Canada’s Emerging Indigenous Right’s Framework

“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

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.

..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

quote:

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

..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.

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.

quote:

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.

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.

The proposal was met with resistance by most of the elected First Nation leadership who were present, justifiably so. As suspected, Canada is seeking to entrench a version of contemporary state-Indigenous relations merely re-branded as reconciliation.

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.

But any serious recognition of Indigenous rights means land. Land and resources are, of course, under the constitutional purview of provinces. Without engaging them meaningfully to address land restitution, there can be no recognition of rights

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:

1. Expert advice on recognition could be offered by an independent body that is temporary and unique to each First Nations’ circumstances;
2. A more permanent body and with a wider range of responsibilities that could include resolving disputes and funding “nation-building” practices.

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.

Third, and perhaps most telling of the government’s bait-and-switch on Indigenous rights, is the non-committal approach to any notion of fulsome Indigenous jurisdiction whatsoever.

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....

..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....

..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

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.’

quote:

“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....