendered; however, the concept of sharing the land remains foreign to the Crown. Negotiations and discussions need to determine how to execute the original agreements around sharing. Bear’s vision is one with a traditional system for Cree peoples, that incorporates natural law and integrates ceremony into governance, wherein inherent rights are exercised, and connection to lands and waters and spirit of place is achieved.

Mr. Bear noted that nationhood and colonialism is the number one discussion amongst his peers. He is one of a group of youth from Minister Bennett’s Youth Council that established initiative for Indigenous Youth Voices working to establish a national network for the implementation of TRC Call to Action #66: establishing multi-year funding for community-based youth organizations to deliver programs on reconciliation, and a national network to share information and best practices.

Gabrielle Fayant of the Indigenous Youth Voices Project hails from Métis settlements in Alberta, noting settlements are traditional lands in Alberta, not Crown land, making them different from reserves in that sense. To date work on TRC #66 has included a national survey and meetings with youth groups, organizations and councils across the country. The final report will be released at the end of the year.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP) report is a guiding document for a lot of the work done by Indigenous Youth Voices. Ms. Fayant finds it troubling that the 20-year-old RCAP descriptions and recommendations on youth remain relevant and reflect the current state of affairs (wherein it is not actually worse). RCAP cautioned an estimated $16 billion loss to the economy if the youth recommendations were not acted upon. Investments in youth-led self-determination and healing programs means no longer paying into the institutionalization of youth ( jails, foster care).

L-R: The Rt. Hon Paul Martin, Riley Yesno, Andre Bear, Gabrielle Fayant


Creating programs for Indigenous youth from a Eurocentric perspective is obviously not working. Initiatives must be led and guided by Indigenous youth, who in turn receive guidance from their elders. As Canada’s fastest growing population, Indigenous youth will not only have to live with the new relationship, they will have to drive the change. Youth are instrumental in changing the tone of Canadian dialogue, and should be engaged and consulted as such. Youth also have a responsibility to:

• learn their culture and ceremony, • educate people so the needs of future generations are met,• give agency to those who came before, learning about the land and the country’s true

history, and finally,• demand change from their governments.

Minister Carolyn Bennett confirmed that from coast-to-coast-to-coast, Indigenous youth want to move to the kind of self-determination that is building capacity, practicing within strong languages and cultures, and enabling choices driven by the social determinants of health.


Federal Vision for Indigenous-Crown Relations

DEPARTMENT OF CROWN RELATIONSIn September 2017, the Government of Canada announced the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, historically tasked with implementing the colonial Indian Act, replacing it with two new departments: the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and the Department of Indigenous Services.

The Honourable Carolyn Bennett, PC, MP, Minister of Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, described the focus of the department as helping First Nations get out from under the Indian Act, realizing the rights expressed in the Inuit Land Claims, and helping the Métis to realized their Section 35 rights. In part this will be accomplished by building First Nations, Métis and Inuit institutions and governments with a vision that the federal business of delivering programs, or determining citizenship, will eventually come to a close.

There are currently almost 50 tables, including over 300 Indian Act bands and Métis organizations, being established to this end. The tables include working with the Coastal First Nations on fisheries jurisdiction, Treaty 8 on jurisdiction in child welfare, and Indian Act bands in Ontario on education. These discussions are about the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. Minister Bennett identified several key elements relevant to the ongoing discussions:

• all federal departments, along with provinces and territories need to be involved considering all of the shared responsibilities;

• progress in discussions is dependent on taking extinguishment and surrender off the table, noting people can not choose between their rights and quality of life;

• reconstituting nations has been difficult and the federal government needs to fund a process in a way that creates that space for this to occur.

Further, in response to the TRC Calls to Action, the federal government is working in partnership to create a “national reconciliation framework” – which implies a broad framework for working with and formally recognizing Nations moving out from under the Indian Act – and will be establishing an interim Reconciliation Council that will work to determine membership selection and terms of reference.

DEPARTMENT OF INDIGENOUS SERVICESThe Honourable Jane Philpot, PC, MP, Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, noted that while Minister Bennett is focused on the foundational work of rebuilding and re-aggregating Indigenous communities and recognition of Inherent and Aboriginal rights, Minister Philpot’s focus is around the need to close the socio-economic gaps within Indigenous communities. A long-term measure of success is for this department to ensure “programs and services [are] increasingly delivered, not by the Government of Canada, but instead by Indigenous Peoples as they move to self-government13.” While the transition occurs, Minister Philpot’s department will simultaneously work to improve programs and services in partnership with Indigenous people, with particular focus on:

13 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. New Ministers to support the renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples. August 28, 2017.


• The failing and underfunded child welfare system. Minister Philpot acknowledged that the system is grounded in policies that incentivize apprehension, which needs to change urgently. To this end there is an emergency meeting scheduled for January 2018 to discuss how to put an end to this crisis. One of the repetitive strains heard during discussions is to “put children first”. The federal government is proposing to do just that, looking at a framework from conception and early childhood through adolescence.

• Prioritizing water infrastructure with a goal to lift all drinking water advisories by 2021. She noted that budget 2017 included massive investments for infrastructure for Indigenous communities to address inadequate housing and access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation.

• “Closing the gap.” This is another departmental priority, which she recognizes will require more than federal investments alone. Creative solutions and new fiscal relations will help to facilitate new revenue tools for First Nations, including access to capital.


Taking Stock of Lessons LearnedFollowing the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 was another attempt at constitutional change. This time Indigenous representatives were involved in all aspects of the negotiations, and the definition of existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution was also on the agenda. Despite having the support of major political parties in Canada, the Charlottetown Accord failed to pass in a national referendum (Quebec held its own referendum); however, the Accord did have the effect of bringing important considerations on Indigenous-Crown relations back into public discourse.

According to the Right Honourable Joe Clark, PC CC AOE, Canada’s 16th Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister has put his reputation on the line on the issue of the Crown’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, and has done so deliberately. In the wake of failed promises such as Charlottetown Accord and the Kelowna Accord, it is imperative to identify both the impediments to success and to determine how to rebuild trust amongst the parties. Lessons learned to avoid further failed attempts include:

• Garnering national support, • Ongoing and meaningful engagement of Indigenous peoples, and• Avoiding Unnecessary Plebiscites.

GARNERING NATIONAL SUPPORT

“HOW DO WE CHANGE A MAJORITY MINDSET THAT IS NOT ONLY BY AND LARGE IGNORANT TO INDIGENOUS REALITY, BUT MAY WELL BE HOSTILE?”

The Rt. Hon Joe Clark

The Right Honourable Joe Clark noted that one lesson learned from the Charlottetown vote is that people on both sides need to examine their prejudices and beliefs, and open their minds to concepts never previously considered. For Mr. Clark the question becomes, “How do we disaggregate the non-indigenous community in its attitude toward Indigenous people?”

In part the answer is to not begin with the most difficult tasks, but where there are opportunities to move forward. He furthered recalled two additional elements that made the Charlottetown negotiations work: eloquent but reasoned arguments by both sides, and the kind of public intimacy/trust that comes from those kinds of discussions. This means ensuring both sides respect different interpretations as a starting point; if that happens, there is an opportunity to find ways forward.

The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark


Former National Chief Ovide Mercredi, OM, cited a way forward for dialogue at local level across country: Circles for Reconciliation, a grassroots driven process in Manitoba. The aim of Circles For Reconciliation is to establish trusting, meaningful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples as part of the 94 Calls to Action from the TRC. Dialogues ranging from the Métis Experience at Residential Schools to the Sixties Scoop occur in private residences to better inform and educate people in city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Mercredi acknowledged that prejudice and discrimination is a reality for non-indigenous Canadians as well, therefore public discourse should focus on promoting human rights and respecting individuals in hopes of “building a just society.” Diversity forces Canada to respect human rights. Another aspect of “building a just society” is addressing practical issues like unemployment and investing in Aboriginal youth education. Canadians can also support ideas such as the need for infrastructure investments to eliminate boil water advisories. From this perspective people can move beyond partisan biases.

ONGOING, MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

“I’VE ALWAYS BEEN BEWILDERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF POWER THAT CANADA TOOK UPON ITSELF.

Ovide Mercredi

Indigenous leaders time and again spoke to the fact that the federal system of governance was imposed on Indigenous traditional territories, and it was done without the consent and participation of First Peoples. Indigenous people have not been engaged in framing the emergence of the nation state called Canada; they were not involved in the Charlottetown Conference of September 1864 which set Confederation in motion, nor were they involved in the1930s land transfer to Alberta and Manitoba for that matter. While there are both pre-confederation treaties and modern treaties, what has been absent is implementation of the Treaties with integrity, honesty, honour and good faith.

By way of a more recent example, President Obed referred to the recent 10 principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous Peoples released by the federal government this year. He argued that the sixth principle, which states that the government recognizes that Indigenous engagement “aims to secure” Indigenous free, prior, and informed consent in making decisions affecting its territory and resources, is not

Ovide Mercredi


consistent with the UN Indigenous declaration. Why stop at “aims” to secure, he wondered — “why not work with us to ensure we get this right?14” Indigenous participation in current federal undertakings, in particular participation by Inuit in the government’s ongoing law and policy review, is a measure to ensure that federal responses are meaningful to Indigenous people.

“FOR US TRUST IS NOT EASY TO GIVE. IT WON’T COME BECAUSE OF WORDS. IT WILL HAPPEN IF CONCRETE ACTION IS TAKEN TO HONOUR TREATIES IN A MANNER OUR PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.”

President Natan Obed

AVOIDING UNNECESSARY PLEBISCITESAnother key lesson from Ovide Mercredi regarding the Charlottetown Accord was not to put minority rights to a plebiscite, noting, “Our place in the supreme law of this country is a treaty, [which] should never be placed to referendum.” There was no plebiscite when treaties were made. An important lesson for future leaders, should there ever be further discussion of constitutional matters, is that a referendum is a bad precedent with regard to rights. Joe Clark noted that while the Charlottetown Accord was defeated in national referendum, all parties agreed upon the Inherent Right. At the time, he was also opposed to a referendum and encouraged current leaders to find ways to achieve agreement that sidesteps procedural mistakes of past.

14 https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/11/27/news/trudeau-didnt-consult-indigenous-leaders-solutions

Natan Obed, President of ITK


Overarching Recognition

CALL TO ACTION #45Senator Murray Sinclair discussed the intent of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action, in particular Action (#45): Jointly develop, with Indigenous peoples, a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation to build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation nature of the relationship. Senator Sinclair emphasized the need for a commitment on a grand scale by federal government, and a statement of law rendering federal commitment untouchable, erasable or amendable by successive governments. A Royal Proclamation would not only declare government intent and serve as a message to Indigenous leadership that the Crown is serious about holding to that promise, it would also indicate promises and intentions for future generations.

In this context the history of the Treaty of Niagara and Confederation are important to consider. During those discussions Indigenous leadership was led to believe they could continue to hold territories, function as self-governing entities in their territories and that the Crown would protect their lands. This understanding led most, if not all, Indigenous leaders to acknowledge and accept the terms of Royal Proclamation. Had the intent and understanding of the Royal Proclamation been considered the basis for all future relationships

in the country, it would have had a dramatic impact. A new Royal Proclamation is required because time and time again the government has proven that “they can’t be trusted.” Enshrining the relationship will ensure future generations are not subject to the whims and fancies of individual power holders or partisan governments.

The TRC had constitutional scholars distinguish between a proclamation and a Royal Proclamation. While a proclamation is a government statement, Royal Proclamations are statements by the Crown; thus, as the relationships Indigenous people are asserting are with the Crown, maintaining that connection is important. The legal opinion also indicated that the Governor General has the necessary powers on behalf of the Queen.

CHALLENGESThe Honourable Frank Iacobucci, CC, QC, LLD, LSM, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, noted that he strongly agrees in principle with the underlying ideas of a new Royal Proclamation, of reconciliation that builds on original Royal Proclamation and the Treaty of Niagara. He noted a few logistical, practical and constitutional challenges with Call to Action #45:

• The extensive work, delays and other unforeseen challenges may detract from other important initiatives such as living conditions in Aboriginal communities.

Senator Murray Sinclair


• A new Royal Proclamation may require constitutional amendment, and/or addressing issues of compliance with Constitution.

• If a new Royal Proclamation requires constitutional change, constitutional change requires provincial support under s. 38. A new Royal Proclamation should in any case engage provinces, as it is more meaningful if all levels of government join together.

Alternatively, Mr. Iacobucci suggested amendments to the Constitution to explicitly recognize Indigenous peoples as founding peoples of Canada, modeled on existing s. 36 of the 1982 Act. Section 36 deals with equalization and regional disparities and contains language that would naturally be of a model for founding peoples. Or, in order to avoid challenges such as referendums or royal involvement, federal and provincial governments could issue a proclamation regarding Indigenous people, which would repudiate the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius and establish treaty relationships on the basis of respect, acknowledging Indigenous peoples as partners in confederation.

FRAMING A NEW ROYAL PROCLAMATIONMiles Richardson, OC, National Consortium for Indigenous Economic Development, spoke about the original intent of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and the notion of what a new one ought to do. Historically the government of Britain signaled a statement of intent and a framework for building relationships with the Indigenous peoples of what would become Canada. Today we are at the same point. Governments have gone down the wrong path, acknowledged and apologized for this, and are currently committed to the right path. The function of a modern Royal Proclamation is to manifest the nation-to-nation commitment, recognizing Indigenous peoples as founding peoples of the country, recognizing nationhood by protecting the assertion of jurisdictions, and demonstrating mutual respect for ceremony. Moving forward with new Crown relationship(s) requires both the legislative and financial underpinnings to ensure success.

According to the TRC, commitment would involve: • Repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius.• Using UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation. • Base new and old treaty relationships on mutual recognition and respect.• Reconcile Indigenous Aboriginal and Crown constitutional and legal orders as part of

bringing Indigenous peoples on as full partners in Confederation

Celeste Haldane, Chief Commissioner of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, noted that a new Royal Proclamation must also ensure Indigenous laws and history and distinct cultures are the basis of the relationship moving forward. Sharing of sovereignty with Crown through mechanisms such as Treaties, including ensuring Treaties and agreements are ‘subject to parliamentary appropriations’, is key to the Crown meeting their constitutional obligations. Finally, there is a need for Crown acknowledgement of its Constitutional obligation to recognize and protect Aboriginal Rights and Title through treaties and other agreements fairly negotiated and honourably implemented. This means proper implementation of current agreements and negotiating where treaties do not already exist.


PROVINCES AS CROWNThere were diverse views on the involvement of Provinces as a party to a new Royal Proclamation. Senator Sinclair noted that the TRC considered and deliberated on provincial involvement and decided to exclude it from the Calls to Action, as current provincial interests are more parochial and subject to more local interests. Miles Richardson noted that the provinces currently occupy a number of jurisdictional fields that First Nations are interested in occupying. Thus, if agreement cannot be achieved with provincial governments the federal government must support Indigenous assertion of inherent jurisdiction.

Mr. Iacobucci pointed out that there are a few examples of cooperative federalism; and reconciliation is a job for all Canadians, not just the federal government. He noted that “Honour of Crown” applies to all public governments, and that is something than cannot be relinquished. On the issue of a Crown relationship with founding peoples, provinces are important players. Call to Action #53 speaks to a National Council for Reconciliation, which could include a role for provinces. Provincial partnerships would allow a National Council to be more responsive to the many pressing Indigenous issues within their jurisdiction. Professor Emeritus and former RCAP Commissioner Fred Wien noted that while it is a priority to engage provinces, it was one of difficulties in implementing RCAP and is very dependent on political climate.

Clement Chartier, Presdient of MNC


The Way Forward

INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENTRECOGNITION OF INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENTMany leaders have stated that the source of Indigenous jurisdiction is not Parliament, nor provincial government, nor Section 91(24) of the BNA Act, nor the Indian Act, nor the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Indigenous people did not create these laws nor empower settler governments to make laws over Indigenous people. Indigenous authority is not delegated from the Canadian Crown. Indigenous inherent rights and authority derive from ownership of ancestral lands and resources and Indigenous peoples have their own existing governments, based on ancient authority. It stems from Indigenous peoples’ history living within their traditional territories and coexisting with other nations adjacent to their territories. The inherent right to self-rule stands on its own legitimacy and is not dependent on Canada’s acknowledgement for its existence.

Mr. Bob Rae noted real progress is dependent on understanding the foundational issue of self-government, as everything else flows from governance. There needs to be acknowledgement and understanding that at the time of European settlement, settlers encountered peoples with real governments, laws, jurisdiction, languages and way of life; and that over the last 300-400 years settlers have done everything possible to undermine all of that. In order for Indigenous governments to work they need jurisdiction, land and money.

ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE UNDERPINNINGSIn addition to Crown recognition, be it in the form of a Royal Proclamation or not, participants also discussed what needs to be done legislatively to anchor the good words spoken by the Liberal Government. The National Chief referred to two pieces of legislation currently under joint development with the federal government: the Indigenous Languages Revitalization Act and the Reconciliation Framework legislation to build upon UNDRIP principles. President Obed noted that ITK priorities include legislating Non-Insured Health Benefit (NIHB) programs and reviewing the Environmental Assessment and Waters Act. President Chartier cited a Métis constitutional relations act for government recognition; and along with President Obed, strongly supports the Indigenous Languages Revitalization Act.

Regional Chief Day also touched on the need for statutory certainty in the area of health. Minister Jane Philpott noted that the existing Canada Health Act contains no reference to Indigenous people, and apart from Section 35, Indigenous health issues are not mentioned in Canada’s laws. As it is, parliamentary appropriations for non-insured health benefits “runs out of money” almost every year; it would be a tremendous advantage to have a legislated statutory basis for funding in jurisdictions such as health and child welfare. Celeste Haldane


MÉTIS ACCESS TO LAND“In addition to the existing land base of the Métis Settlements in Alberta, there are areas such as in northwest Saskatchewan with Métis majority villages where local governments have been organized on a public or non-ethnic basis under provincial municipal legislation. While these public or municipal governments may be primarily or exclusively Métis in composition, they are not mandated to represent and hold distinct Métis Nation rights and interests such as the duty to consult, collaboration agreements with industry, or revenue and equity participation rights in major projects. There remains a need for the Métis Nation government to negotiate and hold Métis rights and interests on behalf of the Métis population in those villages15.”

INUIT IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND CLAIMSThe four Inuit regions – Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, the territory of Nunavut, and Inuvialuit – cover about 33 per cent of Canada’s landmass, however, the implementation of the land claim agreements signed with the federal government remains an area of contention. For example, a recent report from the Auditor General’s Office found that:

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, on behalf of the federal Crown, signed a 2012–2017 Fiscal Financing Agreement that provided financial support to the Nunatsiavut Government. The Nunatsiavut Government received some funding for housing through both the Fiscal Financing Agreement and other one-time funding sources. However, the lack of a federal program for Inuit housing south of the 60th parallel has limited the Nunatsiavut Government’s ability to fulfill housing responsibilities it received by signing the Fiscal Financing Agreement.16

The Inuit seek to maximize the benefits of the land claim agreements, including addressing infrastructure deficits, social equity and addressing wellbeing indicators such as housing.

TREATY RENEWAL AND TREATY IMPLEMENTATIONOvide Mercredi urged Canada “to finish what was started” with regard to treaties and the treaty relationship, a relationship premised on the ideas of integrity, honour and good faith. Pre-confederation treaties still exist and still frame the identity of this country. The Crown must deal with relationships of peaceful coexistence where Indigenous people made commitments not to engage in violence against settlers, but at same time reminding settlers that the land was not empty, and there were existing relationships for trade and commerce predating settlement.

Minister David Zimmer acknowledged that the Crown had devastating impact on Indigenous cultures, and the wellbeing of Indigenous communities is often imperiled as a result. Thus it is the role of the Crown and Canadians to do everything they can to correct this situation and restore the treaty relationship. While many Indigenous communities work to restore self-governance in relation to other nations, the Crown needs to determine how to integrate, adjust to, work with, or bring those governments into the mainstream.

15 President Clément Chartier’s full remarks can be found here.16 Auditor General’s Office: Report 3—Implementing the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. 2015.


Celeste Haldane noted that both RCAP and the United Nations Permanent Forum have called for independent treaty commissions or high-level bodies to oversee and conduct treaty negotiations. While not perfectly implemented, the BC Treaty Commission is an independent body created by statute, and the only tripartite body in the world to oversee negotiations for reconciliation of rights and title for Indigenous people.

Participants suggested that moving forward with treaty renewal, treaty implementation and treaty negotiations requires the following:

• Addressing pre-Confederation treaties; • Removal of the language of cede, release, surrender which is still reflected in new treaties; • Treaties must include the sharing of lands and jurisdiction, as true self determination for

Indigenous will not happen without shared sovereignty;• Provincial involvement in treaty-making, as control of resources is required if any progress

on self-government is to be made;• Understanding the First Nations perspective wherein water and land are not “fee simple”,

but gifts from the creator with obligations to steward and protect; and finally • Addressing the inadequacy of funds being transferred for implementation of agreements.

NEW FISCAL RELATIONSHIPSIn his mandate letter, the Prime Minister directed Minister Carolyn Bennett in her new responsibilities to work with the Minister of Finance “to establish a new fiscal relationship with Indigenous Peoples that moves towards sufficient, predictable, and sustained funding for communities, a renewed economic and fiscal relationship that ensures nations have the revenue generation and fiscal capacity to govern effectively, and to provide programs and services to those for whom they are responsible.” True fiscal relations are the only way in which a true nation-to-nation relationship will be achieved. Previous reports in this series focused on fiscal issues such as resource revenue sharing and elaborated on the issue of access to capital. A key new concept emerging from this dialogue is the “equalization principle.”

EQUALIZATION PRINCIPLEThe recent First Nations Child & Family Caring Society / Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling demonstrates that Canada has the obligation to provide service levels on reserve that are comparable to non-Indigenous communities. According to Bob Rae, if one looks at the Caring Society case, the inequity in funding that was found to be discriminatory not only applies to child and family services, but also to policing, education, healthcare, housing services, senior care and every single service currently provided under the Indian Act for those who live on reserve. Moreover, Section 36, the equalization section of the Canadian Constitution, speaks to “providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.” It was suggested that the federal government has yet to accept the full implications of the Caring Society case, and that equalization is a fundamental principle in the Canadian federation.


“THIS IS OUR BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION. THE FULL LEVEL OF IMPLICATION OF THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN EMBRACED OR RECOGNIZED.”

The Hon. Bob Rae

Regional Chief Day also spoke of Equalization +, which simply means that at a minimum, the playing field must be level wherein Indigenous peoples are afforded the ability to flourish based on long-term transfer payments to communities and organizations. Ovide Mercredi reinforced that Equalization + must be the high watermark of the new relationships. Future generations need resources for health and wellness and community safety, as opposed to the untimely and contingent funding that currently exists. Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board (FMB), reiterated that the “relationship” cannot be about managing poverty under a different framework, one wherein Indigenous governments are administering or managing services as opposed to governing. “We can’t rely on the parliamentary appropriation process, because it’s going to fail.”

INCREASED FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITYWhile the long time focus of non-Indigenous Canadians has been ensuring the accountability of Indigenous governments, where there is virtually no accountability is between federal and provincial governments with regard to Indigenous peoples. Auditor General Michael Ferguson spoke to the recent audit Report on Oral Health Programs for First Nations and Inuit, and the way in which the focus of federal audits is on the implementation of programs, as opposed to focusing on gaps within those programs. In other words, people would rather talk about pay systems than the rate of dental disease, which is twice as bad as for other Canadians. According to the Auditor General (AG), the role of public servants is to manage outcomes and achieve them, which requires a problem-solving attitude. Departments should be monitoring gaps and what needs to be done within programs to close those gaps. Too often programs are managed from the point of view of transactions, as opposed to outcomes.17 While the Auditor General’s role is to look at what departments are doing, time after time they see same problems, and do not see significant improvement.

17 The federal Liberal government has spent more than $110,000 fighting a First Nations girl in court to block payment for orthodontic treatment that cost just $6,000, according to documents released under the Access to Information Act and shared with CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-canada-legal-fees-first-nations-girl-dental-coverage-1.4310224


Changing the Outcomes for Indigenous Peoples In Canada

SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS: CLOSING THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GAPS Senator Gwen Boniface also referenced the “need to close the gap” as fundamental to moving forward: in part by investing in youth, as well as increasing access to capital. She noted that new relationships must invest in community capacity, such as building new Indigenous institutions.

Harold Calla, Executive Director of the First Nations Financial Management Board, discussed the role of national level organizations to generate wealth and take advantage of economic development opportunities. As we know, access to capital has been identified time and again as a major impediment to wealth generation. Among other things, in order to take advantage of existing opportunities: banks and other financial institutions have to acknowledge their role; clear resolution of land claims is required to open opportunities for lenders; and the formation of Indigenous financial institutions backed with private capital is also important.

Major investments are needed to address clean water, education, poverty and other social determinants that lead Indigenous children to take their lives. Mr. Paul Martin noted that this is a multi-billion dollar, multi-generational commitment, not only for the federal government but for provinces as well.

A piecemeal approach to budget line items is inappropriate in the context of re-setting relationships. “This is the full implication of our 500-year history,” and therefore cannot be addressed by handshakes, ribbon cutting and apologies; but rather, through real governance, long-term relationship processes, and appropriate financial underpinnings.

MÉTIS SPECIFIC INVESTMENTSFor years the Métis have been denied access to important federal services available to other Indigenous peoples, like non-insured health benefits and post-secondary education support. To date, provinces and municipalities provide most of the Métis physical and social infrastructure. The Métis experience is marginalization within or exclusion from pan-Aboriginal programs and services. However, despite the minimal amount of funding from federal and provincial governments, Métis governments have been able to established effective programs and services in the areas of employment, business development, housing, and child and family services. The Métis Nation is working to ensure that the 2018 federal budget has Métis specific components in major federal initiatives like the National Housing Strategy and the Early Learning and Child Care Framework and a set-aside for the Métis Nation in the revamped Urban Indigenous Strategy.

BUILDING INSTITUTIONSHoward Grant urged not to repeat past mistakes in creating non-meaningful institutions prescribed by the federal government providing delegated programs and services. Building institutions requires acknowledging the uniqueness of each region with a “bottom up” versus a “top down” approach. He highlighted the institutions created in British Columbia in support of good governance such as the First Nations Fisheries Council, First Nations Forestry Council,


First Nations Financial Officers Association, First Nations Health Authority, and the First Nations Education Steering Committee. Along with national institutions, these organizations are servicing good governance, focused on moving beyond the delivery of federal programs; unfortunately there is a clear disparity in terms of how these institutions are resourced, and what they are responsible and liable for. Two key national institutions to address current gaps include an Indigenous public service institution or school and an Indigenous data institution that can serve self-governing nations.

INCREASING PUBLIC AWARENESS & CHANGING PUBLIC OPINIONMinister Carolyn Bennett remarked that one of the biggest challenges impeding reconciliation is the “white-washed version of our history” and racism stemming from a misinformed and uneducated Canadian public. Bob Rae noted that policy and politicians only work as quickly as public opinion, and while the needle is moving, it moves slowly. Governments and politics depend on public opinion, and for many Canadians the relationship with Indigenous people is not top of mind.

Senator Gwen Boniface concurred, observing it is important for Indigenous and non-indigenous communities to work together at the local level to correct misinformation and misperceptions. Participants suggested that at the national level, perhaps we should consider reconciliation akin to building national railway. To this end, one participant noted that public awareness campaigns work and cited example such as “Participation,” and “Seat belts save lives.”

Michael Hudson, former Leader of the Task Force on Constitutional Relations with Indigenous Nations for the Government of Canada, urged the need to point to examples where self-determination has succeeded in order to get the Canadian public onside. He used the example of Brexit in Britain as an indication of where intelligentsia did not recognize that the general public was not ready for structural change. He suggested that the stakes are very high as international eyes turn on Canada to determine how we implement UNDRIP and structure our society and economy.

“WE’VE UNDERESTIMATED THE SIZE OF THE CHALLENGE AND LENGTH OF THE JOURNEY.”

The Hon. Bob Rae

the Honourable Gwen Boniface, COM OOnt


Beyond the Federal Crown Relationship

PROVINCIAL CROWN Mr. Bob Rae emphasized the significant role of the provinces as components of the Crown. Provincial government mandates touch everyone’s lives: any time someone leaves a reserve or territory to go to school, hunt, or live elsewhere, they fall under provincial jurisdiction. Many Indigenous governments and organizations have formed direct relationships with provincial governments.

Minister David Zimmer acknowledged the role of treaties as the foundation on which this country and its prosperity is founded, but that for Indigenous people this same history has not been so beneficial as treaties did not live up to what they were intended. Thus there is an important role for the provinces in Treaty education. Provinces must also acknowledge the Inherent Right to self-government, and subsequently structure and base their relationships as such. In this vein the Province of Ontario is looking at restoring jurisdiction over children to the First Nations.

Regional Chief Day noted that one of the most important Ipperwash recommendations is that Ontario implement resource revenue sharing. This is a conversation that First Nation leaders across the country must have with their provincial Premiers. The Quebec Cree have achieved the next level of self-governance and wealth generation through resource revenue sharing.

Minister Zimmer pointed to a number of resource revenue sharing agreements including that Ontario shares 1.7% of all gaming revenues, which will generate $3 billion up to 2033 that will go directly to First Nations; and a negotiated agreement for a First Nations trust to own shares in Hydro One. The Province is exploring revenue sharing on tobacco and mining, and is in the process of developing a framework agreement with the Métis Nation of Ontario.

Finally, in response to the TRC report’s 94 recommendations, Ontario is working with Indigenous partners to address the legacy of residential schools, close gaps and remove barriers, support Indigenous culture, and reconcile relationships with Indigenous peoples. Ontario will invest more than $250 million over the next three years on programs and actions focused on reconciliation, which will be developed and evaluated with Indigenous partners.


RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTORBrian McGuigan of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers sees the private sector role in reconciliation as the keystone to economic development. He cautioned when looking at future partnerships and developing resources, they are best looked at in terms of sharing, not the capitalist principle of ownership. Charles Coffey, representing Canadians for a new Partnership, encouraged the private sector to examine racism and cultural acuity in their hiring practices, as Indigenous groups are badly underrepresented in employment equity.

Ian Jacobsen from Ontario Power Generation spoke to the need for the private sector to look at grievances and have a number of difficult conversations, emphasizing the need to listen and understand. 25 years ago recognized Ontario Hydro recognized that to move forward in relationships, they had to look at past. There are now agreements with 21 First Nation communities addressing social, environmental and economic impacts, and they are also currently working on their fourth equity partnership.

Sean Willy, from Des Nedhe Development, emphasized that if the nation-to-nation relationship reflects opportunities for economic independence, it will lead to better opportunities for all Canadians. Indigenous people are ready to lay greater claim to financial independence. For his community this meant aggressively pursuing economic independence for their community, including:

• Purchasing land, • Impact Benefit Agreements,• Investing in jobs, and• Building capacity, building infrastructure, funding social programs, and investing in youth.

National Chief Bellegarde noted that the private sector should have First Nation engagement strategies on both benefits sharing and the workforce. Canada has an aging workforce at the same time that Indigenous populations are growing, thus utilization of that human capital will have huge returns on investment in future. Recruitment and retention strategies, internships, mentorships, and scholarships are required to this end. He used the examples of the shipping industry in the Maritimes and mining reclamation up north, noting there should have been procurement requirements ensuring that Indigenous people benefit from these projects. The government can partner with industry to develop capacity, but Canada can also insist that proponents are required to have procurement strategies in place.


ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE

“OFTEN IT’S NOT THE WILL OF THE POLITICIANS THAT PREVENTS CHANGE, BUT ABILITY OF THE BUREAUCRACY TO RESPOND TO DESIRE FOR CHANGE.”

Harold Calla

The National Chief spoke about the internal changes required to address systemic racism and discrimination within the existing public service, including the need for more Indigenous representation at all levels. Regional Chief Day noted that changes in the relationship should begin with making the current bureaucracy responsible and responsive to First Nation needs, as First Nations will no longer tolerate the adversarial approach that still dominates the bureaucratic mindset. Ovide Mercredi went on to say that transformation is really dependent on the will of public servants to follow the expressed will of their government. If public servants remain the obstacles and obstructionist in Treaty and Aboriginal Rights, the relationship will not move forward. Senior civil servants need to change the culture within their departments, beginning with creating cultural competence and understanding regarding the country’s colonial history.

President Obed acknowledged the public servants who have worked hard to serve Indigenous peoples. However, he imagines Inuit inclusion, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives and governance realities in more enlightened policies, noting public servants have a huge amount of discretion to help communities they know have deficits.

Finally, Michael Ferguson, the Auditor General of Canada, also spoke to need for public servants currently delivering programs to keep pace with political will; otherwise, it gives impression that things are not moving as quickly as they should and renders political commitments irrelevant if implementation does not match pace. The AG also underscored the importance for civil servants understanding the Inherent Right to self-determination, the history of residential schools, and other historical underpinnings important to the relationships.

ROLE OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONSMr. Andre Bear noted a huge disconnect between the people in academia that understand the issues and know how to fix them, and those currently in decision making positions. Mr. Paul Martin cited Indigenous academics as a huge lost resource, and noted that in terms of bringing Canadians on side, some of the best spokesperson can be found in universities. Ms. Riley Yesno noted the apprehension on the part of non-Indigenous teachers or academics is often linked to their “right” to speak on Indigenous subject matters. She stressed that if we are all treaty people “it is your history to speak to too.” Ms. Gabrielle Fayant encouraged indigenization of curriculum, noting non-Indigenous educators should start relearning from Indigenous perspective.



A Federal BlueprintThe question on the mind of many participants is how to ensure that the government does not focus on short-term objectives, and rather defines the long-term game, in concert with Indigenous leaders. An overarching plan would ensure that there are not lost opportunities and would allow Canadians to measure progress against said plan. Past experience, such as the failure of Kelowna, breed mistrust. President Obed pointed to the discussion at Kelowna, noting the required investment, commitment, trust-building and resources on the part of all of those involved. “For 2 years we talked, then 3 months after that it was as if it never happened.”

The Truth and Conciliation Commission also recognized that reconciliation would not occur without an overarching plan or strategy. In this instance, a vision about what the nation-to-nation relationship will look like and what reconciliation will lead to is required. Senator Sinclair feels continued negative talk about the scattered approach of the federal government stems from the lack of a greater plan; and while there is a great deal of pressure on governments to deal with urgent needs, lack of an overarching plan will lead to further damage in the areas of child welfare, incarceration, infrastructure, health, and housing.

Ovide Mercredi noted that in the absence of constitutional mandate, Canadians will forget, their politicians will forget, and we will repeat the mistakes of last 150 years. Development of a new proclamation on relationships would lead to greater dialogue about how we ensure Indigenous rights in Canada are protected in supreme law and demonstrate government commitment to change and improving relationships.

Many participants noted that the blueprints exist to draw upon – the TRC, RCAP, UNDRIP, as well as reports on specific issues such as the Ipperwash Inquiry.



Participants & Speakers ListWill Adams, Des Nedhe DevelopmentTerry Ansari, eSentireNicholas Atkinson, Nation TalkLeah Ballantyne, Chiefs of OntarioDon Barraclough, NationTalkAndre Bear, Indigenous Youth Voices ProjectTamantha Bedford, Natural Resources CanadaNational Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of

First Nations The Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Minister

of Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs

Catherine Blanchard, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Catherine Blewett, Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

The Honourable Gwen Boniface, COM OOnt, Member of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples

Nadine Boudreau-Brown, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Gail Bowkett, MitacsSaul Brown, Heiltsuk NationTeresa Buckshot, Status of WomenHarold Calla, First Nations Financial

Management BoardTrent Campbell, Des Nedhe DevelopmentCorinne Carroll, Institute on GovernanceThe Honourable Marie Charette-Poulin,

Institute on GovernanceClément Chartier, Métis National Council Chief Wayne Christian, Shuswap Nation

Tribal CouncilRuth Christmas, Health Canada Barry Christoff, Insitute on GovernanceThe Right Honourable Joe Clark, PC CC AOE,

Canada’s 16th Prime Minister Lynn Clouthier, Algonquins Of OntarioCharles Coffey, Canadians for a New

PartnershipBrittany Collier, Library of ParliamentElder Claudette Commanda, Kitigan Zibi

Anishinabeg Jennifer Coulombe-Halle, Justice Canada

James Cousins, Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

Amée Craft, University of OttawaKelly Cuan Edwards, Agriculture and

Agri-Food CanadaJohn Currie, HIP (Honouring Indigenous

Peoples)Caroline Davis, First Nations Financial

Management BoardIsadore Day, Chiefs of OntarioDoug Devlin, CN RailLisa Dixon, Policy Horizons CanadaJennifer Dockstator, Chanie Wenjack School of

Indigenous Studies, Trent UniversityErin Donnelly, Indigenous Youth

Voices ProjectSarah Dougherty, Algonquins Of OntarioSylvain Dubois, Institute on GovernanceMartine Durier Copp, Centre for Advanced

Management Education, Dalhousie University

Natasha Ethier, Health CanadaLisa Farano, Honoring Indigenous PeoplesGabrielle Fayant, Indigenous Youth

Voices ProjectMichael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada Maryantonett Flumian, Institute on

GovernanceLiseanne Forand, Privy Council OfficeLisa Forano, Honoring Indigenous PeoplesAngela Freeman, Ministry of Tourism, Culture

and SportLynn Freeman, School of Policy Studies,

Queen’s UniversitySara Fryer, Library of ParliamentDaniel Gagné, CN RailGloria Galloway, Globe & MailTim Gauthier, Institute on GovernanceCheryl Gehue, Assembly of First Nations Melanie Gennings, Ministry of Indigenous

Relations & ReconciliationMichael Gilbert, SynergiqRegional Chief Morley, Googoo, NS/NFLDHoward Grant, First Nations Summit


Wade Griffin, Mississaugas New CreditGonzague Gueranger, Indigenous and

Northern Affairs CanadaCeleste Haldane, BC Treaty CommissionLanise Hayes, Nelligan Obrien PayneBrian Hendry, Chiefs of OntarioTara Jane Howard, Indigenous and Northern

Affairs CanadaMichael HudsonLeona Humchitt, Heiltsuk NationJessica Hurtubise, Fisheries and Oceans

CanadaThe Honourable Frank Iacobucci, CC, QC,

LLD, LSM, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada

Marla Israel, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Ian Jacobsen, Ontario Power GenerationCasey Jonathan, Mississaugas of the New

CreditStephen Kakfwi, Canadians for a New

PartnershipKristy Kirkup, C.PJasper Lamouelle, TILCHOMarion Lefebvre, Institute on GovernanceMaxine Leger-Haskell, Natural Resources

CanadaBonnie Leonard, Shuswap Nation Tribal

Council Courtney Levesque-Thomas, Canadian

Association of Petroleum ProducersKevin Loring, National Arts CentreRandy Malcolm, Algonquins of OntarioThe Right Honourable Paul Martin, PC CC,

Canada’s 21st Prime MinisterStefan Matiation, Justice CanadaCatherine Mavin Peltier, Natural Resources

CanadaBrian Mcguigan, Canadian Association of

Petroleum ProducersLaura McKenzie, Natural Resources Canada Jane McMillan, Saint Francis Xavier

UniversityTim McMillan, Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers

The Honourable Madeleine Meilleur, Institute on Governance

Angele Menard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Ovide Mercredi, Former National ChiefHerb Metcalfe, Des Nedhe DevelopmentCarl Meyer, National ObserverSarah Midanik, Gord Downie Chanie

Wenjack FundJacquie Miller, IOG AssociateJamie Monastirsky, Assembly of First Nations Melody Morrison, Canadians for a New

PartnershipRoss Neil, Government of CanadaMarcia Nickerson, Indigenous Governance

ConsultantNatan Obed, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami John G. Paul, Atlantic Policy Congress of the

First Nations Chiefs SecretariatDuncan Phillips, MitacsThe Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of

Indigenous Services Veronique Picard, Health CanadaMark Podlasly, First Nations Financial

Management BoardDenise Pothier, StantecAmber Potts, Assembly of First Nations The Honourable Bob Rae, PC, CC, OOnt QCMiles Richardson, NCIED (National

Consortium for Indigenous Economic Development)

Katy Roininen, Fisheries and Oceans CanadaMarylin Scales, Canadian Mining JournalScott Serson, Canadians for a New

PartnershipNihal Sherif, Natural Resources CanadaSophie Silwa, Natural Resources CanadaThe Honourable Murray Sinclair, Senator for

ManitobaChief Councilor Slett, Heiltsuk NationAdam Smith, Rise Up Strategies Jennifer Smith, Institute on GovernanceMark Smith, BC Treaty CommissionChris Snyder, HIP (Honouring Indigenous

Peoples)


Janet Stavinga, Algonquins Of OntarioAna Stuhec, Justice CanadaDarryl Sturtevant, Ontario Ministry of

Children and Youth ServicesJulia Thibeault, Health CanadaRosemary Thompson, National Arts CentrePaul Thoppil, Indigenous and Northern

Affairs CanadaBrian Titus, First Nations Financial

Management BoardSusan Toller, Canadian Environmental

Assessment AgencyJean Francois Tremblay Deputy Minister of

Indigenous ServicesRichard Wex, Deputy Minister Immigration,

Refugees and Citizenship CanadaFred Wien, Dalhousie UniversitySean Willy, Des Nedhe DevelopmentHarry Wilmont, Royal Bank of CanadaGina Wilson, Deputy Minister Status of

Women CanadaRiley Yesno, Prime Minister’s Youth CouncilChris Yurkoski, Natural Resources CanadaDavid Zimmer, Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation


Thank You & AcknowledgementsThe Institute on Governance (IOG) is an independent, Canada-based, not-for-profit public interest institution with extensive experience in exploring and developing approaches to responsible and responsive governance in Canada and abroad. The Institute’s goal is to promote and share good practices, and offer solutions and continuous improvements in the capacity of organizations to deliver on their mission. We do this through our advisory services, original research and learning laboratory. We operate an Indigenous Governance practice encompassing each of these areas.

For us, governance is concerned with governance frameworks and strategies, how decisions important to a society or an organization are taken, and how accountability is managed. We believe that in order to resolve issues that are impediments to the development of Indigenous communities, it is important that communities define their own governance agendas so that they can have a more authoritative voice when engaging with others such as stakeholders from all areas of government, communities and organizations to discuss authority and jurisdiction and the creation of corresponding institutions and governance structures to support self-government. The Institute on Governance and Canadians for a New Partnership would like to thank the following sponsors for their support:

NEW RELATIONSHIP TRUSTINVESTING IN F IRST NATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

CN Rail

Characteristics of a Nation-to-Nation Relationship ...3 In 2007 the Assembly of First Nations, and...

Documents

Transcript of Characteristics of a Nation-to-Nation Relationship ...3 In 2007 the Assembly of First Nations, and...