Indigenous Right’s Framework:
A Critical Analysis
Justin Trudeau ran on an election platform of changing the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples in Canada. Trudeau promised a new nation-to-nation relationship based on the recognition of Indigenous rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership. Over halfway into his mandate as Prime Minister, some clarity is emerging on the scope of that nation-to-nation relationship. In February 2018, Trudeau announced the development of a new and transformational Indigenous Rights, Recognition and Implementation Framework.
Since then, a suite of legislation and policy has been rapidly deployed. It includes fiscal policy, omnibus legislation, changes in negotiations for land and self-government, two new ministries of Indian Affairs and dozens of tables, working groups, MOUs, and related government initiatives.
Yet, there is scarce comprehensive analysis on the meaning and trajectory of Canada’s approach.
Our report finds that the Rights Framework expresses a clear and coherent set of goals, which revolve around domesticating Indigenous self-determination within Canadian Confederation. These goals have been ordered into legislation and policy in a manner that guides First Nations towards a narrow model of “self-government” outside of the Indian Act.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JUNE 05, 2018
Specifically, we ask a number of related questions about the proposed Framework
Will the Rights Framework replace the Indian Act or simply offer an opt-out process?
How are self-determination, self-government, and “reconstitution of nations” expressed in the Rights Framework?
Will the Rights Framework lead to higher quality of life and alleviation of socio-economic challenges for First Nations?
Has there been genuine engagement with the concept of free, prior and informed consent?
How will the new Rights Framework affect pre-confederation, Numbered, and Modern Treaties?
How does the new Rights Framework address lands and resources off-reserve (i.e. traditional territories or title lands)?
Will the Rights Framework shift the burden of proof for proving title from Indigenous communities to Canada?
Our analysis reveals that the Rights Framework expresses a clear and coherent set of goals, which aim to suppress Indigenous self-determination within Canadian Confederation. These goals have been ordered into legislation and policy in a manner that guides First Nations towards a narrow model of “self-government” outside of the Indian Act. And remarkably, though labelled as new and transformational, the model reflects older and largely discredited approaches.
The Rights Framework is complex and multifaceted, but it revolves around Liberal interpretations of First Nation “self-government.”
Canada is redefining Indigenous self-determination away from expansive jurisdiction and towards containment within Canadian Confederation. This process cultivates a “nation-to-nation” relationship that avoids inherent and treaty rights and does not deal directly with the authority of Indigenous nations to exercise control over their territories.
Towards these ends, our analysis finds evidence that the Liberals have set in motion processes to:
⟶ Re-structure the machinery of government to transition First Nations out of the Indian Act and towards self-government agreements
⟶ Maintain a re-packaged version of the discredited 1995 Inherent Right self-government policy
⟶ Expedite the number of modern treaties and address ongoing implementation challenges
⟶ Support the “reconstitution of nations” as aggregated service-delivery populations, with limited jurisdictional authority off-reserve
⟶ Address outstanding Aboriginal title claims through incremental and sectoral approaches that offer flexibility but limit the expression of title to fractions of First Nation claims
⟶ Build fiscal capacity within First Nations to transition all Indian Act bands into self-government agreements, rather than to expand the land base and deal honourably First Nations as economic rights-holders
⟶ Domesticate UNDRIP and free, prior, and consent articles though a narrow interpretation of the Declaration and restricting consent to reserve or settlements lands, at best
“The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), as an advocacy body, and any regional organizations cannot negotiate any binding changes to Canada’s federal laws, policies and operational practices as part of the Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework.” - Resolution from the Chiefs in Assembly, AFN Special Chiefs Assembly May 2018
SLIDE 4 |
FIVE SERIOUS CONCERNS
While there are positive elements in some of the changes being proposed, there must also be serious concern for the way the status quo is maintained in this “new” Framework.
1. Though Canada uses the language of “self-determination” to describe the objective of the Rights Framework, this concept does not include any meaningful recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction over lands, territories, and resources outside of the reserves;
2. The Framework does not address the spirit and intent of the historic treaties or the outstanding title question on non-treaty lands, but rather addresses the injustice of land dispossession through incremental and sectoral approaches of restitution;
3. The Framework maintains Canada’s supremacy within Confederation, seeking to subsume Indigenous rights into the federal and provincial heads of power;
4. The Framework does not open an adequate process for nation-to-nation discussions because much of the high-level negotiations are happening between the federal government and the Assembly of First Nations;
5. The Framework does not lay out a process for consultations with First Nations people, rejecting out of hand any constitutional talks, and there has been little transparency from the federal government on key components of the Framework.
With all due respect, epaulo, these items seems to comprehensively refute the shortcomings of the Framework and indeed its attempts to undermine Indigenous self-determination.
But please bear with me here.
1) What are the Indigenous demands in the context of self-determination?
2) To whom should I refer in order to hear or read these demands?
3) Is there an actual movement to realize these demands?
I'm less interested in hearing about how the settlers aren't interested in "bestowing" self-determination than in how the people are mobilizing to win it.
..please bear with me as well. i'm going to say things you already know. :)
..since the last fed election the trudeau liberals have been talking about changing the relationship with indigenous folk. there has been warning from indigenous folk that extinguishment was the liberal agenda but little was known what this meant in actual policy terms as it was being kept under wraps by the gov. this document at long last lays bare the gov agenda. which is why it is an important document.
..there was some understanding at the afn meeting and election of what the gov was up to and that they were going to use the afn to implement the gov agenda. which is why the resolution in post #4 was passed. which was why diabo ran and why the liberals intervened in the election.
..i know of no single place where you can get a list of demands because this needs to be negotiated on a nation to nation basis. which the gov has no intention of doing. i can say, for example, that for the tsleil-waututh nation their struggle against kinder morgan is a struggle for self-determination. i believe this is how this will play out as the gov tries to go around via the afn. i believe this is how the negotiations will take place..in the form of confrontation and conflict.
Bennett fails to calm fears over government’s emerging rights framework
The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett spoke at a forum hosted by the Assembly of First Nations forum called First Nations Rights, Title and Jurisdiction in Gatineau, Que. Tuesday.
The main subject of her speech was the upcoming Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework.
It is proposed legislation Canada says it will put First Nation rights into law.
But there are many skeptics who don’t trust what the Trudeau government is doing.
Chiefs tell Ottawa to slow down Indigenous rights negotiations
Chiefs at a special rights forum hosted by the Assembly of First Nations in Gatineau, Que., across the river from Ottawa spoke with a single voice in telling the Trudeau government that it must slow the process to enact its inherent rights framework.
The federal government says it wants to bring in legislation called Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework in the fall.
But many feel the negotiations are being run from the top down rather from the communities themselves.
On Wednesday morning, the Chiefs of Ontario announced that it would not support the process and called for a “hard reset.”
I'm still upping my game on this issue, but from what I can gather (reading, hearing objections from Indigenous and First Nations leaders outside the AFN) it looks like the Crown would rather have a homogeneous "nation" to deal with, not the collection of individual nations and other Indigenous peoples not organized as nations, which is the current status quo. No further proof of this is required than the phrase "nation to nation relationship" as opposed to "nation to nations relationship" which is more accurate, though still not entirely inclusive of all Indigenous peoples. Further, the Framework language suggests that it might negate land claims based on traditional and unceded territories and treaties (never complied with by successive and current colonial governments) made in the 18th century.
What needs to be asked is how, under this Framework, does the colonial government benefit? What are its goals and objectives? My partial answer is that its goals and objectives are to homogenize diverse cultures, languages and political structures into a "sub-nation", a shadow government that would operate under existing colonials norms and forms. That would facilitate pipeline expansion and the elimination of many of the rights and protections that currently exist.
..i believe one thing being talked about is turning nations into municipalities and land into private property rather than communal. thus giving governments direct and total control.
As I understand it, the push to privatize communally held land has been in the works for some time. There is considerable opposition to this.
Similarly (or perhaps this is what you are talking about) there is the Algonquin Treaty currently being negotiated, which would see most of the transferred land remain under municipal - Canadian and Ontario - jurisdiction.
People are free to negotiate whatever they think is in their best interest, but personally this seems a long way from sovereignty to me. More importantly, there are some in those communities who think so too:
Aboriginal Rights, the Rule of Law, and Justice: Each Forsaken
"...Ralph Waldo Emerson in his 'Essay on Character' wrote: 'Truth is the summit of being. Justice is the application of it to affairs.'
The legal truth is that the settled constitutional aboriginal right is the power of veto over provincial development of crown land based upon the Royal Proclamation of 1763, section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the leading precedents St Catherines Milling, 1888, and In re Indian Claims, 1897.
The lie, recently invented by the Supreme Court of Canada in willful blindness, is that the aboriginal right is no more than 'the right to be consulted:' Haida Nation v BC in 2004: R v Van der Peet in 1996; Delgamuuk v BC in 1997; and Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) in 2005.
Each of these was in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court did not address section 109 and Indian national sovereignty. In so far as legal justice consists in the application of truth to affairs, justice like the rule of law has been forsaken.
In each generation more and more molestations and disturbances under federal and provincial laws were heaped upon the native cultures in an unrelenting unconstitutional ethnic cleansing.
That was the simple plan. From then until now. Now is the time to right that wrong."
Depressing. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a model for a sovereign nation within a nation that works smoothly.
..the government's position has been considerably weakened by the km ruling. the ruling is seen as a shift from consultation to consent. the gov is now going through the motions because they are in process..but they are wounded. in the #9 post video report bellegarde is saying this will not be settled until after the next election. meaning the government will have to regroup.
The death of Trans Mountain pipeline signals future of Indigenous rights: Chiefs
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs vice-president Chief Bob Chamberlin is encouraged that the court has recognized the need for Canada to uphold Indigenous title and rights on projects on their territories, but says a bigger leap is now needed.
“First Nations face consultation processes endlessly and I have yet to see one where meaningful accommodation of Aboriginal rights occurs. It’s quite the opposite,” he said.
The way forward is for governments to fulfill promises for full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Chamberlin said.
“If you want to make things better you can’t do what has always been done, you have to come up with something different,” he said.
“Consultation and accommodation is yesterday’s law and so today and tomorrow it’s about implementing UNDRIP, which means consent,” he said
As MegB's post suggested, it may not even be a simple matter of "a" nation within a nation, but rather, many nations.
Wikipedia's entry on "First Nations" talks about the politics and history of FN, but doesn't list them. A google search landed a hit that mentioned 93 of them, though it was not clear at all that each constituted its own "nation" in a legal or historical sense.
And given that Indigenous governance understandably doesn't follow some "Westminster" model or any similar, it's hard to know whether every distinct group would constitute a "nation" in the legal sense, or be more like a "province" in our own model, or perhaps even more like a municipality.
And from the point of view of negotiations and bargaining, would Indigenous Canadians rather be treated similar to one very large union, or ten smaller unions, or 100 very small unions, each bringing their own concerns to the bargaining table?
How a Smallpox Epidemic Forged Modern British Columbia
"The Whites knew..."
How the West was won.
A compromise approach might be to use the confederancy of First Nations allowing for more numbers of individuals protected by each confederancy regardless of the size or wealth of the First Nation.
..i suspect that an important part of what we could be doing now is watching and listening to what indigenous folk are saying and doing. i find they have the strength and resolve to make change as in the km pipeline instance. it's important to understand that this victory was won via broad collaborations.
..an important aspect would be for us, on this board, as settler folk to define our own individual roles we play in supporting the colonial positions taken by our governments of all stripes in order break from it in a strategic and organized manner. and not just try to divine what is best for indigenous folk.
Time For Direct Action! Stop the Trudeau Government's Indigenous Rights Termination Plan!
Footprints: Gustafsen Lake Warrior Wolverine Showed Bravery Under Fire
"If Trudeau is calling for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship and promising a new era of recognition, rights, respect and cooperation, then we need to know we can pursue peaceful processes for protecting our sovereignty without the threat of state-sanctioned violence being used against them.' - Wolverine
PMJT Berates FSIN Chief (and vid)
"So watching PMJT scold FSIN Chiefs as children one can imagine how he talks to [AFN Grand Chief] Perry Bellegarde about the impending federal 'Reconciliation' policy and legislation."
That article is about the second smallpox epidemic on the Coast. Smallpox arrived here, like most places, shortly after first contact with Europeans, in BC that is the late 1700's.
Correct. And colonial invaders since the Spanish were aware of and had already exploited its strategic possibilities. As did Douglas when he expelled infected Indigenous to their coastal villages.
I'm watching some Turkish TV and one show about the 13th century claims the Christian Templars were deliberately spreading the plague. Biological warfare has an long history amongst Xian's.
And even longer among others, apparently.
'Extirpate this execrable race.': The dark history of Jeffrey Amherst
"You will do well to try to innoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."
Now Trudeau uses law and legislation to achieve much the same ends. See #14
Treaties did not extinguish any Aboriginal rights
Indigenous recognition of the rights framework bill proposed by the Liberal government is meeting increasing opposition from First Nations leaders.
Now the First Nations are armed with some very important Supreme Court decisions and can bring national projects like pipelines to a screeching halt. When it comes to defining our rights, we are coming to the negotiating table from a position of strength.
As Pogo said, most people don’t read the writing on the wall until their backs are up against it. The Liberal government has now determined that it is time to provide legislation that defines treaty and Aboriginal rights.
Right away, their assumptions are problematic. First Nations regard Aboriginal rights as rights that we never gave up by signing treaty or in any other process. They are rights that we kept for ourselves. We maintain the right to govern ourselves, speak our languages and practise our culture and religion.
When we signed treaties, the government representatives accepted our chiefs as our leaders and they signed on our behalf. That is recognition from the federal government that we had our own form of government and legitimate leaders.
In spite of colonial repression and residential schools, our rights remain intact to this day. The churches and Indian agents only assumed that we had no Aboriginal rights. No other government has the right to interfere; they can only acknowledge our rights that come from the Creator.
Defining our Aboriginal rights is an easy process in this proposed legislation. All the government has to do is recognize our right to govern ourselves and maintain our languages and practise our culture and religion. We have more than 50 language groups and numerous nations, and each one has the right to conduct their affairs in a manner that suits them.
so Justin was whining about how "unfair" FN leaders were over the weekend.
oh the irony.
I watched that clip and boy is he an arrogant asshole. He was pissed that after he gave a delegation from numerous groups a whole hour to talk about the things that interest them and one person took up forty five minutes. I was impressed with the patence of the First Nations leaders. If I had been in the room I would have said something about his fucking whining and the disrespect shown by setting the meeting for only one hour in the first place.
The SCC of Canada calls his government's consultation with First Nations a sham and this is how he responds.
Call on your Senator to pass Bill C-262
A coalition of Faith Based Organizations is calling on the Senate to pass Bill C-262. As people of faith we are committed to forging right relationships with Indigenous Peoples out from under the legacy of centuries of great harm done by the churches and governments to Indigenous Peoples and their ways of life, communities, and individuals. Bill C-262 will be a right step toward ensuring the rights of Indigenous Peoples are respected and honoured in Canada.
After close to 30 years of negotiations, in 2007 the United Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration). It is an International Human Rights instrument drafted with Indigenous Peoples globally advocating for the recognition of their basic human rights....
Canada’s Indigenous Rights Framework: A (Bad) Proposal Emerges
LAST WEEK THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS hosted a national meeting on the federal government’s proposed “Rights, Recognition and Implementation Framework”. This is legislation purporting to affirm constitutional rights, move communities away from the Indian Act, and articulate a vision of self-government. While Yellowhead published a critique of the Framework as it was emerging last June, and others have also raised concerns, this meeting was actually the first time the government presented a substantive proposal.
THERE ARE THREE MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE APPROACH.
First is the role of the provinces and territories, or rather their lack of any role in this process. Canada insists rights recognition “must respect division of powers” and must not “encroach on provincial and territorial jurisdiction”. This is repeated throughout their document for emphasis—to the point that the proposal reads like a defence of Canadian federalism from the threat of Indigenous rights. A Recognition and Implementation of Provincial Rights Framework.
For all the talk of self-determination and a new approach to Aboriginal title, we can expect very little change in the relationship if provinces are not prevented from further dispossessing Indigenous peoples from their lands and shaping policy that harms communities.
Second, it is now clear that the legislation is primarily a tool to empower the federal government to recognize “legitimate” self-governing First Nations. Somehow immune to the irony of this approach, the drafters of Canada’s plan double-down on federal authority over First Nations, as opposed to “get(ting) out of the way” as Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett asserted at the AFN meeting last week.
Deviating from existing self-government policy, this legislative process will require new institutions to facilitate recognition in one of two ways:
In either case, they will be limited to making recommendations to the Minister (and Cabinet), an approach that solidifies the age-old Indian policy principle of Ministerial discretion.
On Aboriginal title, the legislation “may” recognize it or its “coexistence” alongside Crown title, instead of, you know, recognizing it (as courts have done). And on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), Canada will “align with the articles” of UNDRIP, as opposed to implementing them. This sort of hedging may be the enduring feature of the Trudeau government’s Indigenous relations.
Beyond the discursive tools to limit jurisdiction, there are also the elements of Canada’s proposal that describe First Nation authority specifically. First Nations may determine membership, develop internal governance processes (rule-making, financial management, delegation powers, etc.) and make laws respecting language and culture. That’s it. But these are “powers” band councils already have access to through a custom code process....
Yup. A smug and arrogant asshole, one of the few traits he inherited from his father. In a frank conversation with an NDP MP, she told me his arrogant smirk made her want to reach across the aisle and throttle him.
..this piece from aug
Recognition of Rights Framework risks terminating rights for Indigenous peoples
The proposed framework functions like a cage, a legal apparatus that assumes all sovereignty and jurisdiction belong to the federal and provincial governments. It provides Indigenous nations with little more than space to administer federally approved governance within legislated boundaries. No land is returned with the framework, and it’s principles fall far below the floor set by Canadian constitutional law, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Indigenous laws, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
The legislation is intended to be available to Indians, Inuit and Metis governments, and according to the justice minister in her speech to the Business Council of British Columbia in April, is intended to provide “certainty.”
“Certainty” means clarity and predictability for non-Indigenous corporate investment interests. While the government’s language suggests self-determination is a desirable objective to be secured through Recognition of Rights, there is nothing proposed that recognizes or facilitates self-determination, a fundamental right recognized at international law.
The third order of government model in the Canadian federal structure was suggested by the 1983 Penner Report and by the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Why, then, have the feds opted for this anemic delegated model proposal?
The legislated “self” governance approach floated by successive Liberal and Conservative governments since 1982 all proposed a delegated subordinate municipal-style framework to replace the Indian Act. All have been largely rejected by Indigenous leaders. Yet the “new relationship” reads like an updated version of the Indian Act; it amounts to self-administration, and leaves no doubt that the federal and provincial governments do not plan on sharing jurisdictional power or tax and resource wealth....
..from idle no more
Federal "Rights Framework" Legislation - Teach In Tools
In this blog post, we have included a two-page brochure and information sheet that you can print and distribute within your community's. It has been prepared by grassroots volunteers to ensure that we have tools needed that break down the federal legalese, so you know exactly how our collective rights as the Original Peoples of these vast territories are being attacked. We have also prepared an information sheet to further help those people who have begun to organize teach-ins in communities across the land. Folks are already beginning to collectively educate folks about the Federal Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework legislation, due to be introduced into federal parliament before the Christmas break.
To pay homage to our late colleague Arthur Manuel, we are also including information about the Art Manuel Awards and how you can nominate a Land Defender, Water Protector or Champion for Self-Determination. The deadline is this Friday, September 28th at midnight eastern time, only three days left to nominate someone you know. Everything you need to learn more about the awards is provided below the following teach-in tools.
..page 1 of the brochure.
Usurpation as Genocide
"Canada's Courts will always defend Canada's assertion of sovereignty against our original sovereignty. They will always defend so-called supremacy of parliament as a justification to minimize our inherent rights." - Prof Pam Palmater -
..here is the link to the webinar announcement posted in #38. it's 1.5hrs long and slowly i'm getting through it. it provides an understanding of what indigenous folk are facing and ways forward. the video is well worth the time spent and you will be rewarded with increased understanding.
#NotOurFramework Rights and Recognition Framework
I am 100% on the side of FN people but I hate political theatre. It would surprise me greatly if FN leaders were unaware of the timeframe for the meeting. Obviously it was inadequate but instead of saying so they deliberately acted as though the time were unlimited. It's games on both sides.
Trudeau's gambit to define indigenous rights will fail. Indigenous rights are defined in the constitution and no legislation can override the conditions on which the constitution was signed. This is theatre on Trudeau's side to say "see I am trying really hard" to non-indigenous Canadians because obviously FN chiefs are not going to agree to limit the rights of indigenous peoples as per Liberal designed legislation.
FN should have used the meeting to say 1 hour is a meaningless amount of time to discuss FN issues. If the point was to get us to list our grievances orally so you could take dictation we are literate now. We can save time and give you our statements in written form in your own language. We'll give you time to read what each of us would have said in the alloted time. Then sat there while he read the entire damn thing and release it to the papers and online.
A big part of Ford and Trump appeal is that they appear to be straight up. No long explanations. No subtleties. Blunt. "Factual" or appearing to be so. People want politicians and public leaders to cut the crap.
So Pondering your advise to indigenous leaders is to deliberately treat the PM like a school child. I think that the leaders in that room all thought some time is better than no time. I find your " It's games on both sides" comment to be extremely disrespectful of the First Nations leadership that is facing a duplicitous government bent on stripping away their right to control resources on their traditional territories.
Trudeau the Lesser is merely trying to pass Whitepaper 2.0. The legislation is clearly designed to assimilate indigenous people over generations.
It's not treating someone like a school child to recognize and inform someone that a meeting is too short to cover the ground. I respect the FN leaders enough to assume they prepared for the meeting and knew full well the time would be insufficient for what they wanted to communicate.
To just start talking and talking and going beyond the set time is looking for a confrontation. They wanted to force Trudeau to say times-up and he obliged. He's the PM, he's on a schedule.
The leaders had to plan what could be said within an hour or request more time up front. They did neither. Should I assume they are too stupid to understand how meetings work? I think they arrived knowing full well that there was insufficient time for what they wanted. They should have communicated that. They could have used the hour to explain which topics they wanted to delve into that could not be covered in such a short time. They could have refused the meeting saying the length was so short that it could be nothing but lip-service. Whatever. Lots of choices. Just be straight up.
To begin the meeting knowing there is no way you will get through your agenda and deliberately go overtime to force confrontation is, in my opinion, a game.
By all means indigenous peoples and their leaders have every right to call out Trudeau. On the topic Trudeau doesn't have a leg to stand on but we aren't talking about the topic we are talking about Trudeau getting impatient at a meeting going overtime. Waste of airtime. The message is there really isn't anything substantial to talk about when we both know there is plenty.
As long as we are communicating you misunderstood an expression I used. "Getting in front of the parade" means you didn't start the parade. Someone else did that. You just caught up and stepped in front as though you were leading.
9 US states have legalized, California's population is larger than Canada's. 36 states allow medical. Canada and Trudeau are getting all the praise but he just got in front of the parade. He knew it was spreading fast. Anyway I am getting off topic. Just wanted to explain the expression.
Thanks for "mansplaining" a common phrase. I have no idea why you think I don't understand it.
Because you criticized me for giving Trudeau credit and I had used that turn of phrase so I thought you thought I was giving Trudeau credit when I was doing the opposite. You must have been referring to something else and I misinterpreted you.
One of 'Canada's emerging Indigenous rights' Liberals receives a strong, straight-up reaction from a real deal freedom fighter:
"Loved showing my beaded Reconciliation jacket by the talented Jennine Krauchi to the inspiring Aglukark tonight at the Nature United Gala..."
Bravo! Because Carolyn Bennet demonstrates what Canadian 'reconciliation' really looks like...
'A special place in hell' and the Columbia River Treaty
"There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy”
— Peter Navarro, trade advisor to President Donald Trump
Earlier of this year, many Canadians reacted with alarm and no small amount of disgust to this quote from a key Trump lapdog. Hearing a Trump underling state that the Prime Minister of Canada is bound for hell due to his bad faith negotiations was beyond the pale.
But the truth of the matter is that I agree with Navarro. One need only look at how the Canadian government has negotiated with Ktunaxa Nation to understand bad faith diplomacy and there is no clearer example than the renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty.
Recently, the governments of Canada and the United States announced their intention to renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty. The Treaty is an example of the post war accord that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau evokes in his framing of Canada-U.S. relations as “the most successful alliance in the modern world.” It is a quote so filled with maple syrup it may as well be a Molson's beer commercial.
Underneath the surface, the “successful alliance” is predicated on the subjugation of Indigenous peoples and the denial of our rights and title. This denial is devastating to our territory, resources and culture....
Stoney Nakoda residents reject referendum – again
For the second time this year Stoney Nakoda residents have rejected a referendum which would have seen nearly 3,000 hectares of land re-zoned for commercial development.
The result is a serious blow to the Stoney Tribal Council, which previously vowed to continue to hold referendums until it passes.
Voter turn out was slightly lower this time around, however, a larger percentage of voters rejected the ballot question on Oct. 18.
According to the final tally, 675 people voted ‘no’ counting for 56 per cent of the final vote, while 511 voted ‘yes.’
“I am very pleased that our people stood up for our land,” said Rachel Snow, who helped organize a protest last week against the referendum.
“From the first vote in February chief and council had seven months to do the community meetings, appraise the people about the necessity of the land designation, but they didn’t do that.”
She criticized the tribal council for failing to properly consult residents and only giving them six weeks notice before the referendum was held, the minimum amount of time required by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.
“There could have been community consultations from February until September letting people know what is happening and what’s the rationale behind this,” said Snow....
Inuit walk away from talks on reforming federal northern food subsidy program
Talks to reform subsidies intended to eliminate the $10 carton of milk face by northern families remain stalled over concerns from Inuit that they don't have enough control over changes to Nutrition North.
"We have not been able to get to that place of a good-faith space with this government to renew this program," said Natan Obed of Canada's national Inuit group.
The group was one of five Inuit organizations that last April pulled out of an advisory committee on reforming Nutrition North.
Obed said Inuit groups want a real voice in what shape the reforms take. The committee his group walked away from had no decision-making power.
Inuit have that kind of influence in other departments from Heritage Canada to child welfare, Obed said.
"Inuit are working with specific government departments to meaningfully participate and design the end product."
Nor was the government paying enough attention to specific Inuit concerns, such as access to "country food" — obtained through hunting and fishing and more fresh, nutritious and culturally preferred, Obed said.
I appreciate your elevating indigenous issues as you have pipelines for so long. You did miss what to me was a very important tidbit of information:
Local democracy in action. The community is in a power stand-off with the administration. He who controls the money has the power. They are in a stalemate.
..i did not miss this pondering. i've continually reported on the manipulation of band councils by governments and corporations. you can see this even more clearly around lng and pipelines as a way into greater indigenous territory and around hereditary chiefs. courts have ruled that band councils do not have authority over the great territory. heriditary chiefs do.
..this is very much a part of the the idle no more struggle.