Saddle Lake Cree Nation“Mamawokamatowak”

SLCN NEWSLETTER March/April 2019 Edition

Whats InsideImplementing Treaty2019 Baby CelebrationElection Code Reform UpdateFamily Fun Day

2

Derek Houle from the Saddle Lake First Nation. Worked in Oil and Gas for 28 years before returning to Saddle Lake. He is a Journey man Scaffolder and has provided services in his own businesses for both scaffolding and safety services. He is currently enrolled to do a master’s degree and looks forward the opportunities that will create.

Article: The Power of Change and Possibility!

The next election is coming in June. Men and women will be looking to participate in the next 3 years of leadership for our community. They will have to sacrifice their time and personal freedom in many ways to serve our community. Every area of their lives will be affected by the opportu-nity. They will grow and they will see how much commitment they have in life.

What is it that they will be facing? The next set of leadership will have to boldly provide direction on a lack of housing; new Law(s); and Band Coun-cil Resolutions on business and economic development. They will have to continue or develop strategies on roads and safe access in the communi-ty. This new council will have to provide accountability and be responsible for the limited funds that come to our community. They will have to work to create solutions to old and new problems.

The new chief and council will be having to face the people. They will have to face their own families. They will have to face their own beliefs and views as they are confronted by their choice to serve. They will be called at all hours and they will be expected to be at every service and function.

They will be called out in social media and in person. They will be laughed at and bullied. They will be brought down by the people for not being enough to serve the people.

The reality is that many parts of what is above will come to pass. Each person who decides to serve will be tested. Most who decide to serve and who get in will not have the necessary experience or knowledge to be successful. Those who manage to hold their position will have an advan-tage, and it still won’t be enough. The reality of politics is that a politician is disposable and a scapegoat.

I believe that the men and women who will step up to serve this commu-nity will be facing old battles and new ones with the Federal and Provin-cial governments. These people, who believe themselves to be leaders, will have to understand immediately that the future of our community will lie in their hands. They will have to weigh the cost of every available solution and in turn present that to the people.

The season of change is upon us. We have an opportunity to present the best of our community to accept the challenge of what lies ahead in the next three years. I realize that I am painting a dark picture of what it means to serve this community. I think its an absolute necessity to let the people who are considering being in leadership know that it will be challenging. The stakes are as high as they have ever been.

This is a call to those who meet the requirements of our election law. Those who believe they can represent the nation against what is com-ing and what has been. The possibility WE, as a community, can create is saying yes to opportunity. The opportunity is to change how we think as a nation and as a people. We can eliminate fear. We can choose to partic-ipate in life and say yes to doing something great, beyond right now. We can eliminate the past that has become our future. We can create a future that is our present and says that we will be strong and powerful and ex-pressive. I am asking that those of you, who want to be our leaders, look to at what is possible.

The people will follow those who are strong in character and values. They will follow someone who is powerful and secure in their ability to be with the people. The people will follow leaders who can express themselves in both good times and challenging times. I ask that you look to the future generations that will have to follow the path you will start for them. They will need something to eat, a place to sleep and water to drink.

I ask you to look to the future as being possible and already existing with abundance, equality, health and wellness.

Guest Editorial

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETINGFebruary 21, 2019

Edmonton, AlbertaCOUNCIL MEETING

Present: Chief Eddy Makokis,

Councillors: Terry Cardinal, Sam Cardinal, Robbie Moosewah, Darrell Quinney, John large, Pauline Hunter.

Others: Fabian Large, Don Crane, Sandy Jackson, Lee Carter, Doug Rae, Kevin Half

Moved by JOHN LARGE that the Chief and Council of the SLCN # 125 call for Nominations on May 29th, 2019, and Elections for Council on June 12th, 2019. And Elections for Chief on June 19th. Seconded by: DARRELL QUINNEY. Unanimous, no abstentions, Motion carried.

Recorded by: Fabian Large

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

St. Paul Regional shows support for one of our band members Owen Breast. He is being rec-ognized for being scouted to Acadia University, Nova Scotia to play football. Regional principal, Mark Tichkowsky was Owen’s coach for the past few years. Way to go Owen!

Photo Credit : Amber Makokis

3

They will be called out in social media and in person. They will be laughed at and bullied. They will be brought down by the people for not being enough to serve the people.

The reality is that many parts of what is above will come to pass. Each person who decides to serve will be tested. Most who decide to serve and who get in will not have the necessary experience or knowledge to be successful. Those who manage to hold their position will have an advan-tage, and it still won’t be enough. The reality of politics is that a politician is disposable and a scapegoat.

I believe that the men and women who will step up to serve this commu-nity will be facing old battles and new ones with the Federal and Provin-cial governments. These people, who believe themselves to be leaders, will have to understand immediately that the future of our community will lie in their hands. They will have to weigh the cost of every available solution and in turn present that to the people.

The season of change is upon us. We have an opportunity to present the best of our community to accept the challenge of what lies ahead in the next three years. I realize that I am painting a dark picture of what it means to serve this community. I think its an absolute necessity to let the people who are considering being in leadership know that it will be challenging. The stakes are as high as they have ever been.

This is a call to those who meet the requirements of our election law. Those who believe they can represent the nation against what is com-ing and what has been. The possibility WE, as a community, can create is saying yes to opportunity. The opportunity is to change how we think as a nation and as a people. We can eliminate fear. We can choose to partic-ipate in life and say yes to doing something great, beyond right now. We can eliminate the past that has become our future. We can create a future that is our present and says that we will be strong and powerful and ex-pressive. I am asking that those of you, who want to be our leaders, look to at what is possible.

The people will follow those who are strong in character and values. They will follow someone who is powerful and secure in their ability to be with the people. The people will follow leaders who can express themselves in both good times and challenging times. I ask that you look to the future generations that will have to follow the path you will start for them. They will need something to eat, a place to sleep and water to drink.

I ask you to look to the future as being possible and already existing with abundance, equality, health and wellness.

Guest Editorial

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETINGFebruary 21, 2019

Edmonton, AlbertaCOUNCIL MEETING

Present: Chief Eddy Makokis,

Councillors: Terry Cardinal, Sam Cardinal, Robbie Moosewah, Darrell Quinney, John large, Pauline Hunter.

Others: Fabian Large, Don Crane, Sandy Jackson, Lee Carter, Doug Rae, Kevin Half

Moved by JOHN LARGE that the Chief and Council of the SLCN # 125 call for Nominations on May 29th, 2019, and Elections for Council on June 12th, 2019. And Elections for Chief on June 19th. Seconded by: DARRELL QUINNEY. Unanimous, no abstentions, Motion carried.

Recorded by: Fabian Large

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

Native Provincials, Edmonton, Alberta April 5, 6 and 7th, 2019

Bronze winners in the Eagle DivisionCongratulations to theSaddle Lake Atom Girlswith 5 wins and 1 loss

On, March 8th, 2019, 11 community members were success-ful in the completion of their Care Worker Training program through Norquest. Christopher Paul, Keesha Steinhauer, Jenaya Makokis Logan, Chasity Gadwa Quinney, Donna Giant Penny Delver and Instructor Joel Riverio

St. Paul Regional shows support for one of our band members Owen Breast. He is being rec-ognized for being scouted to Acadia University, Nova Scotia to play football. Regional principal, Mark Tichkowsky was Owen’s coach for the past few years. Way to go Owen!

Photo Credit : Amber Makokis

4

By Norma Large

Thank you to Therese and family for allowing me a few minutes to speak in tribute to our friend and family, Herb Cardinal.

I will begin by thanking our Elder, Al-phonse for the prayers this morning.

It has been a privilege to work with our SLCN leadership these past couple of years. As a policy and law advisor, I have worked with a great many Chief ’s and Councils for the past 20 plus years. I can, without reserve, say that working in your home Nation is at once both chal-lenging and so very rewarding.

The challenges, as we all know, has to do with a history between our peoples and the settler state of Canada – with laws and policies which challenge our abili-ties to be who we are, the descendants of the original peoples of these territories. But today – we will not delve too much into these issues; instead I’d like to offer a glimpse into the heart and mindset of a man named Herb Cardinal – a proud, kind and plain spoken nehiyawak man who played many roles within and on behalf of our Nation in his 66 years.

In the 2 or so years that I have been working as advisor here at home – I have had quite a few opportunities to sit with Chief and Council and this, of course, included Herb. Herb took his role and the responsibilities that came with it very seriously. In our work together on governance strategy, he often reminded me that the work of leadership was to be at once supportive of the Nation (all of us – together) and also that we must be compassionate to those less fortunate. He would say – don’t forget – not every-one has the capacity or ability (making fun of me and my way with words in the process) and he would add that not ev-eryone has the willingness. It was Herb – Herb who championed all of us at the table.

Herbert Morgan Cardinal was the fourth child and first boy born to late Peter Cardinal Jr. and Theresa Batoche Cardinal at the St. Teresa Hos-pital in Saint Paul, Alberta. Herb was a big, bald headed baby boy. His older sisters remarked that he looked just like his Mosum Peter Sr.

Herb had three older sisters, Mary, Lorraine, Ilene. His younger siblings are Denise, late Leon, the twins Nora and Linda, Brian, Debra, Dolly and Roxanne.

Herb spent his young days pre-residential at the farmstead (up the hill) at his grandmothers place (Mrs. Isabelle Batoche), where they lived a farm simple life, with no running water nor electricity. Peter Jr. (his dad) was called “Sputi-now Pechan.”

At age seven, Herb started at Blue Quills Resi-dential School, where he remained for the next nine years.

In 1967, Mrs. Alice Makokis drove him and oth-er students to attend Drumheller Vocational College and eventually graduate high school. He played basketball throughout high school. Herb met a lot of people and made a lot of friends in Drumheller.

His eldest son Cory Gladue was born on April 24th, 1971.

After his graduation he worked for Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Cultural Education and re-searched information for the land claims de-partment.

He also worked at the Band Farm A.R.D.A. pro-gram in 1969 as a book keeper. He shared that he gained a lot of negotiation knowledge, from Jimmy Hunter and Late Tommy Cardinal. In 1875 he worked in Forth McMurray in the labor union Bechtal with Marion Stone.

In 1981 he acquired his power engineering cer-tificate from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary, Alberta. From 1982 to 1985 he worked as a well site operator for Hus-ky Oil.

In 1985, he married Eunice Hunter, His family grew with Jeremy, Melissa, Morgan, Mason and Bobbi-Jo. He adored his children and was a lov-ing, caring Father and eventually Grandfather.

Majority of his career was with the Saddle Lake Public Work Department. He worked as the water treatment plant operator in 1990-98. He became the manager of Public Works bringing water plant upgrades. Negotiating a 13.5 mil-lion dollar project, (reverse osmosis membrane system).

During his tenure with the Nation Herb worked as an interim Band Administrator from time to time, from 1998 to 2002. His leadership role as Councillor began in 2006. He re-ignited his pas-sion for Traditional Land Use, Oil and Gas and Treaty initiatives. He believed in his communi-ty and protection of the traditional territory. One of his beliefs was to share knowledge, with whomever needed it. As you can see today, Herb was well respected and loved.

One of the highlights of his life was being the lead member of “The Vultures” and guarding the boundaries of Saddle Lake Reserve. Ironi-cally he continued to do so until his last breath, protecting his constituents. Many of the mem-bers of The Vultures have since passed.

Herb was gifted as charismatic, friendly, elab-orate storyteller and he had a wicked sense of humor. He was very persuasive (which he inher-ited from the Cardinal side). Another trait that came natural to him, was being articulate in Cree and English.

Herb in his professional career and personal life, you never had to guess where you stood with him. He called a spade a spade, and never beat around the bush. Herb was very much a man’s man, he emulated security and protec-tion, a person would feel safe when they were with him. Herb also loved to laugh and joke, a lot of times he had no problem telling funny stories especially at his own expense.

He loved all children without favor and support-ed any efforts they made. He travelled all over the province to watch his children and grand-children play hockey. In a majority of his pic-tures he embraced each and every child whole heartedly. Herb loved and respected every member of his Family.

Herbert Morgan CardinalAka “Herb ekwa Metro” (namepiy “tomatoes”)

March 10, 1952

Tribute to Herb Cardinal

5

By Norma Large

Thank you to Therese and family for allowing me a few minutes to speak in tribute to our friend and family, Herb Cardinal.

I will begin by thanking our Elder, Al-phonse for the prayers this morning.

It has been a privilege to work with our SLCN leadership these past couple of years. As a policy and law advisor, I have worked with a great many Chief ’s and Councils for the past 20 plus years. I can, without reserve, say that working in your home Nation is at once both chal-lenging and so very rewarding.

The challenges, as we all know, has to do with a history between our peoples and the settler state of Canada – with laws and policies which challenge our abili-ties to be who we are, the descendants of the original peoples of these territories. But today – we will not delve too much into these issues; instead I’d like to offer a glimpse into the heart and mindset of a man named Herb Cardinal – a proud, kind and plain spoken nehiyawak man who played many roles within and on behalf of our Nation in his 66 years.

In the 2 or so years that I have been working as advisor here at home – I have had quite a few opportunities to sit with Chief and Council and this, of course, included Herb. Herb took his role and the responsibilities that came with it very seriously. In our work together on governance strategy, he often reminded me that the work of leadership was to be at once supportive of the Nation (all of us – together) and also that we must be compassionate to those less fortunate. He would say – don’t forget – not every-one has the capacity or ability (making fun of me and my way with words in the process) and he would add that not ev-eryone has the willingness. It was Herb – Herb who championed all of us at the table.

In our long discussions, he would some-times get annoyed with me in a way that only Herb could. In his good natured way – he’d put up his hand and say….”If I could interject…” Usually, he’d inter-ject to add information that he’d read about or had heard from on one of his late night radio listening sessions. Herb took his responsibilities as one of our Nation’s leaders very seriously but sometimes he’d throw in a little humor to soften his words.

How many of us here had the chance to hear Herb introduce himself as: SLCN Headman (pause) Herb Cardinal or Herb Cardinal (pause) SLCN Headman – especially in those meeting with gov-ernment officials. Herb’s passion for the people and our issues kept him at that same governance table for many years and his desire to see better outcomes was something that he brought forward often.

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘head-man’ as a man who is a leaders of a tribe or village. I like to think that he would smile if he knew that the word was syn-onymous with words like: boss, boss-man, honcho, kingpin and taskmaster.

As advisor, I am tasked with prepar-ing leadership on policy matters of the day. A major and most pressing issue is of course the state of our mother earth or as the outside world calls it: climate change. We know the sensitive balance between protecting the earth and the goals of the economy. This is the nature of the politics around of our issues. Well last summer Herb, with his portfolio role, had the task of meeting with the Federal Minister of the Environment, Catherine McKenna. He asked me to do up a briefing note with key messages to raise with the Minister. When he came back – he said to me, “Well I’m sure glad I had that briefing because the Minis-ter really wanted me to talk more about what I was saying…” I said, Herb that’s good and so what did you tell her? He

said…(pause) “Shit, I told her to come to Saddle Lake and I’ll tell her more!” He then smiled at me when he said, “I hope she doesn’t…I was under the gun to an-swer her technical questions – doesn’t she know that I’m a politician!? We both laughed…

Herb’s humor and his way of story tell-ing were a testament to his life experi-ences. With a little swagger and a lot of humor – Herb lived his life on his sleeve. Whether he thought something was funny or it really ticked him off – Herb would tell you to your face.

He would challenge me on issues. He would ask: If the Indian Act goes – what happens to the land? If GFL doesn’t come to the table….and more recently: If Trudeau doesn’t get back in…

I am grateful for the time I had to laugh with…to learn from… and he inspired by Herb Cardinal. He knew this, our Nation. He knew our people well…he knew our way of life and he respected it fully. He knew families and kinship, he knew our history and he shared as much as he could in his time here on mother earth. I would add only this…that I for one am a better person for hav-ing known the kind and compassionate Herb Cardinal.

It has been said in recent days since Herb left us…that it is all too easy to de-humanize leadership. I can only re-spond by saying that Herb was indeed our headman. But before that he is a fa-ther, a son, a brother and a friend. And so on behalf of the many people here and those at home, I would like to thank you, his family, for sharing Herb with us. Herb, the human being (pause) for it takes a strong-willed person to fulfill the role of leader. Herb did that…and we will forever miss him.

Hiy hiy

He also worked at the Band Farm A.R.D.A. pro-gram in 1969 as a book keeper. He shared that he gained a lot of negotiation knowledge, from Jimmy Hunter and Late Tommy Cardinal. In 1875 he worked in Forth McMurray in the labor union Bechtal with Marion Stone.

In 1981 he acquired his power engineering cer-tificate from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary, Alberta. From 1982 to 1985 he worked as a well site operator for Hus-ky Oil.

In 1985, he married Eunice Hunter, His family grew with Jeremy, Melissa, Morgan, Mason and Bobbi-Jo. He adored his children and was a lov-ing, caring Father and eventually Grandfather.

Majority of his career was with the Saddle Lake Public Work Department. He worked as the water treatment plant operator in 1990-98. He became the manager of Public Works bringing water plant upgrades. Negotiating a 13.5 mil-lion dollar project, (reverse osmosis membrane system).

During his tenure with the Nation Herb worked as an interim Band Administrator from time to time, from 1998 to 2002. His leadership role as Councillor began in 2006. He re-ignited his pas-sion for Traditional Land Use, Oil and Gas and Treaty initiatives. He believed in his communi-ty and protection of the traditional territory. One of his beliefs was to share knowledge, with whomever needed it. As you can see today, Herb was well respected and loved.

One of the highlights of his life was being the lead member of “The Vultures” and guarding the boundaries of Saddle Lake Reserve. Ironi-cally he continued to do so until his last breath, protecting his constituents. Many of the mem-bers of The Vultures have since passed.

Herb was gifted as charismatic, friendly, elab-orate storyteller and he had a wicked sense of humor. He was very persuasive (which he inher-ited from the Cardinal side). Another trait that came natural to him, was being articulate in Cree and English.

Herb in his professional career and personal life, you never had to guess where you stood with him. He called a spade a spade, and never beat around the bush. Herb was very much a man’s man, he emulated security and protec-tion, a person would feel safe when they were with him. Herb also loved to laugh and joke, a lot of times he had no problem telling funny stories especially at his own expense.

He loved all children without favor and support-ed any efforts they made. He travelled all over the province to watch his children and grand-children play hockey. In a majority of his pic-tures he embraced each and every child whole heartedly. Herb loved and respected every member of his Family.

Tribute to Herb Cardinal

6

Implementing TreatyA Look Back at the Issues and Developments from two years of Treaty Based developments in onihcikiskwapowin – Saddle Lake Cree Nation

Successive Government’s of Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative, have long had a singular objective in dealing with our peoples. Moving out of the business of Indian Affairs, reducing the costs associated with paying for the legal obligations under our Treaty relationship and obtain-ing full title to the lands. Often stated as modern day treaty making or even Nation rebuilding, the goals of devolution and ‘self-government’ of all lib-eral or conservative governments have been pursued, policy by policy, law by law, with the objective of reducing the ‘costs’ of paying for the legal Treaty obligations of the Crown to our peoples. First Nations, including our Nation, have long held that our Inherent Right to Self-Determination stems from a time well before there was a colonial memory and that the obligations under the original Treaty agreement is proof positive of our in-herent capacities to continue to live as nehiyawak here on these, our lands and territories. The question for Canadian politicians of all stripes: Where is the Honour of the Crown?

The days since Treaty however proved only that the settler state of Canada, with its colonial mindset and Doctrine of Discovery fully in tact, would continue to impose foreign systems of governance, embedding deeply the many bureaucratic processes that distance our peoples from their inheri-tance of language, lands and culture. Privy Council officials and Indian Affairs senior bureaucrats have had multiple objectives aimed at ‘giving back’ control but they have done so with one thing in mind: unfettered access the land. Unable to have access to the land and all the economic riches beneath it, the onihcikiskwapowin peoples have lived through hard-ship and a state of dependency not contemplated by our fore bearers. That is to live in peace and harmony and to live without interference.

The difference between all the various styles government’s that our peo-ples have had to endure is that this government, the Justin Trudeau gov-ernment has been friendlier in approach. In Assembly of First Nations meetings he speaks about the importance of the relationship without ever acknowledging the Treaty expressly implemented as the basis for deliver-ing on the honor of the Crown.

Instead he talks earnestly about creating a new Rights Framework that would embed our rights, our entitlements, our already acknowledged sov-ereignty, our Inherent capacities (which do not stem from Canada but from the Creator) and move us systematically under the Section 35 and the Ca-nadian Constitution banner. The question for all Indigenous leaders going forward: Is this the era where we fully turn our backs on Treaty and our Inherent Rights?

Beginning in summer and fall of 2016 marked an extremely busy time of reviewing critically the state of affairs in onihcikiskwapowin – Sad-dle Lake Cree Nation (SLCN). It was deemed long overdue for a strong review of the objectives in leadership and so SLCN Chief and Council embarked on governance strategic planning embedded within the Inher-ent and Treaty Rights of the iyiniwak. The process was aimed at under-standing the past decision making, working toward developing stronger processes for meeting the needs of the peoples of onihcikiskwapowin and advancing strengthened goals and objectives as envisioned by our fore bearers under Treaty No. 6.

The review included though was not limited to:

1. Band Council Resolutions – 1980 to Today2. All Strategic Documents including the 25 year plan from 1990’s3. Policy Sector – Strategy Documents as provided4. Past laws and policy development projects5. Supporting Treaty Based Alliance with like-minded Nations6. Correspondence with Government of Canada detailing the con-

cerns 7. Proactive Response to current Government of Canada objectives

Working in partnership with SLCN policy area directors and other staff, the work of strategic planning needed to be proactive and responsive due

to the quickly moving legal and policy changes that were being moved on by the Government of Canada.

The impacts of various, non-consented to changes by the governing Lib-eral Party of Canada meant that the Nation oriented strategy focus was sometimes interrupted.

The pace of change was fast. The Government of Canada split the INAC ministry, undertook a law and policy review (without any First Nations involvement), began a well-funded co-development strategy with the As-sembly of First Nations, signed off on Memoranda of Understanding on ‘joint priorities’ and ‘fiscal relationship,’ was spending more on educa-tion, child and family services, creating legislation and new policies on languages, child and family services, lands management, fiscal relations, all with a fully transparent intention of proceeding to move more First Nations along the self-governance or devolution highway than ever before contemplated since the 1969 White Paper on Indian Affairs.

The now former Liberal Minister of Indigenous Services, Jane Philpott and the current INAC Minister Carolyn Bennett both expressly acknowledged the pace of change by indicating that they wanted 100 new agreements signed and rights recognition and implementation exploratory tables es-tablished before the end of last fiscal year. Going forward, they achieved that goal and now have well over 100 new fiscal arrangements throughout the Treaty territories and beyond. It established clearly that there were a growing number of First Nations, including many Treaty Nations, open to the possibility envisioned under the new rights framework. In winter 2018, Saddle Lake Cree Nation leadership along with other like-minded nations including O’Chiese, Tsuu t’ina, Onion Lake and others, began a series of think tank type meetings to begin to scope out the impacts of the various initiatives. At least eight of those think tanks were intended for developing actual tools and mechanisms that could support nations in their work ensuring inherent and Treaty rights were not impeded by the development of new bureaucratic goals aimed at devolution and ultimately self-government. The Saddle Lake message has always been to make sure that we are doing more than just rejecting the federal approach but also to act to ensure a proactive response that supports the implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaty No. 6.

In the past two years, there have been over 12 newsletters outlining the ob-jectives of the Government of Canada and this newsletter intends to con-tinue to highlight and set out the processes being pursued. The following timeline shows the mechanisms and policy/law objectives that are moving First Nations towards the implementation of the Inherent Rights Policy on Self-Government first put into place in 1995.

(See pages 10 and 11 for Devolution Highway Timeline)

The 1995 Inherent Right Policy outlines expressly in its Federal Policy Guidelines that the core objective has always been, as it is now, that the Government of Canada will entertain negotiation where there is agreement that the federal policy is the basis for engagement. The objective of Can-ada’s approach to ‘self-government’ is that any negotiated agreement and ultimate settlement places the First Nation into a trilateral (federal, provin-cial and First Nations) arrangement (both with regard to funding and au-thority) with the First Nations level of authority and jurisdiction compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution of Canada (1982) and provincial legal and policy expectations.

With the advent of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution in 1985, First Nations Inherent and Treaty rights would now be understood to be ‘rec-ognized and affirmed’ as guaranteed by the Constitution of the settler state of Canada. The specific ‘existing’ rights however are not yet fully defined and therefore, First Nations must still provide proof of the specific rights (health, education, child/family) existence and the only space to do that currently is within the Canadian court system. There is no Treaty Com-mission type office in the Alberta Region like there is in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Further, in each of the sectors mentioned, there are considerable steps being advanced to ‘devolve’ responsibility under policy authorities created by the Government of Canada. This devolution process started in the early 1960’s. But in the current environment, most of the co-develop-ment tables with the AFN are acting as process mechanisms to move First Nations down the path of devolution whether the National Chief wants to acknowledge that or not. Therefore some First Nations are actively

pursuing sectoral agreements with the ultimate goal of transferring by and large administrative control to the extent of the federal policy authority attached. Whether it is education, health or child and family services, the fundamental goal is to move more First Nations along the self-government spectrum without ever laying flat onto the table, the outstanding business from 1970 when our leaders fully supported implementation of our origi-nal Nation-to-Nation agreement under Treaty.

The Government of Canada’s Approach to Implementation of the In-herent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government

Part 1 : Policy Framework

The Inherent Right of Self-Government as a Section 35 Right

The Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-govern-ment as an existing Aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It recognizes, as well, that the inherent right may find expres-sion in treaties, and in the context of the Crown’s relationship with treaty First Nations. Recognition of the inherent right is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and their resources.

The Government acknowledges that the inherent right of self-government may be enforceable through the courts and that there are different views about the nature, scope and content of the inherent right. However, litiga-tion over the inherent right would be lengthy, costly and would tend to fos-ter conflict. In any case, the courts are likely to provide general guidance to the parties involved, leaving it to them to work out detailed arrangements.

For these reasons, the Government is convinced that litigation should be a last resort. Negotiations among governments and Aboriginal peoples are clearly preferable as the most practical and effective way to implement the inherent right of self-government.

Within the Canadian Constitutional Framework

Aboriginal governments and institutions exercising the inherent right of self-government will operate within the framework of the Canadian Con-stitution. Aboriginal jurisdictions and authorities should, therefore, work in harmony with jurisdictions that are exercised by other governments. It is in the interest of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments to develop co-operative arrangements that will ensure the harmonious rela-tionship of laws which is indispensable to the proper functioning of the federation.

In light of the wide array of Aboriginal jurisdictions or authorities that may be the subject of negotiations, provincial governments are necessary parties to negotiations and agreements where subject matters being ne-gotiated normally fall within provincial jurisdiction or may have impacts beyond the Aboriginal group or Aboriginal lands in question. Territorial governments should be party to any negotiations and related agreements on implementing self-government north of the sixtieth parallel.

The inherent right of self-government does not include a right of sover-eignty in the international law sense, and will not result in sovereign in-dependent Aboriginal nation states. On the contrary, implementation of self-government should enhance the participation of Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian federation, and ensure that Aboriginal peoples and their governments do not exist in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of Canadian society.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Government is committed to the principle that the Canadian Char-ter of Rights and Freedoms should bind all governments in Canada, so that Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians alike may continue to enjoy equally the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Self-government agreements, including treaties, will, therefore, have to provide that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Aboriginal governments and institutions in relation to all matters within their respective jurisdictions and authorities.

77

to the quickly moving legal and policy changes that were being moved on by the Government of Canada.

The impacts of various, non-consented to changes by the governing Lib-eral Party of Canada meant that the Nation oriented strategy focus was sometimes interrupted.

The pace of change was fast. The Government of Canada split the INAC ministry, undertook a law and policy review (without any First Nations involvement), began a well-funded co-development strategy with the As-sembly of First Nations, signed off on Memoranda of Understanding on ‘joint priorities’ and ‘fiscal relationship,’ was spending more on educa-tion, child and family services, creating legislation and new policies on languages, child and family services, lands management, fiscal relations, all with a fully transparent intention of proceeding to move more First Nations along the self-governance or devolution highway than ever before contemplated since the 1969 White Paper on Indian Affairs.

The now former Liberal Minister of Indigenous Services, Jane Philpott and the current INAC Minister Carolyn Bennett both expressly acknowledged the pace of change by indicating that they wanted 100 new agreements signed and rights recognition and implementation exploratory tables es-tablished before the end of last fiscal year. Going forward, they achieved that goal and now have well over 100 new fiscal arrangements throughout the Treaty territories and beyond. It established clearly that there were a growing number of First Nations, including many Treaty Nations, open to the possibility envisioned under the new rights framework. In winter 2018, Saddle Lake Cree Nation leadership along with other like-minded nations including O’Chiese, Tsuu t’ina, Onion Lake and others, began a series of think tank type meetings to begin to scope out the impacts of the various initiatives. At least eight of those think tanks were intended for developing actual tools and mechanisms that could support nations in their work ensuring inherent and Treaty rights were not impeded by the development of new bureaucratic goals aimed at devolution and ultimately self-government. The Saddle Lake message has always been to make sure that we are doing more than just rejecting the federal approach but also to act to ensure a proactive response that supports the implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaty No. 6.

In the past two years, there have been over 12 newsletters outlining the ob-jectives of the Government of Canada and this newsletter intends to con-tinue to highlight and set out the processes being pursued. The following timeline shows the mechanisms and policy/law objectives that are moving First Nations towards the implementation of the Inherent Rights Policy on Self-Government first put into place in 1995.

(See pages 10 and 11 for Devolution Highway Timeline)

The 1995 Inherent Right Policy outlines expressly in its Federal Policy Guidelines that the core objective has always been, as it is now, that the Government of Canada will entertain negotiation where there is agreement that the federal policy is the basis for engagement. The objective of Can-ada’s approach to ‘self-government’ is that any negotiated agreement and ultimate settlement places the First Nation into a trilateral (federal, provin-cial and First Nations) arrangement (both with regard to funding and au-thority) with the First Nations level of authority and jurisdiction compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution of Canada (1982) and provincial legal and policy expectations.

With the advent of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution in 1985, First Nations Inherent and Treaty rights would now be understood to be ‘rec-ognized and affirmed’ as guaranteed by the Constitution of the settler state of Canada. The specific ‘existing’ rights however are not yet fully defined and therefore, First Nations must still provide proof of the specific rights (health, education, child/family) existence and the only space to do that currently is within the Canadian court system. There is no Treaty Com-mission type office in the Alberta Region like there is in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Further, in each of the sectors mentioned, there are considerable steps being advanced to ‘devolve’ responsibility under policy authorities created by the Government of Canada. This devolution process started in the early 1960’s. But in the current environment, most of the co-develop-ment tables with the AFN are acting as process mechanisms to move First Nations down the path of devolution whether the National Chief wants to acknowledge that or not. Therefore some First Nations are actively

pursuing sectoral agreements with the ultimate goal of transferring by and large administrative control to the extent of the federal policy authority attached. Whether it is education, health or child and family services, the fundamental goal is to move more First Nations along the self-government spectrum without ever laying flat onto the table, the outstanding business from 1970 when our leaders fully supported implementation of our origi-nal Nation-to-Nation agreement under Treaty.

The Government of Canada’s Approach to Implementation of the In-herent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government

Part 1 : Policy Framework

The Inherent Right of Self-Government as a Section 35 Right

The Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-govern-ment as an existing Aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It recognizes, as well, that the inherent right may find expres-sion in treaties, and in the context of the Crown’s relationship with treaty First Nations. Recognition of the inherent right is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and their resources.

The Government acknowledges that the inherent right of self-government may be enforceable through the courts and that there are different views about the nature, scope and content of the inherent right. However, litiga-tion over the inherent right would be lengthy, costly and would tend to fos-ter conflict. In any case, the courts are likely to provide general guidance to the parties involved, leaving it to them to work out detailed arrangements.

For these reasons, the Government is convinced that litigation should be a last resort. Negotiations among governments and Aboriginal peoples are clearly preferable as the most practical and effective way to implement the inherent right of self-government.

Within the Canadian Constitutional Framework

Aboriginal governments and institutions exercising the inherent right of self-government will operate within the framework of the Canadian Con-stitution. Aboriginal jurisdictions and authorities should, therefore, work in harmony with jurisdictions that are exercised by other governments. It is in the interest of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments to develop co-operative arrangements that will ensure the harmonious rela-tionship of laws which is indispensable to the proper functioning of the federation.

In light of the wide array of Aboriginal jurisdictions or authorities that may be the subject of negotiations, provincial governments are necessary parties to negotiations and agreements where subject matters being ne-gotiated normally fall within provincial jurisdiction or may have impacts beyond the Aboriginal group or Aboriginal lands in question. Territorial governments should be party to any negotiations and related agreements on implementing self-government north of the sixtieth parallel.

The inherent right of self-government does not include a right of sover-eignty in the international law sense, and will not result in sovereign in-dependent Aboriginal nation states. On the contrary, implementation of self-government should enhance the participation of Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian federation, and ensure that Aboriginal peoples and their governments do not exist in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of Canadian society.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Government is committed to the principle that the Canadian Char-ter of Rights and Freedoms should bind all governments in Canada, so that Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians alike may continue to enjoy equally the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Self-government agreements, including treaties, will, therefore, have to provide that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Aboriginal governments and institutions in relation to all matters within their respective jurisdictions and authorities.

The Charter itself already contains a provision (section 25) directing that it must be interpreted in a manner that respects Aboriginal and treaty rights, which would include, under the federal approach, the inherent right. The Charter is thus designed to ensure a sensitive balance between individual rights and freedoms, and the unique values and traditions of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Different Circumstances

Given the vastly different circumstances of Aboriginal peoples throughout Canada, implementation of the inherent right cannot be uniform across the country or result in a “one-size-fits-all” form of self-government. The Government proposes to negotiate self-government arrangements that are tailored to meet the unique needs of Aboriginal groups and are responsive to their particular political, economic, legal, historical, cultural and social circumstances.

Scope of Negotiations

Under the federal approach, the central objective of negotiations will be to reach agreements on self-government as opposed to legal definitions of the inherent right. The Government realizes that Aboriginal governments and institutions will require the jurisdiction or authority to act in a number of areas in order to give practical effect to the inherent right of self-gov-ernment. Broadly stated, the Government views the scope of Aboriginal jurisdiction or authority as likely extending to matters that are internal to the group, integral to its distinct Aboriginal culture, and essential to its operation as a government or institution. Under this approach, the range of matters that the federal government would see as subjects for negotiation could include all, some, or parts of the following:

• establishment of governing structures, internal constitutions, elec-tions, leadership selection processes

• membership• marriage• adoption and child welfare• Aboriginal language, culture and religion• education• health• social services• administration/enforcement of Aboriginal laws, including the estab-

lishment of Aboriginal courts or tribunals and the creation of offenc-es of the type normally created by local or regional governments for contravention of their laws

• policing• property rights, including succession and estates• land management, including: zoning; service fees; land tenure and

access; and expropriation of Aboriginal land by Aboriginal govern-ments for their own public purposes

• natural resources management• agriculture• hunting, fishing and trapping on Aboriginal lands• taxation in respect of direct taxes and property taxes of members• transfer and management of monies and group assets• management of public works and infrastructure• housing• local transportation• licensing, regulation and operation of businesses located on Aborig-

inal landsIn some of these areas, detailed arrangements will be required to ensure harmonization of laws, while in others, a more general recognition of Ab-original jurisdiction or authority may be sufficient.

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

128

There are a number of other areas that may go beyond matters that are integral to Aboriginal culture or that are strictly internal to an Ab-original group. To the extent that the federal government has jurisdiction in these areas, it is prepared to negotiate some measure of Aborigi-nal jurisdiction or authority. In these areas, laws and regulations tend to have impacts that go beyond individual communities. Therefore, pri-mary law-making authority would remain with the federal or provincial governments, as the case may be, and their laws would prevail in the event of a conflict with Aboriginal laws. Subject matters in this category would include:

• divorce• labour/training• administration of justice issues, including

matters related to the administration and enforcement of laws of other jurisdictions which might include certain criminal laws

• penitentiaries and parole• environmental protection, assessment and

pollution prevention• fisheries co-management• migratory birds co-management• gaming• emergency preparedness

There are a number of subject matters where there are no compelling reasons for Aboriginal governments or institutions to exercise law-mak-ing authority. These subject matters cannot be characterized as either integral to Aboriginal cultures, or internal to Aboriginal groups. They can be grouped under two headings: (i) powers related to Canadian sovereignty, defence and ex-ternal relations; and (ii) other national interest powers. In these areas, it is essential that the fed-eral government retain its law-making authority. Subject matters in this category would include:

i) Powers Related to Canadian Sovereignty, De-fence and External Relations

• international/diplomatic relations and for-eign policy

• national defence and security• security of national borders• international treaty-making• immigration, naturalization and aliens• international trade, including tariffs and im-

port/export controls

ii) Other National Interest Powers

management and regulation of the national economy, including:

• regulation of the national business frame-work, fiscal and monetary policy

• a central bank and the banking system• bankruptcy and insolvency• trade and competition policy• intellectual property• incorporation of federal corporations• currency

maintenance of national law and order and sub-stantive criminal law, including:

• offences and penalties under the Criminal Code and other criminal laws

• emergencies and the “peace, order and

good government” power

protection of the health and safety of all Cana-dians

federal undertakings and other powers, includ-ing:

• broadcasting and telecommunications• aeronautics• navigation and shipping• maintenance ofnational transportation sys-

tems• postal service• census and statistics

While law-making power in these areas will not be the subject of negotiations, the Government is prepared to consider administrative arrange-ments where it might be feasible and appropriate

Mechanisms for Implementation

The Government anticipates that agreements on self-government will be given effect through a variety of mechanisms including treaties, legis-lation, contracts and non-binding memoranda of understanding.

Treaties

The Government of Canada is prepared, where the other parties agree, to constitutionally pro-tect rights set out in negotiated self-government agreements as treaty rights within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Im-plementation of the inherent right in this fashion would be a continuation of the historic relation-ship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. Self-government rights could be protected under section 35:

• in new treaties;• as part of comprehensive land claim

agreements; or• as additions to existing treaties.

Treaties create mutually binding obligations and commitments, which are constitutionally pro-tected. Recognizing the solemn and enduring nature of treaty rights, the Government believes that the primary criterion for determining wheth-er or not a matter should receive constitutional protection is whether it is a fundamental element of self-government that should bind future gen-erations. Under this approach, suitable matters for constitutional protection would include:

• a listing of jurisdictions or authorities by subject matter and related arrange-ments;

• the relationship of Aboriginal laws to federal and provincial laws;

• the geographic area within which the Aboriginal government or institution will exercise its jurisdiction or au-thority, and the people to be affected thereby; and

• matters relating to the accountability of the Aboriginal government to its members, in order to establish its le-gitimacy and the legitimacy of its laws

within the Constitution of Canada.It follows from this approach that matters in agreements of a technical or temporary nature would not be appropriate matters for constitu-tional protection as treaty rights. Arrangements that must be adaptable to changing circum-stances, such as program and service delivery arrangements, and funding arrangements, would therefore not be appropriate subjects for consti-tutional protection as treaty rights.

Legislation, Contracts and Memoranda of Understanding

Self-government arrangements will not be im-plemented exclusively through treaties. Other mechanisms that will play a role in this process include legislation, contracts and non-binding memoranda of understanding. Legislation can be used in the following ways:

• to ratify and give effect to agreements, including treaties;

• to implement particular provisions of agreements, including treaties; and

• to act as a stand-alone mechanism when the parties concerned wish to implement self-government arrange-ments, but not through a treaty.

Legally enforceable contracts can be used for setting out detailed, technical or time-limited agreements respecting the implementation of self-government arrangements. Finally, mem-oranda of understanding, which are not legally enforceable, may also be used to set out political commitments on self-government.

Existing Treaties

Existing treaties are fundamental to the special relationship between Treaty First Nations and the Crown. The Government does not propose to re-open, change or displace existing treaties through implementation of the inherent right and the negotiation of self-government agree-ments. For Treaty First Nations that so desire, the Government is prepared, consistent with this policy approach, to negotiate agreements on self-government, which build on the relationship already established by their treaties.

Existing Land Claim Agreements

The Government does not propose to re-open the provisions of existing land claim agree-ments as part of any process to implement the inherent right of self-government. Existing land claim agreements, such as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Northeast-ern Quebec Agreement, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims Agree-ment, the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, the Sahtu Dene and Métis Compre-hensive Land Claim Agreement, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations Final Agreement, the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agree-ment, the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement or the Teslin Tlingit Council Final Agreement, will continue to operate according to existing terms.

Within this policy framework, the federal government would be prepared to negotiate self-government agreements with those Aborig-inal groups who have settled their land claims, but do not already have self-government ar-rangements.

Existing Self-Government Agreements

As a general principle, existing self-government agreements will continue to operate according to their existing terms. If requested by the Ab-original groups concerned, and with the full par-ticipation of the province or territory concerned, the federal government would be prepared to ex-plore issues related to constitutional protection of aspects of the self-government arrangements set out in the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Govern-ment Act in British Columbia, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act. Any changes or amend-ments to existing arrangements, however, would only be made with the full agreement of all par-ties concerned.

Application of Laws

As a right which is exercised within the frame-work of the Canadian Constitution, the inherent right will not lead to the automatic exclusion of federal and provincial laws, many of which will continue to apply to Aboriginal peoples or will co-exist alongside validly enacted Aboriginal laws.

To minimize the possibility of conflicts between Aboriginal laws and federal or provincial laws, the Government believes that all agreements, in-cluding treaties, should establish rules of priori-ty by which such conflicts can be resolved. The Government takes the position that negotiated rules of priority may provide for the paramount-cy of Aboriginal laws, but may not deviate from the basic principle that those federal and provin-cial laws of overriding national or provincial im-portance will prevail over conflicting Aboriginal laws. Prior to the conclusion of self-government agreements, federal and provincial laws would continue to apply to the extent that they do cur-rently.

Transition

It will be important to ensure a smooth transi-tion from current arrangements to implemen-tation of the inherent right through negotiated agreements. All agreements, including treaties, should therefore include appropriate transi-tion measures to ensure that implementation of self-government does not create legal uncertain-ty.

The Government appreciates that certain Ab-original groups may not wish to exercise a full range of jurisdiction or authority immediately, in which case the current legislative regime will continue to apply until self-government agree-ments have been negotiated. Alternatively, some groups may want to structure their self-govern-ment agreements so that some jurisdictions or authorities can be taken up immediately and oth-ers exercised in a phased manner, in accordance with the group’s needs, capacities and preferred timetable. In this case, the current legislative re-

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

9

within the Constitution of Canada.It follows from this approach that matters in agreements of a technical or temporary nature would not be appropriate matters for constitu-tional protection as treaty rights. Arrangements that must be adaptable to changing circum-stances, such as program and service delivery arrangements, and funding arrangements, would therefore not be appropriate subjects for consti-tutional protection as treaty rights.

Legislation, Contracts and Memoranda of Understanding

Self-government arrangements will not be im-plemented exclusively through treaties. Other mechanisms that will play a role in this process include legislation, contracts and non-binding memoranda of understanding. Legislation can be used in the following ways:

• to ratify and give effect to agreements, including treaties;

• to implement particular provisions of agreements, including treaties; and

• to act as a stand-alone mechanism when the parties concerned wish to implement self-government arrange-ments, but not through a treaty.

Legally enforceable contracts can be used for setting out detailed, technical or time-limited agreements respecting the implementation of self-government arrangements. Finally, mem-oranda of understanding, which are not legally enforceable, may also be used to set out political commitments on self-government.

Existing Treaties

Existing treaties are fundamental to the special relationship between Treaty First Nations and the Crown. The Government does not propose to re-open, change or displace existing treaties through implementation of the inherent right and the negotiation of self-government agree-ments. For Treaty First Nations that so desire, the Government is prepared, consistent with this policy approach, to negotiate agreements on self-government, which build on the relationship already established by their treaties.

Existing Land Claim Agreements

The Government does not propose to re-open the provisions of existing land claim agree-ments as part of any process to implement the inherent right of self-government. Existing land claim agreements, such as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Northeast-ern Quebec Agreement, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims Agree-ment, the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, the Sahtu Dene and Métis Compre-hensive Land Claim Agreement, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations Final Agreement, the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agree-ment, the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement or the Teslin Tlingit Council Final Agreement, will continue to operate according to existing terms.

Within this policy framework, the federal government would be prepared to negotiate self-government agreements with those Aborig-inal groups who have settled their land claims, but do not already have self-government ar-rangements.

Existing Self-Government Agreements

As a general principle, existing self-government agreements will continue to operate according to their existing terms. If requested by the Ab-original groups concerned, and with the full par-ticipation of the province or territory concerned, the federal government would be prepared to ex-plore issues related to constitutional protection of aspects of the self-government arrangements set out in the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Govern-ment Act in British Columbia, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act. Any changes or amend-ments to existing arrangements, however, would only be made with the full agreement of all par-ties concerned.

Application of Laws

As a right which is exercised within the frame-work of the Canadian Constitution, the inherent right will not lead to the automatic exclusion of federal and provincial laws, many of which will continue to apply to Aboriginal peoples or will co-exist alongside validly enacted Aboriginal laws.

To minimize the possibility of conflicts between Aboriginal laws and federal or provincial laws, the Government believes that all agreements, in-cluding treaties, should establish rules of priori-ty by which such conflicts can be resolved. The Government takes the position that negotiated rules of priority may provide for the paramount-cy of Aboriginal laws, but may not deviate from the basic principle that those federal and provin-cial laws of overriding national or provincial im-portance will prevail over conflicting Aboriginal laws. Prior to the conclusion of self-government agreements, federal and provincial laws would continue to apply to the extent that they do cur-rently.

Transition

It will be important to ensure a smooth transi-tion from current arrangements to implemen-tation of the inherent right through negotiated agreements. All agreements, including treaties, should therefore include appropriate transi-tion measures to ensure that implementation of self-government does not create legal uncertain-ty.

The Government appreciates that certain Ab-original groups may not wish to exercise a full range of jurisdiction or authority immediately, in which case the current legislative regime will continue to apply until self-government agree-ments have been negotiated. Alternatively, some groups may want to structure their self-govern-ment agreements so that some jurisdictions or authorities can be taken up immediately and oth-ers exercised in a phased manner, in accordance with the group’s needs, capacities and preferred timetable. In this case, the current legislative re-

gime will continue to apply in relation to those jurisdictions or authorities that have not yet been taken up pursuant to a negotiated agreement.

Jurisdiction or Authority Over Non-Mem-bers

Negotiations with Aboriginal groups residing on a land base must address the rights and interests of non-members residing on Aboriginal lands. Agreements should indicate clearly if Aborig-inal jurisdiction or authority will be exercised over non-members. Where the exercise of Ab-original jurisdiction or authority over non-mem-bers is contemplated, agreements must provide for the establishment of mechanisms through which non-members may have input into deci-sions that will affect their rights and interests, and must provide for rights of redress.

Fiduciary Obligations

The Crown has a unique, historic, fiduciary re-lationship with Aboriginal peoples in Canada. While the Government’s recognition of an in-herent right of self-government does not imply the end of this historic relationship, Aboriginal self-government may change the nature of this relationship.

As Aboriginal governments and institutions exercise jurisdiction or authority and assume control over decision-making that affects their communities, they will also assume greater re-sponsibilities for the exercise of those powers. As a result, Crown responsibilities will lessen. In this sense, the historic relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown will not dis-appear, but rather, will evolve as a natural con-sequence both of Aboriginal peoples’ changing role in shaping their own lives and communities, and of the Crown’s diminished control and au-thority in relation to them.

In circumstances where Aboriginal groups wish the Crown to have certain ongoing obligations, self-government jurisdiction or authority will, correspondingly, be limited. In such cases, continuing Crown obligations should be clear-ly defined. There is no justifiable basis for the Government to retain fiduciary obligations in re-lation to subject matters over which it has relin-quished its control and over which an Aboriginal government or institution has, correspondingly, assumed control.

Accountability

Aboriginal governments and institutions should be fully accountable to their members or clients for all decisions made and actions taken in the exercise of their jurisdiction or authority. Mech-anisms to ensure political and financial account-ability should be comparable to those in place for other governments and institutions of similar size, although they need not be identical in all respects.

Mechanisms to ensure political accountability must be developed and ratified by the Aboriginal group concerned, and set out in an internal con-stitution so that they are transparent to all mem-bers, and to others who deal with the Aboriginal governments or institutions. In determining the

specific accountability measures required, con-sideration will need to be given to the particular functions of Aboriginal governments and insti-tutions, such as the exercise of jurisdiction, the delivery of programs and services, and/or the administration and enforcement of regulations.

Aboriginal governments exercising law-making authority must establish:

• clear and open processes of law-mak-ing;

• transparent processes for proclaiming a law in effect;

• procedures for the notification and publication of laws; and

• procedures for the appeal of laws or other decisions.

Aboriginal institutions exercising authorities must:

• ensure that the decision-making pro-cesses central to the core functions of those institutions are open and trans-parent;

• ensure that information on administra-tive policies and standards is readily obtainable by clients; and

• establish procedures, where appropri-ate, for administrative review, includ-ing appeal mechanisms.

Mechanisms to ensure administrative and finan-cial accountability to members and to clients must also be established, and should be no less stringent than those existing for other govern-ments and institutions of comparable size. Such mechanisms should respect the principles of transparency, disclosure and redress.

Financial records and statements should comply with generally accepted accounting principles for governments and institutions of comparable size. In addition, public accounts must be pre-pared and made available, and provision must be made for annual public audits of expenditures.

Aboriginal governments and institutions must also be accountable to Parliament for funding provided by the federal government as a result of self-government agreements. Specifically, financing agreements must provide for a mech-anism enabling Parliament to assess the extent to which public funds have contributed to the objectives for which they were voted.

Aboriginal governments and institutions must develop rules with respect to conflict of interest for both elected and appointed officials. In par-ticular, conflict-of-interest rules must ensure that services that provide an opportunity for financial gain operate at arm’s length from elected and ap-pointed officials.

Financial Arrangements

The Government’s position is that financ-ing self-government is a shared responsibility

10

Treaty Nations and Canada - Devolution Highway

11

Treaty Nations and Canada - Devolution Highway

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

1212

among federal, provincial and territorial governments, and Aboriginal governments and institutions. Specific financing arrangements will be ne-gotiated among governments and the Aboriginal groups concerned.

The Government will normally require that an agreement on cost-sharing between the federal government and the relevant provincial or territorial government be secured prior to the commencement of substantive negoti-ations. (In some cases, cost-sharing arrangements are already in place.) In negotiating new financial arrangements and cost-sharing agreements, the federal government maintains the position that it has primary but not ex-clusive responsibility for on-reserve Indians and the Inuit, while the prov-inces have primary but not exclusive responsibility for other Aboriginal peoples.

All participants in self-government negotiations must recognize that self-government arrangements will have to be affordable and consistent with the overall social and economic policies and priorities of govern-ments, while at the same time taking into account the specific needs of Aboriginal peoples. In this regard, the fiscal and budgetary capacity of the federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments or institutions will be a primary determinant of the financing of self-government.

Specific financial arrangements for the financing of Aboriginal govern-ments and institutions should take into account, among other factors:

• the shared objective of ensuring the comparability of basic pub-lic services for Aboriginal peoples to those available to other Canadians in the vicinity (comparability does not mean that pro-grams, services or funding must be identical in all cases);

• the need for reasonably stable, predictable and flexible funding arrangements for Aboriginal governments and institutions;

• existing levels of support provided by governments;• the jurisdictions, authorities, programs and services to be as-

sumed by Aboriginal governments or institutions;• the Aboriginal group’s ability to raise own-source revenues, and

other resources available to it; and• the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the proposed arrange-

ments, including issues related to the size, location and accessi-bility of the group/groups.

In addition, financial arrangements should be consistent with principles of sound public administration.

In this climate of scarce resources it will be particularly important for gov-ernments to work together to harmonize funding and program and service delivery arrangements, thereby ensuring the most efficient and effective use of those resources. The Government believes that, wherever feasible, Aboriginal governments and institutions should develop their own sources of revenue in order to reduce reliance, over time, on transfers from other governments.

Access to Programs

Aboriginal groups and individuals covered by self-government arrange-ments will continue to be eligible for programs that the federal govern-ment may establish from time to time. However, where a comparable ju-risdiction, authority or program has been assumed by an Aboriginal group pursuant to an agreement or a treaty, individuals of that Aboriginal group would not ordinarily be eligible for similar federal programs.

Where legal status as an Indian, recognition as an Inuk or Labrador Innu, or residency on reserve is a condition of entitlement to federal programs, the federal government is not prepared, as the result of self-government agreements, to expand entitlement to such programs to off-reserve Status Indians, Non-Status Indians or Métis groups.

Implementation Plans

The Government will require a separate implementation plan for all self-government agreements, including treaties, to be approved in con-

junction with Final Agreements. Implementation plans must identify the activities, timeframes and resources that have been agreed upon to give ef-fect to the agreements or treaties. Issues related to affordability, efficiency, capital requirements, duplication of services, feasibility and capacity will have to be addressed.

The Government of Canada recognizes that there will be new costs asso-ciated with the transition from the existing regime to implementation of new self-government arrangements. There will not be, however, a separate source of funding for implementation and transition costs. All federal costs associated with the implementation of self-government agreements will have to be accommodated within existing federal expenditures.

In addition, self-government agreements, including treaties, will not in-clude any program enrichment. Any decisions by the federal government regarding program enrichment would have to be made within the context of that program and by the department concerned, not as a consequence of self-government agreements. Once self-government arrangements are in place, however, Aboriginal governments will be free to redirect and redis-tribute monies into those areas they deem appropriate, subject to maintain-ing whatever statutory requirements and minimal standards of program and service delivery that have been agreed upon.

Part II: Various Approaches to Self-Government

The Government recognizes that Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples have dif-ferent needs, circumstances and aspirations, and want to exercise their in-herent right in different ways. Some want their own governments on their land base; some want to work within wider public government structures; and some want institutional arrangements. The Government is prepared to support various approaches, taking into account differing needs and cir-cumstances, and to be flexible on the specific arrangements which may be negotiated.

First Nations

Many First Nations have expressed a strong desire to control their own affairs and communities, and deliver programs and services better tailored to their own values and cultures. They want to replace the outdated provi-sions of the Indian Act with a modern partnership, which preserves their special historic relationship with the federal government. Those First Na-tions, which have entered into treaties with the Crown want to ensure that implementation of the inherent right will be consistent with the relation-ship established by their treaties. All First Nations want other governments to recognize their legitimacy and authority.

The Government of Canada is prepared to work with First Nations and other governments to address these aspirations. It is also prepared to work with Treaty First Nations to ensure that negotiated self-government agreements build on their treaties and the existing treaty relationship. The Government believes that its approach to implementing the inherent right will allow First Nations and governments to establish mutually satisfac-tory negotiation processes leading to agreements that will recognize the jurisdiction and authority of First Nations’ governments. Finally, where the parties to negotiations agree, the Government is prepared to protect rights contained in self-government agreements as constitutionally pro-tected rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Government recognizes that not all members of a First Nation live on the group’s land base. The application of First Nation laws and the de-livery of First Nation services to members who reside off the land base of the First Nation may be addressed in agreements with the provinces con-cerned. However, any such extra-territorial application of laws or receipt of services would be at the option of non-resident members and would have to take into account issues of feasibility and affordability.

Inuit Communities

Inuit groups in various parts of Canada have expressed a desire to ad-dress their self-government aspirations within the context of larger public government arrangements, even though they have, or will receive, their own separate land base as part of a comprehensive land claim settlement. The creation of the new territory of Nunavut is one example of such an arrangement on a large scale. The Government is prepared to work with

Inuit groups and other governments to arrive at effective agreements, and is willing to consider a variety of public government approaches. It is also prepared, where all parties agree, to use existing negotiations processes to the greatest extent possible. Public government arrange-ments will, of course, have to take into account the rights and interests of all people in the area covered by such arrangements.

The Government is also prepared to consti-tutionally protect rights negotiated in public government arrangements as section 35 rights where appropriate and if the parties to the ne-gotiations agree. Such negotiations would necessarily include the provincial or territorial government in order to ensure harmonious in-tergovernmental relationships.

Self-government arrangements in a public gov-ernment context do not preclude consideration of other arrangements at some future date, pro-vided that all parties concerned are in agree-ment.

Métis and Indian Groups off a Land Base

Métis and Indian groups living off a land base have long professed their desire for a self-gov-ernment process that will enable them to fulfil their aspirations to control and influence the important decisions that affect their lives. The Government is prepared to enter into negoti-ations with provinces and Métis and Indian groups residing off a land base which live south of the sixtieth parallel. The Government is also prepared, with provincial agreement, to protect rights in agreements as constitutionally-protect-ed section 35 treaty rights. Negotiation process-es may be initiated by the Aboriginal groups themselves and will be tailored to reflect their particular circumstances and objectives.

The Government of Canada recognizes the need for flexibility in developing self-government ar-rangements. As such, negotiations may consider a variety of approaches to self-government off a land base including:

• forms of public government;

• devolution of programs and services;

• the development of institutions pro-viding services; and

• arrangements in those subject matters where it is feasible to exercise author-ity in the absence of a land base.

Many Métis groups have expressed the view that enumeration is an essential building block for self-government. The Government agrees and is prepared to cost share with provinces the enumeration of Métis and the identification of Indian people living off a land base who may be covered by self-government arrangements. This information will provide valuable input for the implementation of self-government for Métis and non-land based Indian groups.

The Government of Canada is prepared to discuss the provision of land, but only if it is deemed necessary and complementary to the

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

13

junction with Final Agreements. Implementation plans must identify the activities, timeframes and resources that have been agreed upon to give ef-fect to the agreements or treaties. Issues related to affordability, efficiency, capital requirements, duplication of services, feasibility and capacity will have to be addressed.

The Government of Canada recognizes that there will be new costs asso-ciated with the transition from the existing regime to implementation of new self-government arrangements. There will not be, however, a separate source of funding for implementation and transition costs. All federal costs associated with the implementation of self-government agreements will have to be accommodated within existing federal expenditures.

In addition, self-government agreements, including treaties, will not in-clude any program enrichment. Any decisions by the federal government regarding program enrichment would have to be made within the context of that program and by the department concerned, not as a consequence of self-government agreements. Once self-government arrangements are in place, however, Aboriginal governments will be free to redirect and redis-tribute monies into those areas they deem appropriate, subject to maintain-ing whatever statutory requirements and minimal standards of program and service delivery that have been agreed upon.

Part II: Various Approaches to Self-Government

The Government recognizes that Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples have dif-ferent needs, circumstances and aspirations, and want to exercise their in-herent right in different ways. Some want their own governments on their land base; some want to work within wider public government structures; and some want institutional arrangements. The Government is prepared to support various approaches, taking into account differing needs and cir-cumstances, and to be flexible on the specific arrangements which may be negotiated.

First Nations

Many First Nations have expressed a strong desire to control their own affairs and communities, and deliver programs and services better tailored to their own values and cultures. They want to replace the outdated provi-sions of the Indian Act with a modern partnership, which preserves their special historic relationship with the federal government. Those First Na-tions, which have entered into treaties with the Crown want to ensure that implementation of the inherent right will be consistent with the relation-ship established by their treaties. All First Nations want other governments to recognize their legitimacy and authority.

The Government of Canada is prepared to work with First Nations and other governments to address these aspirations. It is also prepared to work with Treaty First Nations to ensure that negotiated self-government agreements build on their treaties and the existing treaty relationship. The Government believes that its approach to implementing the inherent right will allow First Nations and governments to establish mutually satisfac-tory negotiation processes leading to agreements that will recognize the jurisdiction and authority of First Nations’ governments. Finally, where the parties to negotiations agree, the Government is prepared to protect rights contained in self-government agreements as constitutionally pro-tected rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Government recognizes that not all members of a First Nation live on the group’s land base. The application of First Nation laws and the de-livery of First Nation services to members who reside off the land base of the First Nation may be addressed in agreements with the provinces con-cerned. However, any such extra-territorial application of laws or receipt of services would be at the option of non-resident members and would have to take into account issues of feasibility and affordability.

Inuit Communities

Inuit groups in various parts of Canada have expressed a desire to ad-dress their self-government aspirations within the context of larger public government arrangements, even though they have, or will receive, their own separate land base as part of a comprehensive land claim settlement. The creation of the new territory of Nunavut is one example of such an arrangement on a large scale. The Government is prepared to work with

Inuit groups and other governments to arrive at effective agreements, and is willing to consider a variety of public government approaches. It is also prepared, where all parties agree, to use existing negotiations processes to the greatest extent possible. Public government arrange-ments will, of course, have to take into account the rights and interests of all people in the area covered by such arrangements.

The Government is also prepared to consti-tutionally protect rights negotiated in public government arrangements as section 35 rights where appropriate and if the parties to the ne-gotiations agree. Such negotiations would necessarily include the provincial or territorial government in order to ensure harmonious in-tergovernmental relationships.

Self-government arrangements in a public gov-ernment context do not preclude consideration of other arrangements at some future date, pro-vided that all parties concerned are in agree-ment.

Métis and Indian Groups off a Land Base

Métis and Indian groups living off a land base have long professed their desire for a self-gov-ernment process that will enable them to fulfil their aspirations to control and influence the important decisions that affect their lives. The Government is prepared to enter into negoti-ations with provinces and Métis and Indian groups residing off a land base which live south of the sixtieth parallel. The Government is also prepared, with provincial agreement, to protect rights in agreements as constitutionally-protect-ed section 35 treaty rights. Negotiation process-es may be initiated by the Aboriginal groups themselves and will be tailored to reflect their particular circumstances and objectives.

The Government of Canada recognizes the need for flexibility in developing self-government ar-rangements. As such, negotiations may consider a variety of approaches to self-government off a land base including:

• forms of public government;

• devolution of programs and services;

• the development of institutions pro-viding services; and

• arrangements in those subject matters where it is feasible to exercise author-ity in the absence of a land base.

Many Métis groups have expressed the view that enumeration is an essential building block for self-government. The Government agrees and is prepared to cost share with provinces the enumeration of Métis and the identification of Indian people living off a land base who may be covered by self-government arrangements. This information will provide valuable input for the implementation of self-government for Métis and non-land based Indian groups.

The Government of Canada is prepared to discuss the provision of land, but only if it is deemed necessary and complementary to the

management of a federal program or service that is transferred to a Métis or non-land based Indian group.

Métis with a Land Base

The Alberta Métis Settlements have also ex-pressed interest in pursuing self-government as it applies to their specific circumstances. Con-sequently, the federal government, with the par-ticipation of the Government of Alberta, is also prepared to negotiate self-government arrange-ments with Métis people residing on Alberta Métis Settlements, which reflect their unique circumstances. Should lands be provided by other provinces to Métis people under similar regimes, the federal government would be pre-pared to negotiate similar arrangements, with the participation of the province in question.

Where the parties to negotiations agree, the Government is prepared to protect rights con-tained in self-government agreements with the Métis as constitutionally protected rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

As in the case of First Nation members residing off their land base, the application of Métis laws and delivery of Métis services to members who reside off the Métis land base may be addressed in negotiations with the provinces concerned. Any such extra-territorial application of laws or receipt of services would be at the option of non-resident members and would have to take into account issues of feasibility and affordabil-ity.

Self-Government in the Western Northwest Territories (NWT)

Aboriginal groups in the western NWT have a unique opportunity to develop self-government arrangements that are not readily available south of the sixtieth parallel. In the western NWT, the Government would prefer that the inherent right find expression primarily, although not exclusively, through public government. The Government believes that this approach is the best way to address the distinctive features of this region including: the demographic profile of the territory; the fact that many communities are mixed and that settlement lands under land claim settlements do not, in most cases, include the communities; and, finally, the decision to divide the Northwest Territories. Given these circumstances, and considering inefficiencies that may arise due to duplication of programs and services in mixed communities, the creation of completely separate Aboriginal governments in the western NWT may not be practical or ef-ficient.

In the federal government’s view, the self-gov-ernment aspirations of Aboriginal peoples in the NWT can be addressed by providing specif-ic guarantees within public government institu-tions. The creation of Aboriginal institutions to exercise certain authorities may also be a useful approach.

Issues related to overall territorial governance structures and related arrangements in the west-ern NWT after division should be dealt with in other processes.

Self-Government in the Yukon

There are four First Nation self-government agreements which were brought into force by legislation in 1995 and processes are in place to continue negotiating with the remaining First Nations in the Yukon. The federal government’s participation in these negotiations will be guid-ed by the inherent right policy and existing commitments.

Part III: Process Issues

Mandate for Negotiations Within the Federal Government

Within the federal government, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a mandate to enter into negotiations with First Nations, the Inuit, and Métis groups north of the sixtieth parallel. The Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians has a mandate to enter into negotiations with Métis south of the sixtieth parallel and Indian people who reside off a land base. In addition, Ministers of oth-er federal government departments have man-dates to enter into sectoral negotiations in their respective areas of responsibility. Self-govern-ment proposals from Indian, Inuit and Métis groups should be directed accordingly.

A Federal Steering Committee will co-ordinate implementation of the inherent right within the federal government and maintain an overview of all self-government activities across the fed-eral government. The Committee will ensure the participation in negotiations, as required, of all federal departments and agencies. In addi-tion, the Committee will monitor the progress of all self-government negotiations.

Establishment of Negotiation Processes

The Government does not believe that a single process model or approach can be developed that would meet the needs, circumstances and aspirations of all Aboriginal peoples across Canada. Accordingly, the Government is pre-pared to enter into negotiations with duly man-dated representatives of Aboriginal groups and the provinces concerned, in order to establish mutually acceptable processes at the local, re-gional, treaty or provincial level. The size of the group and workable economies of scale will be significant considerations in determining what may be practical to negotiate.

It is the Government’s view that tripartite pro-cesses are the most practical, effective and efficient way of negotiating workable and har-monious intergovernmental arrangements. Dou-ble-bilateral processes may be employed in cer-tain circumstances if the parties so agree. The Government is also prepared to proceed with sectoral approaches if the parties concerned are in agreement.

It is only in very exceptional circumstances -- were a province to refuse, for example, to come to a tripartite table -- that the federal govern-ment would be prepared to consider exclusively bilateral negotiations. However, there are legal risks in proceeding without provincial involve-ment and agreement. Because of these risks, any

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

1214

self-government negotiations without provincial participation would be strictly limited to matters within exclusive federal jurisdiction and would not result in section 35 treaty rights. Negotiations with Métis and non-land based Aboriginal people will invariably have to be conducted on a tripartite basis.

Relationship to Other Processes

The federal government would be prepared, where the other parties agree, to deal with implementation of the inherent right in combination with other processes, particularly the negotiation of comprehensive land claim set-tlements. The Government is also prepared to enter into negotiation pro-cesses building on the relationship already established through existing treaties. Finally, wherever feasible and appropriate, existing tripartite fora will be used to facilitate the negotiation process. Examples of existing tri-partite fora include the British Columbia treaty negotiation process and the Indian Commission of Ontario.

With respect to these processes and existing self-government negotiations (i.e. the tripartite processes for the Métis and non-land based Indian peo-ple, and the former Community-Based Self-Government negotiations) the policy approach outlined in this document will guide the federal govern-ment’s participation.

Representation

It is essential that the individuals negotiating on behalf of Aboriginal peo-ples be duly mandated by the group they are representing, and that support be maintained throughout the negotiation process. The Government be-lieves that the onus to resolve any disputes regarding representation within or among Aboriginal groups should rest with the Aboriginal groups con-cerned.

Role of Municipalities and Third Parties

Recognizing the importance of conducting negotiations in a spirit of open-ness and co-operation, the Government is committed to providing mu-nicipalities and third parties with meaningful opportunities to have input into negotiation processes that may directly affect their interests. To this end, the Government will work with provinces, territories and Aboriginal groups to develop appropriate consultation mechanisms for municipalities and third parties that may be directly affected by self-government negoti-ations and agreements.

Approval of Negotiated Agreements

Within the federal government, Cabinet approval will be sought for Agree-ments-in-Principle and Final Agreements, and Parliamentary approval sought for self-government treaties and any implementing legislation that may be required.

The Government will require evidence that negotiated agreements have been ratified by the Aboriginal group concerned in a way that demonstrates clearly the group’s consent. While the specific ratification mechanism can be negotiated, it will have to ensure that all members have an opportunity to participate, that they have all relevant information available, and that the procedures for ratification are transparent and recognized as binding. The ratification mechanism will also have to comply with legal requirements respecting the transfer of assets.

Glossary of Terms

As used throughout this document:

“Aboriginal Government” means the governing body of a land-based Aboriginal group which may have jurisdiction and may exercise authority on Aboriginal lands.

“Aboriginal Institution” means an institution serving Aboriginal people which may exercise authority with respect to an Aboriginal group.

“Aboriginal Lands” means lands that:

• are reserved lands within the meaning of the Indian Act;

• are land claim settlement lands over which Aboriginal govern-ments may exercise jurisdiction;

• are Métis Settlement areas, as defined in section 1(p) of the Mé-tis Settlements Act, S.A. 1990, c. M-14.3, and any other lands that may be provided by the provinces and which are subject to similar regimes;

• are held by, or on behalf of, an Aboriginal group under condi-tions where they would constitute “lands reserved for the Indi-ans” under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867;

• any other land by agreement of the Aboriginal group, Canada and, where affected, the relevant province or territory.

“Aboriginal peoples” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

“Agreement” means a negotiated agreement dealing with any aspect of self-government as provided for under this approach.

“Agreement-in-Principle (AIP)” means an agreement preliminary to the Final Agreement and which will address, in some degree of detail, the full range of issues to be covered by the Final Agreement.

“Authority” means any authority, other than a law-making authority, such as the authority to deliver or administer programs or services, or to enforce the laws of other governments.

“Final Agreement” means the final version based on the AIP.

“Jurisdiction” means law-making authority.

“Treaty” in the context of the implementation of self-government, means a negotiated agreement among the federal and provincial or territorial governments and an Aboriginal group that includes those matters that are intended to be constitutionally protected as treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

So what does this all mean? What it means in part is that Treaty voices are beginning to be watered down by the number of First Nations now open to the approach of the Federal government under Justin Trudeau. Increasingly, First Nations leadership are undertaking mechanisms like the 10-year grant agreement as a means to increase economic development pathways and are abandoning the Treaty rights into historical irrelevance as Chiefs and Councils advance their individual ‘band’ interests today without understanding or accommodating for the detrimental impacts on their tribal and ‘Treaty’ peoples tomorrow.

The funding arrangements are vital to understanding the impacts of the

Pending Legislation

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

15

• are land claim settlement lands over which Aboriginal govern-ments may exercise jurisdiction;

• are Métis Settlement areas, as defined in section 1(p) of the Mé-tis Settlements Act, S.A. 1990, c. M-14.3, and any other lands that may be provided by the provinces and which are subject to similar regimes;

• are held by, or on behalf of, an Aboriginal group under condi-tions where they would constitute “lands reserved for the Indi-ans” under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867;

• any other land by agreement of the Aboriginal group, Canada and, where affected, the relevant province or territory.

“Aboriginal peoples” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

“Agreement” means a negotiated agreement dealing with any aspect of self-government as provided for under this approach.

“Agreement-in-Principle (AIP)” means an agreement preliminary to the Final Agreement and which will address, in some degree of detail, the full range of issues to be covered by the Final Agreement.

“Authority” means any authority, other than a law-making authority, such as the authority to deliver or administer programs or services, or to enforce the laws of other governments.

“Final Agreement” means the final version based on the AIP.

“Jurisdiction” means law-making authority.

“Treaty” in the context of the implementation of self-government, means a negotiated agreement among the federal and provincial or territorial governments and an Aboriginal group that includes those matters that are intended to be constitutionally protected as treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

So what does this all mean? What it means in part is that Treaty voices are beginning to be watered down by the number of First Nations now open to the approach of the Federal government under Justin Trudeau. Increasingly, First Nations leadership are undertaking mechanisms like the 10-year grant agreement as a means to increase economic development pathways and are abandoning the Treaty rights into historical irrelevance as Chiefs and Councils advance their individual ‘band’ interests today without understanding or accommodating for the detrimental impacts on their tribal and ‘Treaty’ peoples tomorrow.

The funding arrangements are vital to understanding the impacts of the

Pending Legislation

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

1216

Legislation

Still ImpactingThe laws and policy proposed today align with many of the same principles put forward by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper just three years ago. The laws that the Harper Government drafted were all part of that plan to gradually eliminate the status of Indians by advancing ideolo-gy promoting individual rights thereby undermining the collective rights. At the same time, there remains long-standing federal policy with the prima-ry objective of turning reserve lands into fee simple or private lands for eventual inclusion into the provincial land tenure system. Relaxing require-ments to surrender reserve lands, expanding the First Nation’s Lands Management Act to more Nations and the efforts to convert reserve lands into fee simple and impose provincial laws on reserves for matrimonial real property are all in the same goals to undermine collective rights. In 2012, Stephen Harper’s Government passed the following bills:Bill C-27 – First Nations Financial Trans-parency Act which forces public release of consolidated audits, including payments to Chiefs/Councillors and band’s own source revenues to business competitors and gives more powers to AANDC Minister.Bill C-45 – Jobs and Growth Act was an omnibus bill that includes Indian Act amendments relaxing procedures for voting on reserve lands surrenders to facili-tate on-reserve commercial developments. Also amended was the Navigable Waters and Fisheries Acts weakening federal over-sight and environmental protections.Bill S-2 – Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act imposes provincial matrimonial/land man-agement laws on-reserve unless/until band laws replace provincial law, costing extra money for band’s. Money the bands do not have, due to funding caps and cutbacks. The Act does not address related issues of housing shortages, family violence and the need for community-based dispute resolution mechanism.

Bill S-8 – Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act creates regulations regarding First Nations drinking water, but not the capacity to comply.Though the Harper government prorogued parliament in 2013, the following laws were placed on the table at the return of government shortly thereafter.Bill C-428 – Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act was a private conserva-tive MP’s bill but supported by the Harper Government. Amends provisions of the Indian Act.

The funding arrangements are vital to understanding the impacts of the devolution goals of the Government of Canada. Any Treaty First Nations person who wishes to understand where their Nation is at need only ask what type of agreement their Nation has to deliver band support and the various programs and services currently in place. Knowing that will give you a clear idea how far along the devolution process the various leader-ship have taken since 1962. Once you know the type of agreement, then the question becomes what processes are in place to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of the membership has been secured to justly and legally move forward on the self-government path. The Government of Canada knows this which is why they utilize the Assembly of First Nations and the Provincial, Territorial organizations like the Confederacy in Treaty Six (Alberta side) to establish ‘joint’ processes for engagement and consul-tation. If the eligible voters in each Nation are oblivious to these matters then the result is what it appears: More First Nations moving to self-gov-ernment without ever raising the spectre of Treaty rights implementation and ensuring Honour of the Crown.

In Saddle Lake, and in many First Nations, the world of ‘Indian Affairs’

has changed dramatically in just two and a half years. With the upcoming provincial and federal elections looming, our issues and priorities will be placed onto the backburner, as parliamentary and legislative hopefuls will contemplate how to either stay in office or replace the Liberals and New Democrats. Interestingly this is also the case in Saddle Lake as we also contemplate an upcoming election. The question for our peoples is: How do we continue to live as nehiyawak in times of adversity and a founda-tionally changed political landscape? And, how do we maintain the core of our way of life without crushing the spirit and intent of Treaty through lateral violence and the inability to address internal family, individual and community conflict in a meaningful way?

However readers view the work of the last two and a half years of strat-egy development, it is the sincere hope of all who have been involved in working toward positive outcomes, that each and every man, woman and child in onihcikiskwapowin – Saddle Lake Cree Nation can look forward and say that there is hope for our futures – together – IF we all reach for it.

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

17

Legislation

Still ImpactingThe laws and policy proposed today align with many of the same principles put forward by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper just three years ago. The laws that the Harper Government drafted were all part of that plan to gradually eliminate the status of Indians by advancing ideolo-gy promoting individual rights thereby undermining the collective rights. At the same time, there remains long-standing federal policy with the prima-ry objective of turning reserve lands into fee simple or private lands for eventual inclusion into the provincial land tenure system. Relaxing require-ments to surrender reserve lands, expanding the First Nation’s Lands Management Act to more Nations and the efforts to convert reserve lands into fee simple and impose provincial laws on reserves for matrimonial real property are all in the same goals to undermine collective rights. In 2012, Stephen Harper’s Government passed the following bills:Bill C-27 – First Nations Financial Trans-parency Act which forces public release of consolidated audits, including payments to Chiefs/Councillors and band’s own source revenues to business competitors and gives more powers to AANDC Minister.Bill C-45 – Jobs and Growth Act was an omnibus bill that includes Indian Act amendments relaxing procedures for voting on reserve lands surrenders to facili-tate on-reserve commercial developments. Also amended was the Navigable Waters and Fisheries Acts weakening federal over-sight and environmental protections.Bill S-2 – Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act imposes provincial matrimonial/land man-agement laws on-reserve unless/until band laws replace provincial law, costing extra money for band’s. Money the bands do not have, due to funding caps and cutbacks. The Act does not address related issues of housing shortages, family violence and the need for community-based dispute resolution mechanism.Bill S-8 – Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act creates regulations regarding First Nations drinking water, but not the capacity to comply.Though the Harper government prorogued parliament in 2013, the following laws were placed on the table at the return of government shortly thereafter.Bill C-428 – Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act was a private conserva-tive MP’s bill but supported by the Harper Government. Amends provisions of the Indian Act.

has changed dramatically in just two and a half years. With the upcoming provincial and federal elections looming, our issues and priorities will be placed onto the backburner, as parliamentary and legislative hopefuls will contemplate how to either stay in office or replace the Liberals and New Democrats. Interestingly this is also the case in Saddle Lake as we also contemplate an upcoming election. The question for our peoples is: How do we continue to live as nehiyawak in times of adversity and a founda-tionally changed political landscape? And, how do we maintain the core of our way of life without crushing the spirit and intent of Treaty through lateral violence and the inability to address internal family, individual and community conflict in a meaningful way?

However readers view the work of the last two and a half years of strat-egy development, it is the sincere hope of all who have been involved in working toward positive outcomes, that each and every man, woman and child in onihcikiskwapowin – Saddle Lake Cree Nation can look forward and say that there is hope for our futures – together – IF we all reach for it.

A Pro and Con Assessment of Treaty Based Arrangments - September 2018

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

1218

How did we get here?Section 74 of the Indian Act allows First Nations to opt out of the election provisions and ‘revert’ to ‘custom electoral systems.’ Through this process, First Nations can design their own election laws and create parallel governance structure to reflect the culture and needs of the Nation. Throughout the territories, more than half of all First Nations bands have custom election codes or regulations. Saddle Lake’s tribal custom election regulation was completed in 1955 with amendments completed in 1960. In 2010 the Senate of Canada recommended that the federal government phase out altogether from the Indian Act model for elections.

What is Custom?Little by way of Indigenous worldview is readily available to the public or even within First Nations to more clearly inform what makes custom within a governance structure. Custom is by English Oxford Dictionary standard: “a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular, society, place or time.” In First Nations, custom may be articulated as the entrenched, broadly accepted means and understanding of how we have historically and continuously interacted with one another over time. This ‘way of life’ understanding has been impacted by the imposition of the Indian Act in 1876 and the many varied policies and laws, which have been imple-mented in nearly 150 years.

Why does the Custom Election Regulation in Saddle Lake say what it does?The language within the code was clearly due to the time period. In 1955 to 1960, though there was still embedded a traditional way of life through the adherence to protocol and ceremony as a reflection of our underlying belief system, at the same time there was reflection of the influence of church based religion. The impact of this influence along with the continued involvement of the Indian superintendent and Indian Agents meant that at the time the Custom regulation for elections was ratified and implemented, there was language inserted within the code that reflected this period of time amongst the peoples. Terms such as ‘red ticket Indian,’ and reference to ‘common law’ are two examples. The original code’s language was also a reflection of the early influence of the devolution process begun by the Government of Canada as it moved to ‘give back’ the roles and responsibilities of administration and governance.

What is the concern with the Custom Election Regu-lation and why is it in Federal Court today?Saddle Lake’s tribal custom election regulation was challenged by Eric Shirt, Shannon Houle, Valerie Steinhauer and Greg Cardinal in 2016, all of who took the people of Saddle Lake Cree Nation to court due to con-cerns raised about procedural fairness and potential human rights risks within the code relative to the marriage reference and residency require-ments. In her judgment, Madam Justice McVeigh of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Saddle Lake Cree Nation must revise the Custom Election regulation prior to any next election. She explicitly chose not to tell the Saddle Lake Cree Nation how to do so but set out key steps to ensure the process occurred with procedural fairness as a fundamental goal. Madam Justice McVeigh indicated forthrightly in her judgment that she did not desire to interfere in the governance of Saddle Lake Cree Nation. She advised that a re-determination of the eligibility of the four appellants utilizing the original code needed to be completed. Once that occurred, Madam Justice McVeigh determined that if anyone was deemed eligible, a next election should be called with a new or revised code ratified through broad consensus put into place.

What has Saddle Lake Cree Nation done to complete the expectations and where do the next steps lead?With a Nation the size of Saddle Lake Cree Nation, the threshold and timeframes to achieve the expectations has been challenging. Saddle Lake Cree Nation did not appeal the original decision of Madam Justice McVeigh as it was agreed that moving forward on making changes to the code was necessary. A re-determination panel was convened twice to determine the eligibility of the four applicants. It was held twice because the first time, the appellants chose not to participate and was subse-quently told to do so by the Federal Court a second time.

The re-determination panel was comprised of three Saddle Lake mem-bers: late Jim Cardinal, Ernie Cardinal and Louis Lapatak. In July 2018, the panel determined that Eric Shirt was eligible and the work turned to completing an updated code as per the court’s direction.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Alberta Region supported the important work and provided funding to the Nation to complete both a revised Custom Election Code and begin discussions toward a plan on member-ship. Beginning in May 2017 after a band meeting at ayiwakes cultural center, early discussions by an initial working committee were held at the hall as well as in council chambers. In the fall of 2018 a coordinator was hired, a working group was created and a work plan with surveys and information gathering as a core objective was advanced. Since Oc-tober 2018, writing and information assessment based on survey began and the Elders Advisory Committee was convened.

With the support of the membership and election code working group, Elders Advisory Committee and ongoing information gathering through band and band information meetings both on and off reserve, the latest drafts were made available on February 27, 2019 at the ayiwakes hall. They have also been posted on the website: www.saddlelakecreena-tion.com. The amendment documents in hard copy are also available at the band office. Outreach to complete gathering of information was made to Whitefish Lake chief and council where they allowed Saddle Lake organizers to present the information on March 6, 2019 in Whitefish but did not allow for an official band meeting to occur stating that they wanted to raise the issue at the joint council meeting before proceeding.

What Happens Now?As of March 27, 2019, Eric Shirt has once again decided to take Saddle Lake Cree Nation into court for a third application of contempt. Eric Shirt and his legal counsel, Priscilla Kennedy is seeking remedy and court intervention as they argue the Nation’s work has not happened in com-pliance with the various Federal Court directions.

Saddle Lake Cree Nation is committed to completing the work as en-visioned and will provide the attached amendments seeking oversight from the Nation’s membership on April 10, 2019 at the band meeting where discussion and final ratification for the amendments is expected to occur. The upcoming election will occur with the amendments in place.

During the course of the action to complete an amended code, both the working group and Elders Advisory Committee expect that there will be ongoing deliberations related to the Tribal Custom code development beyond the next election in Saddle Lake Cree Nation. Issues related to age 18 requirements, Bill C-31 and qualities of leadership are ongoing matters for discussion amongst the people. It is extremely important for the Saddle Lake membership to remain committed to participating in a meaningful manner as this work marks the need for strong governance and laws/policy development to respond to the changes being made to the Indian Act and to ensure adherence in upholding the Treaty-Crown relationship.

Election Code Reform Update(changes to be incorporated into the last draft code per Motion)

SECTION (1):

Eligibility for Nomination:

(A) No person can be nominated for an election if absent.

(B) Any band member shall be eligible for nomina-tion;

The elections eligibility panel1 will establish the veracity2 of the claims by the nominator for a per-son’s reliability, stability and capacity to support the collective interests of the onihcikiskwapowin peoples.

(C) At the nomination meeting, a mover and sec-onder is required to provide supporting recom-mendations for their nomination/nominee. The mover and seconder must answer why they are choosing to nominate, speak on his/her behalf indicating the individual’s capabilities as a poten-tial leader.

(D) The following checklist must be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer one week prior to the nomination meeting;• RCMP certified criminal record check • Nomination fee for nominator and nominee• Resume and platform3

• All residency proof4 (E) Notice of nominations will occur three (3)

months in advance of the nomination meeting.5(F) No person who maintains his/her home away

from the reserve shall be eligible for nomination. Those eligible members who live within a 25 mile (40 kilometres) radius from the Saddle Lake Cree Nation must provide proof of physical residence.6

(G) All eligible candidates must have been resident in Saddle Lake Cree Nation for six (6) months prior to nominations.

(H) If a person’s main place of residence is within Saddle Lake Cree Nation and works away from the reserve, he/she is eligible for nomination.

(I) No person convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada shall be eligible for nomination.7

(J) No person under the age of 21, as of the day of nomination, shall be eligible to nominate or be nominated.8

(K) No nomination is valid without a seconder. (L) Intoxication of any substance (alcohol and or

drugs, including recreational cannabis) will not be tolerated at the time of nominations, which includes nominator/seconder/nominee.

SECTION (2):

Voting Regulations:

onihcikiskwapowinTriba l Custom Election Code

1 The elections eligibility panel terms of reference are attached2 Oxford Dictionary defines veracity as: conforming to facts and accuracy3 A platform is a formal set of principle goals detailing the candidates plans and objectives in seeking the support of onihcikiskwapowin peoples as a member of council4 Ie. Utility Bills5 Application in Election year 2019 – to be determined6 Ie. Legal land description/utility bills7 Criminal Code reporting will be an ongoing matter in the Election Reform process8 Age of voting and nomination eligibility will be an ongoing matter in the Election Reform process9 Interpreter: shall be a person who can effectively interpret from the Cree language into the English language and from the English language into the Cree language. This person shall not be a member of the Saddle Lake Band. He/she is paid at a rate set by the band council.

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

19

What has Saddle Lake Cree Nation done to complete the expectations and where do the next steps lead?With a Nation the size of Saddle Lake Cree Nation, the threshold and timeframes to achieve the expectations has been challenging. Saddle Lake Cree Nation did not appeal the original decision of Madam Justice McVeigh as it was agreed that moving forward on making changes to the code was necessary. A re-determination panel was convened twice to determine the eligibility of the four applicants. It was held twice because the first time, the appellants chose not to participate and was subse-quently told to do so by the Federal Court a second time.

The re-determination panel was comprised of three Saddle Lake mem-bers: late Jim Cardinal, Ernie Cardinal and Louis Lapatak. In July 2018, the panel determined that Eric Shirt was eligible and the work turned to completing an updated code as per the court’s direction.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Alberta Region supported the important work and provided funding to the Nation to complete both a revised Custom Election Code and begin discussions toward a plan on member-ship. Beginning in May 2017 after a band meeting at ayiwakes cultural center, early discussions by an initial working committee were held at the hall as well as in council chambers. In the fall of 2018 a coordinator was hired, a working group was created and a work plan with surveys and information gathering as a core objective was advanced. Since Oc-tober 2018, writing and information assessment based on survey began and the Elders Advisory Committee was convened.

With the support of the membership and election code working group, Elders Advisory Committee and ongoing information gathering through band and band information meetings both on and off reserve, the latest drafts were made available on February 27, 2019 at the ayiwakes hall. They have also been posted on the website: www.saddlelakecreena-tion.com. The amendment documents in hard copy are also available at the band office. Outreach to complete gathering of information was made to Whitefish Lake chief and council where they allowed Saddle Lake organizers to present the information on March 6, 2019 in Whitefish but did not allow for an official band meeting to occur stating that they wanted to raise the issue at the joint council meeting before proceeding.

What Happens Now?As of March 27, 2019, Eric Shirt has once again decided to take Saddle Lake Cree Nation into court for a third application of contempt. Eric Shirt and his legal counsel, Priscilla Kennedy is seeking remedy and court intervention as they argue the Nation’s work has not happened in com-pliance with the various Federal Court directions.

Saddle Lake Cree Nation is committed to completing the work as en-visioned and will provide the attached amendments seeking oversight from the Nation’s membership on April 10, 2019 at the band meeting where discussion and final ratification for the amendments is expected to occur. The upcoming election will occur with the amendments in place.

During the course of the action to complete an amended code, both the working group and Elders Advisory Committee expect that there will be ongoing deliberations related to the Tribal Custom code development beyond the next election in Saddle Lake Cree Nation. Issues related to age 18 requirements, Bill C-31 and qualities of leadership are ongoing matters for discussion amongst the people. It is extremely important for the Saddle Lake membership to remain committed to participating in a meaningful manner as this work marks the need for strong governance and laws/policy development to respond to the changes being made to the Indian Act and to ensure adherence in upholding the Treaty-Crown relationship.

Election Code Reform Update(changes to be incorporated into the last draft code per Motion)

SECTION (1):

Eligibility for Nomination:

(A) No person can be nominated for an election if absent.

(B) Any band member shall be eligible for nomina-tion;

The elections eligibility panel1 will establish the veracity2 of the claims by the nominator for a per-son’s reliability, stability and capacity to support the collective interests of the onihcikiskwapowin peoples.

(C) At the nomination meeting, a mover and sec-onder is required to provide supporting recom-mendations for their nomination/nominee. The mover and seconder must answer why they are choosing to nominate, speak on his/her behalf indicating the individual’s capabilities as a poten-tial leader.

(D) The following checklist must be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer one week prior to the nomination meeting;• RCMP certified criminal record check • Nomination fee for nominator and nominee• Resume and platform3

• All residency proof4 (E) Notice of nominations will occur three (3)

months in advance of the nomination meeting.5(F) No person who maintains his/her home away

from the reserve shall be eligible for nomination. Those eligible members who live within a 25 mile (40 kilometres) radius from the Saddle Lake Cree Nation must provide proof of physical residence.6

(G) All eligible candidates must have been resident in Saddle Lake Cree Nation for six (6) months prior to nominations.

(H) If a person’s main place of residence is within Saddle Lake Cree Nation and works away from the reserve, he/she is eligible for nomination.

(I) No person convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada shall be eligible for nomination.7

(J) No person under the age of 21, as of the day of nomination, shall be eligible to nominate or be nominated.8

(K) No nomination is valid without a seconder. (L) Intoxication of any substance (alcohol and or

drugs, including recreational cannabis) will not be tolerated at the time of nominations, which includes nominator/seconder/nominee.

SECTION (2):

Voting Regulations:

(A) Any band member, over the age of 21 years, on the day of the election, whether living on the re-serve or not, shall be eligible to cast a single vote.

(B) Band members of Saddle Lake Cree Nation will be allowed to vote for a Chief or Councillor on the reserve in which they reside.

SECTION (3):

Election Procedural Regulations:

(A) Chief and Councillor are elected for a three-year (3) term.

(B) There shall be nine (9) councillors for the Saddle Lake Cree Nation #125 (SLCN).

(C) There shall be four (4) councillors for the White-fish Lake Reserve #128x (WFL).

(D) The election of the Chief shall be held pursuant to the election of the councillors and the Chief shall come from among the elected councillors.

(E) There shall be an interpreter9 (one for the SLCN and one for WFL) appointed at the band meeting for both the nomination and election days.

(F) A Chief or Councillor guilty of improper conduct who has had a petition requesting his/her remov-al, signed by 60% of the resident members of the reserve, shall be so dismissed by the incumbent electoral officer and a by-election shall be called to fill the vacancy.

(G) The district supervisor is the permanent elector-al officer and shall be responsible for calling an election at the end of each three-year (3) term. The method of conducting nomination meetings (except for the closing of it), the secret ballot, the ballot, the opening, closing, and counting of the ballots shall be the same as set forth in the Band Election Act, section 73, of the Indian Act, as long as they do not conflict with any regulations, rules or ordinances passed by the band. The electoral officer is authorized to appoint poll clerks, and authorized to pay the cost of the election from band funds after the count has been submitted to council and approved.

Special Nomination Meeting Procedures

No person other than an elector who resides in a section may be nominated for the office of Councillor to represent that section on the Council

*INDIAN ACT. SECTION 75, SUB, “1”.

NO person may be a candidate for election as Chief or Coun-cillor unless their name is set in nomination and seconded by persons who are themselves eligible to be nominated.

*INDIAN ACT SECTION 75, SUB “2”, R.S., C 149, S 74.

onihcikiskwapowinTriba l Custom Election Code

1 The elections eligibility panel terms of reference are attached2 Oxford Dictionary defines veracity as: conforming to facts and accuracy3 A platform is a formal set of principle goals detailing the candidates plans and objectives in seeking the support of onihcikiskwapowin peoples as a member of council4 Ie. Utility Bills5 Application in Election year 2019 – to be determined6 Ie. Legal land description/utility bills7 Criminal Code reporting will be an ongoing matter in the Election Reform process8 Age of voting and nomination eligibility will be an ongoing matter in the Election Reform process9 Interpreter: shall be a person who can effectively interpret from the Cree language into the English language and from the English language into the Cree language. This person shall not be a member of the Saddle Lake Band. He/she is paid at a rate set by the band council.

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

20

ELECTION REFORM AND S3 LEGISLATION MEETINGS

The Saddle Lake Cree Nation held Election Reform and S3 Legislation meetings. They were done in three parts to reach all Band Members. There was an INAC official present to inform Membership of the new codings they have established. Urban Membership attended the meeting in Edmonton at the Chateau Nova Grandroom on February 19, 2019. Saddle Lake Band Members attended the meeting at the Ayiwakes Cul-tural Hall on February 27, 2019. The meeting was then held at the Goodfish lake Community Hall on March 6, 2019. All meetings were in good attendance.

If you have any questions please contact:Cladia Makokis @ 780-726-7611 or

Norma Large @ 780-726-3829

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

On Monday February 18, 2019, the Saddle Lake Health Centre held the Family Fun Day 2019 Winter Car-nival. More than 400 participants enjoyed wagon rides, 100 points card tournament, egg toss games, face painting, balloon animals, bannock and tea making, tobogan races, lumberjack competition, big tire roll race, nail pounding and log sawing races, ice fishing competitions and a pancake breakfast. There was a clown on site as well as a photobooth. Many prizes were awarded and lunch was provided. Everyone really enjoyed a great winter carnival.

Goodfish Lake Community Hall - March 6, 2019

Urban Band Members - Chateau Nova Kingsway Grandroom - February 19, 2019

Saddle Lake Cree Nation Ayiwakes Hall - February 27, 2019

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowakELECTION REFORM AND S3 LEGISLATION MEETINGS

The Saddle Lake Cree Nation held Election Reform and S3 Legislation meetings. They were done in three parts to reach all Band Members. There was an INAC official present to inform Membership of the new codings they have established. Urban Membership attended the meeting in Edmonton at the Chateau Nova Grandroom on February 19, 2019. Saddle Lake Band Members attended the meeting at the Ayiwakes Cul-tural Hall on February 27, 2019. The meeting was then held at the Goodfish lake Community Hall on March 6, 2019. All meetings were in good attendance.

If you have any questions please contact:Cladia Makokis @ 780-726-7611 or

Norma Large @ 780-726-3829

mamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

Family Fun Day

21

On Monday February 18, 2019, the Saddle Lake Health Centre held the Family Fun Day 2019 Winter Car-nival. More than 400 participants enjoyed wagon rides, 100 points card tournament, egg toss games, face painting, balloon animals, bannock and tea making, tobogan races, lumberjack competition, big tire roll race, nail pounding and log sawing races, ice fishing competitions and a pancake breakfast. There was a clown on site as well as a photobooth. Many prizes were awarded and lunch was provided. Everyone really enjoyed a great winter carnival.

Saddle Lake New Years Baby Celebrationmamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

22

Honoring Our GraduatesFriday, February 15, 2019

at the Ayiwakes Cultural HallHosted by:

Saddle Lake Education AuthoritySL Cultural Education

SL Post SecondaryEmployment and TrainingReinvestment and Training

Lifelong Learning: Living Our

Treaty Right to Education

23

Saddle Lake New Years Baby Celebrationmamawokamatowakmamawokamatowak

Saddle Lake Health Care Centre hosted the 2019 Baby Celebration on January 16, 2019 at the Ayiwakes Hall. The babies were hon-ored by a song from Carl Quinn. The babies were also gifted their first hand drums. There was a photobooth for babies and family to take their first portraits. The fathers participated in the baby bottle competition and a baby food competition. The baby food was fed to them by the mothers, it was a lot of laughs. Hiy-hiy Saddle Lake Health Centre and Staff for all your hard work and dedication.

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,

we borrow it from the children

“Mamawokamatowak”Saddle Lake Cree Nation

Nominations For Chief and CouncilNominations: May 29, 2019Elections for Council: June 12, 2019Elections for Chief: June 19, 2019At Ayiwakes Cultural Centre

IMPORTANTNOTICE