-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25945/archive/files/8e385e7291861d43677143241dfefd12.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ITSqjypGRTOovn8BQ9CqOi9MVRfvJamV05130KFBAaut-zkTfPSd3X%7EYGhAlGFr1htxdWHaVuMHxD7MxzQpdULTdwM9DKkdeq4FA3dsnReNSx-8uy--XzdBNwpEqDTtkLQe5q2jwwl5pUBeGR1Yob6FGPKqWH%7ENqEm3S9duXp-BhbBSA0xxIm1t2YilK47KfXo4v7IeeRiNAfThfN2Fz1ClfA8xlnX0YwbTnYgmHVaQDb8iBcpOs%7EAVjDZ87mON2ZoAtL%7EmVizL5vGPvRUmuFcoRt6cNcu5nvELiTy-S%7EkUYxd-vtdbJEHHDGDQWleRDXwi8%7ECOWtofFG1TX0yiG2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
357baf33a7fc7a304700dea475caeb90
PDF Text
Text
�APRIL/MAY
1984
SPECIAL EDITION
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EDIT ORIAL BOARD
Felix Musqua
Elsie Robe{ts
Doug Cuthand
TYPESETTING
CONSTITUTIONAL
BACKGROUND ... . . .... .. ... . . . . . . . . 3
PRIME MINISTER ' S STATEMENT
......
. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . 5
ANALYSIS OF ACCORD ...........
..............
.
9
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS ... by DAVE AHENAKEW ... . ......
11
TREATY RIGHTS ... by DELIA OPEKOKEW .............
. 14
PENNER REPORT ANALYSIS .... . . . ...............
. .... . 22
SASK. INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE REPORT . .. ... .. 28
SASK. INDIAN FEDERATED COLLEGE REPORT .........
29
Edgar Thomas
GRAPHIC ARTIST
Linda Degenhardt
THE SASKA TC HEW AN INDIAN newsmagazine is the official publication of the Federation of Saskatchewan
Indian Nations. The newsmagazine has a Second Class Registration Number 2795 and an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) 0048-9204. The newsmagazine represents divergent views from Indians in this
province , signed articles and opinions are the views of the individuals concerned and not necessarily those of
the Federation.
�APRIL/MAY
1984
SPECIAL EDITION
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EDITORIAL BOARD
Felix Musqu a
Elsi e Rob e{ts
Doug Cuthand
TYPESETTING
CONSTITUTIONAL
BACKGROUND .. .. . ..... . ... . . . . . . . . 3
PRIME MINISTER ' S STATEMENT
......
. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . 5
ANALYSIS OF ACCORD ... . .......
..............
.
9
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS ... by DAVE AHENAKEW ... .. ..... 11
TREATY RIGHTS ... by DELIA OPEKOKEW ... . ........
.. 14
PENNER REPORT ANALYSIS .... .... ..............
. .. . . . 22
SASK. INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE REPORT ... ... .. 28
SASK . INDIAN FEDERATED COLLEGE REPORT .........
29
Edgar Thomas
GRAPHIC ARTIST
Linda Deg enhardt
THE SASKA TC HEW AN INDIAN newsmagazine is the official publication of the Federation of Saskatchewan
Indian Nations. The newsmagazine has a Second Class Registration Number 2795 and an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) 0048-9204. The newsmagazine represents divergent views from Indians in this
province , signed articles and opinions are the views of the individuals concerned and not necessarily those of
the Federation.
�EDITORIAL ...
We Didn't Fail
John Amagodlik, from the Inuit Committee on national issues put it best when he pointed out to the provinces that the failure of the First Ministers Conference was their fault.
" ... Everybody in the room keeps saying that we have failed. Yes, there has been failure but we haven't
failed, you have failed."
"I am sorry, but the people of Canada have to know who has failed. British Columbia, you have failed.
Alberta, you have failed. British Columbia, you have failed. Newfoundland, Yukon Territory, you have failed, we haven't failed."
We have done our homework. The past year has seen a series of meetings across the country as the various
working groups met and developed positions .
The provinces clearly weren't interested.
"
In fairness New Brunswick and Ontario, both Conservative Governments agreed to support the Prime
Minister's accord along with Manitoba and Quebec. Quebec agreed to support the concept but since they didn't
support the Constitution in the first place could not appear to support amendments. The opposition was with
the Tory Premiers in the west, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. British Columbia also opposed changes. B.C.
has a Social Credit government that is conservative in every aspect except the name.
And Saskatchewan stood out as one of the most reactionary and biggoted of them all. Saskatchewan residents
must have been embarrassed for the lack of leadership displayed by the Attorney General and the Premier.
Saskatchewan has the highest ratio of Indian and Metis to whites of any province in Canada. · It was naturally
assumed that Saskatchewan would therefore have a sympathetic and well developed Indian and Native Policy.
The opposite was the case. While the purpose of the four Constitutional First Ministers Meetings was
to define and entrench Indian rights, Attorney General Gary Lane argued that changes would "cheapen" the
Constitution.
''I think it demeans the Constitution and ·the Constitution becomes an ordinary statute, that c~n be changed
by a certain number of provinces and the federal government getting together and I think that weakens it for
everyone," he told the other Attorney Generals at a breakfast meeting March 9 .
Roland Penner, Attorney General for Manitoba pointed out the error of his ways, "A Constitution is
a living tree. It can be argued and must be argued that it was incomplete and I think if we can strengthen
it, far from cheapening the Constitution, it makes it the kind of living instrument we thought it would be.''
And while the Indian people of Saskatchewan are probably the most politically advanced in Canada, Premier
Grant Devine cautioned against any ''hasty decisions''.
"Our Government believes that to define and constitutionalize rights hastily without careful thought and
without being precise for the long term consequences of such actions would be counterproductive to the endeavour
we are trying to achieve. ' '
"On the basis of the work completed today, Saskatchewan does not believe that amendments to the Constitution are either possible or desirable at this time.'' the Premier stated in his opening remarks.
It is now obvious that the Saskatchewan Conservatives see more votes in opposing Indians than in support.
While it was a disappointing time to be an Indian in Canada it was also an embarrassing time to be white.
The Tories in Manitoba had just denied the Franco Manitobans their language rights and now the western
Tory Premieres were denying Indian rights.
Prime Minister Trudeau made an impassioned plea to the Premieres to make some moves but he was
met with no concessions.
For Trudeau it was too little too late and for the Premieres it was too much too soon.
The Premieres are obviously waiting for a Mulroney Conservative Government and are not willing to
make any deals during the last few months of Liberal rule.
But the next election be it Federal or Provincial the candidates will have to seriously address Indian and
Native rights.
The Chiefs all across Canada have long outgrown the confines of the Indian Act and Indian Affairs' narrow administration. Indian government is an idea whose time has come and no group or individuals tan hope
to turn back the clock and hope that it will go away.
�Tapwe
This month when Pierre Trudeau announced his retirement it gave us all a chance to reflect on the past decade
and a half.
Except for six months when Joe Clark was Prime
Minister, Trudeau has been the leader for 16 years. During that period the U.S. had five presidents. Forty-seven
per cent of the Canadian electorate has known only him.
He has been Prime Minister for my entire working life.
It was the spring of 1968 and I was a struggling student
at Simon Fraser in Vancouver. Youth was the "In Thing"
back then and we were going to rule the world. Canada
was still being propelled by the Centennial year. Trudeau
was at the right place at the right time.
That year Trudeaumania swept the polls and an expectation of change swept the land.
The Indian expectation was no different. Trudeau's talk
of participating democracy was translated into core funding grants from Secretary of State. Indian organizations
now had money to organize and be heard .
In the spring of 1969 I attended the Indian Association
of Alberta Annual Meeting at Sucker Creek. No less than
three federal cabinet ministers showed up. Munro from
Health and Welfare, Chretien from Indian Affairs and Andras from Manpower. That was the last time the cabinet
members felt at ease among the Indian leadership.
After that the 69 white paper was released and Indian
people from across Canada rejected it for the termination
doctrine it was. Camelot was quickly crumbling into chaos.
In August of '69, Trudeau spelled out his concept of
aboriginal rights in a speech in Vancouver. "No society
can be built on historical might have beens,'' he stated.
He continued to say that no part of a society should have
a treaty with another part.
Trudeau was an upper class Canadian whose view of
Liberalism was equality with his world and his world was
the narrow confines of upper class French and English
Canada.
He admitted he didn't understand the West and it was
apparent he didn't understand Indians. While he max have
gone canoeing up in the North West Territories and worn
a buckskin jacket he never understood the dreams and
aspirations of contemporary Indian people.
It was the courts that finally forced Trudeau to recognize
Indian rights. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled on the
Nishga claim and while it was overturned on a technicality four of the judges agreed that aboriginal rights existed.
Also in 1973 Justice Maloof of the Quebec Court ruled
that the James Bay Cree must be compensated for the loss
of their land as a result of the James Bay hydro project.
Trudeau replied, "I guess you have more rights than
I thought.''
This legal action was _to lead to the James Bay Agreement, and while it was viewed as inadequate by Canada's
Indian leaders it nevertheless was the first in a series of
agreements and negotiations to address Indian claims.
The James Bay Agreement was quickly followed by the
Yukon land claims. The COPE negotiations in the western
Arctic, the Berger Inquiry in relation to the McKenzie
pipeline and various southern negotiations including the
recognition of treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan.
. . .by Doug Cuthand
Trudeau understood the law and the power of the courts but
he missed the mark when it came to recognizing the power and
and legitimacy of Indian
Government.
It
was insulting
when
the
Prime Minister addressed
the
Chiefs
at
their first All
Chiefs Conference
in
1980 and the
only message
he could give
was that the
Quebec Indians should
vote ''Non''
m
the
Quebec referendum.
In spite of his shortcomings we owe Trudeau a debt. There
is no replacement on the horizon that will be his equal. He was
our Prime Minister for 16 years and outlasted virtually all the
western leaders. During his term in office the United States had
five presidents.
I feel that the mealy mouthed cheap shots by the media and
the opposition parties don't do the man justice .
The absence of defined Indian rights in the Canadian Constitution is part of the unfinished business of his tenure in office.
The accord he tabled at the First Ministers Confeence was his
attempt to tidy the matter up. The job is now left to either the
Conservative or Liberal Prime Minister neither of whom will
be as capable.
�Background to th e Constitutional
The London Lobby; here Chief Sol Sanderson and Senator John Tootoosis meet
with two M.P.'s.
''Our treaties stand for something very
powerful. We should never be scared. We
should never give up." -FSIN Senator
Gilbert Bird
A series of First Minister's Conferences addressing Aboriginal issues
were set in motion following the creation of a made in Canada constitution.
The First Ministers of Canada include all provincial Premiers and the
Prime Minister. They are talks at the
highest level. The constitution of a
country is the basic law of the nation.
These guidelines define how the country is run , the powers of governments
within it and the rights of individual
Canadians.
No other law can be
made, which does not conform to
Constitutional law . As such the constitution impacts directly on future
relations between Aboriginal peoples
and all other Canadians.
The constitution can either raise
road blocks to rights or formally
recognize them. It is very doubtful the
First Ministers have the power to entirely extinguish rights. International
law and the strength of the treaties
would forbid such a sweeping move.
However once these rights - in whatever form - are in the constitution it
will be extremely difficult to change
them.
A constitutional amendment requires the agreement of six provinces
representing at least 50 % of the Canadian population.
Canada's Aboriginal people have a
lengthy history of special status and
rights . This history is important. It
provides Indians with a strong legal
precedence . There is some fear among
Indians that the government will try
to take away these rights in constitutional talks . The treaties, however,
have been tested before and have proven strong such as Indian hunting
rights cases. These rights give a degree
of protection , - indeed strength , - to
the Aboriginal peoples going into the
talks. The constitution recognizes the
Aboriginal peoples as being the Indian , Inuit and Metis. The FSIN
believe the Indians have the strongest
position because of the treaties. The
Inuit hav e never signed a treaty but
they still have " aboriginal title" over
large areas of northern Canada. They
are now entering into land settlement
negotiations which will likely result in
a treaty like agreement. The Metis
probab ~y have the ' most to lose or
benefit from Constitutional
talks.
The y have no formal rights. Their
recognition as an aboriginal people
was a significant victory in itself.
The constitution or fundamental
guidelines of a country are r~ally based on a long history of laws that came
before . This is particularly true of
Great Britain , whose parliament can
be traced back to King John in 1215
and the signing of the Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta meant the King no
longer ruled alone but had to accept
decisions made by the first of the
English parliaments or in other words
elected council. The King found this
arrangement most annoying and it
was considered a very radical move in
Struggle ·
its time. Canada due to its close colonial ties, inherited much of the
British parliamentary system.
Prior to a made in Canada constitution the British North America Act
served as the country's constitution.
The BNA Act was a made in Britain
constitution designed for the then
semi-dependant colony of Canada.
Now that Canada is stressing its independence,
outdated
ties with
"Mother Britain" are being cut. The
Federation of Slskatchewan Indian
Nations was not against patriation
provided the constitution included inheirant Indian rights such as treaty
rights. Once again a country's constitution can not be separated from the
country ' s legal history. It is more appropriately the product of that history .
If the complex constitutional issues
are cut to their barest bones what
emerges is really two positions on Indian rights. A Treaty is a two party
agreement. Nations make treaties.
Treaties do not make nations. Therefore there is the Indian position and
the "crown ' s" position. A treaty ·,
almost by definition , is a partnership.
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations position on treaties is
remarkable in that it has not changed
since the treaties were signed. Indeed ,
when the FSIN was founded in 1958,
its first mandate was '' the protection
and enhancement of treaties ''. What
has changed is the Federal governments' position . It has come full circle from the blatant attempts to do
away with treaties to the more constructive approach of implementing
their spirit and intent. The Crown ' s
position has come far closer to the Indian position . The Indians ' s treaty
partner, the "crown ", has changed
since the treaty was signed . On this
point and in understanding the complexities of constitutional talks it is important to understand the history of
Indian rights and the how and why
they came into being .
'' Aboriginal title '' basically means
the ownership ofland and resources by
Aboriginal peoples . Aboriginal rights
come from aboriginal title . The aboriginal peoples believe their tribal lands
were given to them by God and only
recogni _zed as such by the Crown ' s
laws . The Indians felt then and now
the government could not '' ·give ' '
anything which did not belong to the
�The A.F .N. was born in Ottawa in the spring of 1980 as a result of the need
to be heard in the constitutional debate.
Indians to begin with. This is a very
important point.
The "crown", at the time when Indian rights were first recognized by
another people, was a English King
who declared by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that Indian land could not
be used for European settlement until
the affected Indians agreed. The
English King did this for some very
practical reasons. The health and
welfare of a people he never met was
not likely among them. Britain's claim
to the new world was questioned by
other colonial col,lntries. Brtain was
also making a lot of money from
trading with the Indians. In short Britain needed Indian allies. And nothing
gets Indian so mad, then and now, as
land theft. In any case the Royal Proclamation paved the way for the signing of Treaties - a process that may
either have ended with the signing of
Treaty # 11 in 1921 or is still ongoing.
The Federal government states the
treaty making era ended in 1921. The
Indians believe it is still on going.
A lengthy book or rather books
could be written on the Indian version
of the Treaties . It is enough to say Indians then and now believe we entered
treaties in our own right. The treaties
did not make us the "subjects" of the
Crown but rather the partners of it.
It was an interdependant
arrangement, both needed each other.
One of the most misunderstood
ideas about treaties is why they are
called '' sacred'' . The treaties are not
sacred in the sense of the dried ink on
a colonial piece of paper. What is
sacred is the vow the Indians made
and demanded of the government
before they would sign the treaties.
Once again there is the Indians under-
standing of the treaties and the Federal
governments understanding of them.
One is not complete without the other.
All of which brings us back to the
constitution. In the long history of
treaty signing Indians believed they
made their treaties with the ''crown''.
The crown being the King or Queen.
The BNA Act said, under section
·91.24, the Federal government was
responsible for ''Indians and land
reserved for Indians'' . The Indians
understood this to mean the Federal
government was responsible to the
King or Queen in making sure the
treaty promises were kept. Section
91. 24 also meant Indian rights could
not be changed by the provinces. Saskatchewan Indians have always said the
provinces have no say in treaty rights.
But more of that later.
When Canada's made in Canada
constitution was agreed to in Canada
they still needed Britain's approval.
Everybody except the Indians thought
this would be a simple matter. What
followed was one of the least known
but strongest stands the Indians have
ever made. We now know it as an Indian victory. Indian rights as expressed by Indians fell on listening ears.
The result was lengthy debate in the
British parliament on Indian issues.
Most annoying to those British parliamentarians trying to quickly pass the
Canada Act and the Canadian government was the Indian's British MP
allies insisting the Crown referred to
the British Crown. This action raised
the issue of Britain still having a say
in how Indians were treated. The
British MP's used this issue to good
effect. Canada was embarrassed and
pressured into behaving more responsibly. The issue was settled, but not
entirely to the Indians satisfaction,
when it was declared the ''crown'' was
divisable. Under this new arrangement the Indian treaties fell on "the
crown in right of Canada'' rather than
"the crown in right of Britain". If the
crown as it affected Indians was such
a hot potatoe, the Indians wondered
where it would end. A crown in right
of Saskatchewan, for example would
be totally unacceptable.
A time of crisis can also be a time
of opportunity . Saskatchewan Indians
know the treaties are strong.
The Indians had succeeded in
squeezing out of the government a
commitment to fully discuss Indian
rights in the new constitution. Under
section 37 .1 of the Canada Act the
government agreed to hold a First
Ministers' Conference on Aborigional
peoples issues within one year of the
Canada Act being signed. This took
place in 1983. It was a most historical
step. If only one thing was sure and
certain it was that the Aborigional
peoples could no longer be ignored.
Relations with the Chiefs and the Prime Minister became acrimonious. Here
Chief Wayne Christian of the Shuswap Band confronts Trudeau during a
demonstration in Kamloops, B. C.
-CP Photo
�The Prime Minister's Opening Statement
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONFERENCE
OF
FIRST
MINISTERS ON THE RIGHTS
OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OTTAWA, MARCH 8, 1984 ......
.
A study the government made a few
years ago of the conditions of the Indian peoples presents a sorry state of
affairs .
• Their life expectancy is ten years
less than for the population as a
whole.
• Violent deaths are three times the
national rate. Suicides particularly
in the 15-24 age group are more
than six times the national rate.
• Between 50 and 70 percent receive
social assistance.
• One in three families lives in overcrowded conditions. Less than 50
percent of Indian houses are proper1y serviced, compared to a national
level of more than 90 percent.
I do not think the latest figures, if
they were available, would show any
great change. No study of this kind has
been made of the conditions of the Inuit or the Metis but we cannot expect
that such a study would lead to a very
different result.
These statistics illustrate the fact
that the aboriginal peoples have long
been victims of severe injustices which
are not tolerable in Canadian society.
As a small but significant segment of
our population, they have suffered and
for the most paret continue to suffer
acutely from:
• economic disadvantage;
• social degradation;
• political obscurity.
But perhaps the greatest injustices
over the years is the hard fact that their
condition has been almost totally ignored by the mainstream society , including its governments. Both levels
of government have some degree of
responsibility
for the aboriginal
peoples, either as citizens or as descendants of the original inhabitants of this
country.
But perhaps the greatest injustices overtheyears is the hard
fact that theirconditionhas been
almost totally ignored by the
mainstreamsociety,includingits
governments.
Yet in spite of these acknowledged
adversities the aboriginal peoples have
managed to survive as identifiable
groups in our population. Willpower,
patience and determination to sustain
themselves in a hostile social environment have enabled the aboriginal
groups to persevere in their quest for
the justice, respect and consideration
they have been denied since the dawn
of our Canadian history; this by an
ever-expanding and energetic society
with particular pride in its capacity for
tolerance and social compromise.
In the past decade or so, the
aboriginal groups have succeeded,
with encouragement from the government but largely through their own efforts, in making themselves heard. As
their voices have become clearer and
as the dialogue has enlarged, the
disposition of governments to listen
has grown. This positive approach to
questions long ignored or treated
negatively has led us to this conference
table and to the agenda we face in this
series of conferenc ·es.
We started in 1982 by inserting in
our Constitution section 35, in which
aboriginal and treaty rights were
recognized and affirmed. We were
aware at the time that these rights
needed to be identified and further
defined through a constitutional process. My own view is that the problem
of identification of rights is well advanced. On both sides we now have
a clearer idea of the subject matters the
aboriginal peoples have in mind when
they speak about their rights.
However, neither they nor we have
the same clarity of ideas when it comes
to the definition of those rights. And
that is not surprising, given the complexity of the subjects identified. We
will find appropriate formulations for
inclusion in the Constitution when
they have emerged with some precision from our ongoing discussions.
In the meantime, we should try to
avoid the further complications which
frequently flow from misinterpretation
or misapprehension of words which
have cropped up in the course of our
ongoing consultations.
One of these is the word extinguishment, which has long been used m
connection with aboriginal rights,
whether when referring to the treaties
concluded with Indian groups in
historic times, or to the more recent
comprehensive
claim agreements
already reached or in the process of
negotiation. It is a word which has attractions for lawyers because of its
tidiness, especially in situations where
o e set of rights is being exchanged or
�substituted
for another. But the
beneficiaries of those rights, in this
case the aboriginal peopoles, fear that
extinguishment contains a threat of
finality or extinction - a snuffing of
the flame of aboriginal culture which
the peopoles concerned have striven so
long and hard to sustain.
If our aboriginalpeoplesare to
preservetheir heritageand keep
theiridentityin oursociety,their
culturesand languagesmust be
preservedand enchanced.
If we think back to the time when
the contact between aboriginal and
non-aboriginal
peoples began, we
know that the rights of the aboriginal
peoples were not written down in formal documents. They were being exercised freely by the aboriginal groups
found in various parts of the country.
As the newcomers began to occupy the
country, it was they who gave expression to those aboriginal rights in legal
documents of their own devising. The
Royal Proclamation of 1763 was one
such document. So were the treaties
concluded with various Indian nations
or tribes. There were further expressions of aboriginal rights in federal
laws referring in particular to provincial boundaries and resource transfers.
The changing situations at various
times in our history have required new
or enlarged formulations for giving expression to the rights of aboriginal
peoples in Canadian law.
The treaty-making process and the
land claims settlement process in
which we are now engaged have the
same goal, the transformation
of
uncertain, ill-defined aboriginal rights
that have proved to be difficult to enforce, into clearly stated, justiciable,
written rights. These new rights rise,
Phoenix-like, from the ashes of the old.
And so today we are looking for a further formulation or expression of
aboriginal rights~which will be suitable
for inclusion in the Constitution and
which will serve as a sound base for
the future relationships
of the
aboriginal groups with others in Canadian society, including governments.
And we do this in a time when our
Constitution is just beginning to serv e
all Canadians as a safeguard for right
in the future. Certainly, if a better
word than extinguishment can be
found to characterize the process I
have just described, I will be disposed
to agree to its use.
Another word which tends to irritate our discussions is entrenchment.
It is a word that often seems to get in
the way of progress. In the business of
building a solid constitutional base for
aboriginal rights, one does not necessarily begin with the inclusion in the
constititional
document of barely
perceived propositions and prescriptions. We do not have to look very far
afield in the world to see places where
fine constitutional phrases and pronouncements are but a cover-up for a
general denial of rights to some groups
in the society concerned. We in this
country do not seek a Constitution
which is nothing but a paper monument for rights that are buried under
a pile _of empty words. We seek constitutional provisions which have practical meaning and benefit for the people whom they concern.
We shall do that by threshing and
sifting ideas thoroughly until the right
ones fall into place in workable formulas. We should know that they will
work, if only on a trial basis, even as
our discussions continue. When we
have got the right stuff, we shall have
l_ittledifficulty in finding place and expression for it in the Constitution.
That is a process solidly based in the
Canadian way of achieving workable
consensus and compromise.
In aboriginal matters, in all Canadian matters deserving constitutional
treatment, we shall succeed by striving energetically for formulas and
prescriptions that work for the benefit
of all concerned, because they will take
into account the aspirations and interests of all concerned: And we shall
end up with a Constitution that is alive
and well, and a source of pride and
comfort for all of us.
Before suggesting some of the ways
in which I think those matters should
move in the immediate future, I want
to refer briefly to another word or
phrase which in recent years has
troubled our discussions. I refer to
equality of rights for aboriginal men
and women.
My own view is that equality of the
sexes is protected for all Canadians including the aboriginal peoples by the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But
I do not preclude an additional provision for the sake of greater clarity.
Such a provision was included in the
resolution to amend the Constitution
we agreed upon last year. Should we
conclude that further amendment is
called for, the Government of Canada
will raise no objection. I have some
wording to put forward should it be
required.
While on the subject of equality I
would like to announce that legislation
will be introduced shortly to repeal the
discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act, and, in particular, section
12( 1)(b). Repeal of this section will
mean that status under the Indian Act
will not be lost or acquired by
marriage.
I would now like to suggest what
should be our objectives at this Conference. In the field _of rights the major preoccupation of the aboriginal
peoples is with self-government. This
should be the priI\Cipal subject of our
discussions. But inclusion in the Constitution of rights to self-government
cannot alone meet the real, day-today, needs oflndians, Inuit and Metis
living in their own communities.
Another item on our agenda should be
the need to build the socio-economic
infrastructure the aboriginal peoples
need if they are to fulfill their
reasonable expectations both as Canadians and as persons of aboriginal
ancestry. Then there is a third question to which we should address
ourselves. Peoples are distinguished
one from another
as much by
language and culture as by history and
geography. If our aboriginal peoples
are to preserve their heritage and keep
their identity in our society, their
cultures and languages must be
preserved and enhanced.
If you agree, I suggest that the
underlying thrust of our discussions
should be directed to these three ends:
- self-government, a broad subjectheading that can encompass most if
not all of the particulars in the
prepared agenda;
- building the socio-economic infoastructure;
- protection and enhancement
of
aboriginal cultures and languages.
I will now deal briefly with each of
these in turn. The fin,t of them is selfgovernment.
There is nothing revolutionary or
threatening about the prospect of
aboriginal self-government. Aboriginal communities
have rightful
aspirations to have more say in the
management of their affairs, to exercise more responsibility for decisions
·affecting them. These functions are
normal, and essential to the sense of
self-worth that distinguishes
mdividuals in a free society.
The Government of Canada remains committed to the establishment
�of aboriginal self-government, and it
is my impression that the provinces
are very much of the same mind. And
so we are not here to consider whether
there should be institutions of selfgovernment but how these institutions
should be brought into being; what
should be their jurisdictions, their
powers; how they should fit into the
interlocking system of jurisdictions by
which Canada is governed .
Democratic institutions of government come into being as a result of an
evolutionary system of trial and error,
by learning while doing. The aboriginal peoples can look back on thousands
of years of managing their own affairs,
albeit at a time and in circumstances
where government was a simpler matter than it is today, free of the com- ·
plexities it has had to take on to meet
the needs of modern societies. We can
also look to a broad range of experience in government in Canada
and in other societies. So we do not
look forward into the darkness but to
a complex of well-lit paths among
which we must choose wisely since our
choice may bear heavily on our lives
and on the lives of generations to
come.
Institutions of self-government may
well turn out to be different for different communities in different parts
of Canada, not just among Indians,
Inuit and Metis, but among communities within each of these peoples
as well.
i) Indians
The Penner Report on Indian SelfGovernment proposes institutions of
self-government for the Indians deriving from both legislated delegation of
federal powers and constitutional entrenchment. The government's response to the report envisages framework legislation to provide for selfgoverning institutions by delegation of
federal powers. There will be consultations between the government and
representatives of the Indian people to
assist in the development of the proposed legislation . Parallel discussions
will take place with provincial governments since they have their own responsibilities toward the aboriginal
peoples. Moreoever,
though the
government can, within constitutional
limits, delegate some of its responsibilities to aboriginal institutions of
self-government, such delegation is
bound to have its effect on the provinces. As we develop federal enabling legislation for early introduction in
Parliament it is my hope that the pro-
vinces will develop complementary
legislation to help ensure that the
aboriginal governments mesh effectively with other governmental
institutions.
To ensure that the work of preparing federal framework legislation proceeds at an active pace , I have taken
responsibility for · its future development myself. The Penner Report
recommended an intermediary - a
Minister of State reporting to the
Prime Minister. I hope that I can indicate the importance of this process
of negotiation and drafting by having
it reported to me personally.
As in all things I believe we
must helpfirst those who need
help most.
ii) Inuit
· I now turn to the subject of selfgovernment for the Inuit. The Inuit are
to be found in the provinces of Quebec
and Newfoundland and in the Northwest Territories, in both the western
and the eastern Arctic. The provisions
of the James Bay Agreement respecting local and regional government
should meet the reasonable aspirations
of the Inuit in Northern Quebec. The
Inuit of the western Arctic have the
same expectations of the settlement
there, now agreed in principle. The
Inuit living in Labrador also look to
the land claims settlement process to
provide the needed governmental
institutions.
The great majority of the Inuit, who
live in the eastern Arctic, are also
engaged in the land claims settlement
process. In the matter of selfgovernment, however, their aspirations are very different. They look to
division of the Northwest Territories,
setting up in the eastern part they call
Nunavut a public or non-ethnic
government on the model of a territorial government.
The Government of Canada has
agreed in principle to the division of
the Northwest Territories, and is
ready to give favourable consideration
to the Inuit proposals.
iii) The Metis
The provincial governments are
mainly responsible for the Metis.
While in the view of the federal
government they do not fall within the
definition of the word "Indian" in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act,
1867, the federal government accepts
a measure of responsibility to them as
disadvantaged peoples. At this conference we must come to grips with the
question of the complementary responsibilities of the federal and provincial authorities and strive to resolve it
in the interest of the Metis themselves.
In approaching the subject of selfgovernment for the Metis, if we look
to the route of legislated delegation of
powers, the province and the Metis
people might wish to consider whether
the necessary framework legislation
should not be put in place by the provincial governments. Any necessary
complementary legislation could then
be introduced in the Parliament of
Canada.
~
I acknowledge the importance the
aboriginal peoples attach to selfgovernment and I understand why.
But we should remember that selfgovernment is not an end in itself. It
can be no more than a means to the
attainment of the political and social
objectives of a people.
Thus I now come to the second
issue that should engage our attention:
developing the social and economic
programs and services for the aboriginal peoples. As our aboriginal
peoples take their affairs into their own
· hands increasingly in the years to
come, federal and provincial governments, in close concert with the
aboriginal
peoples,
must work
together to put in place the socioeconomic infrastructures
that will
enable them to fulfill their reasonable
expectations as citizens of Canada. If
this is to be achieved it will call for a
maximum effort of all concerned. The
provinces will have to fulfill their
obligations to the aboriginal peoples as
Canadians resident in the provinces.
The federal government must fulfill its
special obligations to the aborigirial
peoples that derive from their
ancestry. The aboriginal leaders too
must share in the design and management of these programs and services
to help ensure that tb.ey are properly
in place to meet the needs of their
peoples.
Housing, schools, social services,
roads, water supply, sewage systems,
electrification are essential to the
health, comfort and economic development of communities. These have
come to be seen as entitlements that
flow from Canadian citizenship and
residence. There is no excuse that I
can find to continue to deny them to
so many of our aboriginal compatriots.
As in all things I believe we must help
first those who need help most.
�As a first step we must have a better understanding of the services and
programs now being delivered by the
federal government and the provinces,
their effectiveness and what gaps re.main to be filled. I have asked Senator
Austin, the Minister of State for Social
Development to undertake this task,
working in concert with the provincial
governments and the representatives
of the aboriginal peoples.
The third issue before us is the protection and enhancement of aboriginal
cultures and languages. Aboriginal
peoples are deeply concerned, and
rightly so, about the maintenance of
their cultures and languages, including arts, religion and above all the
education of their children. This is a
concern that all Canadians can readily comprehend. In due course selfgoverning institutions will prove to be
important bulwarks for culture and
language. The design of the nece~sary
social , cultural and economic programs and services can be tailored so
as to protect and enhance aboriginal
cultures and languages. I suggest that
it is the responsibility of us all to see
to it that it be done.
Movement on these three issues,
self-government,
socio-economic
development, culture and language
·would be real progress. To secure this
progress, I am proposing that we
strive, today and tomorrow, to reach
agreement upon an accord. Such an
accord would bind us to undertake
amendment of the Constitution. The
draft amendment that I have for you
and which will be distributed as I
finish speaking takes the form of a
commitment to:
- preserve and enhance the cultural
heritage of the aboriginal peoples;
- respect the freedom of the aboriginal
peoples to live within their own
heritage
and to educate their
children in their own languages as
well as within either or both of the
official languages of Canada;
- include in the Constitution the right
of the aboriginal peoples to self:
governing institutions;
- negotiate the nature, jurisdiction
and powers of those institutions and
the financial arrangements relating
to them.
The draft accord contains, in addition, a further amendment regarding
equality should this be found necessary. It also contains a political commitment to review all aspects of programs and services directed to the
I am proud to have walked the
first mile of this journey with
you. . . But in the endyourfate,
and thefate of your children's
childrenis in your own hands.
~boriginal peoples. The results of this
review would be reported to the conference to be held next year.
Self-government for those communities that can meet agreed criteria
is coming. As the years pass, more and
more communities will take advantage
of the enabling legislation . Individual
communities unable to qualify alone
could join together to achieve the
critical mass needed for the development of self-governing institutions.
But for many communities, isolated,
remote, lacking any solid economic
base, reliance upon the Indian Act
or, in the case of the Metis, provincial legislation, will continue for many
years to come. As we set up framework legislation for institutions of selfgovernment so must we also review
existing legislation
to minimize
bureaucratic
intervention
and to
delegate to communities not yet ready
to adopt their own institutions of selfgovernment whatever measure of
decision-making and program management
they can comfortably
assume.
Building the socio-economic infrastructure can help break the cycles
of poverty and dependency in which
so many of our aboriginal peoples feel
themselves
to be trapped.
Selfgovernment and the enhancement of
aboriginal cultures can return to the
aboriginal peoples the pride of race
and the sense of self-worth that is
theirs by right.
My predecessor, Mike Pearson,
once said that he'd had as many lives
as a cat. I've had a few myself and I
look forward to several more. But this
is the last time I will address this
assembly from this chair. If only for
this reason I would like to say a few
words to the aboriginal peoples of
Canada not so much as Prime Minister or as chairman of the conference,
but rather out of my own mind and
heart.
Together we h~ve embarked upon
a journey that can lead you into full
partnership in Canada, secure to you
your own place in Canadian society
with your own institutions of selfgovernment, provide you with the infrastructure you need if you are to
achieve economic success, and protect
and enhance your cultures and
languages. I am proud to have walked the first mile of this journey with
you. Others will take my place and
continue upon the journey with you
for there can be no turning back. The
Constitution guarantees you that.
But in the end your fate, and the
fate of your children's children is in
your owrt hands. You are the custodians of an ancient spirituality. Your
lives are rich in culture and tradition.
The extended family that is the tribe
or community can be your strong
support.
Tak.e advantage of all that a modern
society can offer, but for your soul's
health stand on your own feet, on the
sure foundation that spirituality, tradition and family have laid.
In March 1980 Prime Minister Trudeau was the keynote speaker at the First
Annual All Chiefs Conference. Here he enjoys the entertainment with former
President of the N.I.B. Noel Starblanket, former Vice-President of the N.I.B.
Dennis Nicholas and Indian Affairs Ministe _r John ~unro.
�Shortcomings
SHORTCOMINGS
IN THE
PRIME MINISTER ACCORD ..
While the Prime Minister's proposed accord and amendment to the First
Ministers Conference was met with
support from the First Nations, the
Metis, and the Inuit, and resistance
from the provinces it nevertheless contained a number of shortcomings upon
critical examination by the AFN.
First the resolution was discussed
and the following points were mentioned in regard to the proposed section 35.2:
The whole section and all of the
commitments are subject to existing
federal and provincial jurisdiction or
legislative authority. This in effect
means that there could be no '' Indian'' order of self-government.
Also there is no recogniton of an
aboriginal right to self-government.
There is only a very limited recognition of a right to self-governing institutions and this is further qualified by
''institutions that will meet the needs
of the communities''.
Furthermore,
even the nature of self-governing institutions, the jurisdiction and the
powers and financing arranagements
related thereto are all subject to being
identified
and defined
through
negotiations.
In effect, the recognition of a right
to self-governing institutions is much
less than the recogniton of the right to
self-government itself, which includes
institutions.
Although section 35. 2 deals with
commitments, it makes the provincial
government an equal and full participant in the negotiations respecting
self-government institutions and in effect seems · to ignore the provision in
the Accord respecting the bilateral
process.
The formulation of the proposed
amendments by the seemingly equal
involvement of the Provinces also ignores the special relationship under
section 91(24) of the Constitution
Act, 1867.
Even the results of the negotiations
respecting self-government institutions
would not lead to a constitutionalized
result. The draft proposal implies that
negotiations would apparently lead to
legislated results only.
There also appears to be a substantial recognition of provincial authori-
in the Prime Minister's Accord
ty because of paragraph (c) of proposed section 35. 2. It appears to require
provincial legislation to give effect to
agreements
resulting
from the
negotiations.
Such legislation to give effect to the
agreements runs of course contrary to
the AFN position that the rights under
treaties or agreements resulting from
negotiations must be constitutionalized rights.
Next the Accord was discussed.
First Section 2 of the Accord does not
recognize a right to self-government.
And there is simply a commitment
to negotiations to identify and define
the nature, jurisdiction and powers of
self-governing institutions that will
meet the needs of communities as well
as the financing arrangements relating
to those institutions.
Also the Provincial Governments
appear to be full participants in the
negotiations
respecting even selfgoverning institutions.
The result of the negotiations would
not appear to be constitutionalized,
but would be given effect by federal
and provincial legislation.
Section 2 of the Accord thus implies
that provincial legislation is necessary
in regard to the question of selfgoverning institutions.
Section 3 dealing with the review of
programs and services merely provides
for consultation wjth representatives of
the aboriginal peoples of Canada, not
their participation.
The review of programs and services really is not a matter of a constitutional nature but rather a matter
for the bilateral process.
Section 3 of the proposed Accord
also contemplatd a very substantial
role for the Provincial Governments
and quite possibly a substantial provincial responsibility.
Section 3 of the proposed Accord
also provides for an enhanced participation of the aboriginal peoples of
Canada in the area of programs and
services but does not. talk about
control.
There is at most a weak link between aboriginal governments and the
whole question of programs and
services.
Section 4 of the Accord only provides for the Government of Canada
and the Provincial Governments to
report on the findings of the review
and not the aboriginal peoples of
Canada.
In view of the shortcomings contained within the accord it was agreed by
the Chiefs of the AFN to draft a counter proposal. This proposal was put
together by the technician as a proposed redraft for section 35(2) which
is as follows:
REDRAFT OF FEDERAL PROPOSAL FOR SECTION 35(2)
March 8, 1984 12:15
35. 2 Without extending the legislative jurisdiction of the federal or provincial
governments and without prejudice to section 35(1),
(a) Parliament and the legislative together with the government of Canada and
the provincial governments, to the extent of their jurisdictions, are committed to
(i) preserving and enhancing the cultural heritage of the aboriginal peoples
of Canada, and
(ii) respecting the freedom of the aboriginal people ·s of Canada to live in accordance with their heritage and to educate their children in their own languages,
as well as in either or both of the official languages of Canada:
(b) the aborigin 1al peoples of Canada have the right to self-government, the
nature, jurisdiction and powers of self-government, and the fiscal relationships
relating thereto and the lands and resources related thereto, shall be identified
and clarified through negotiation with the government of Canada and, to the
extent of their-jurisdiction, the provincial governments: and
(c) the government of Canada and the provincial governments, to the extent
of their jurisdiction, shall negotiate and conclude treaties or agreements with
each of the First Nations ( aboriginal collectivities) pursuant to paragraph (b),
and such treaties and shall be treaties within the meaning of section 3 5( 1).
�The problems with the Accord stem
from the fact that the government was
trying to deal with all the aboriginal
peoples as one class. In the past, the
FSIN has taker. the position that three
separate schedules must be developed
dealing with the political reality of
each of the three aboriginal groups.
In the case of the AFN it was important to keep in mind that the provincial role should be very limited in
the area of self-government. At the
same time it was the objective of the
AFN to obtain a recognition in the
Constitution
of the right to selfgovernment.
The AFN counter-proposal
was
prepared (see box) and contacts were
made with the Federal representatives.
It was agreed that there would be an
attempt made to have the Conference
agree to an evening session of
ministers or officials.
The Federal Government
also
agreed to meet prior to such a working session and have direct discussions
with AFN representatives.
Unfortunately
as the Conference
proceeded it became apparent that
several of the provinces were opposed
to entrenching
a right to selfgovernment in the Constitution.
The three · western Provinces of
British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan took a hard line against any
entrenchment
of self-government.
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland
and
Prince Edward Island also indicated
they would only go as far as setting up
a framework for discussion. Quebec
would not oppose any amendment but
would not be a party to any accord.
Ontario indicated support for the entrenchment of the principle, but not
the right of self-government. Manitoba and New Brunswick were in
favor of supporting entrenchment of
a right to self-government.
And that was basically how the
meeting stacked up. It was all over by
the end of the first day.
There were officials meetings, and
ministers
meetings but basically
nothing happened. The officials and
ministers simply repeated the remarks
which their Premiers had made previously.
Clearly Indian-Government
is not
a priority as the Premiers bide their
time for the expected change in
government.
The Prime Minister
presents the Accord.
The Premier . .. "Let's
not be hasty.
. "
The Theories of the Boxes
Are we negotiating from the position of a full box of an empty box?
A number of times the analogy of full and empty' boxes was presented by
the Indian spokesmen as a way of illustrating our view of the negotiations under
Section 35 of the Charter of Rights.
Section 35 reads, "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed''. The Assembly of First
Nations ha _s always taken the position aboriginal title and rights, as well as,
treaties and treaty rights currently exist and are protected by Section 35 of
the constitution. The AFN states that Section 35 is like a box which holds all
of the aboriginal and treaty rights. This is the full box theory of Section 35.
Both the provincial and federal governments take the position that Section
35 is an' 'empty _box'' containing none of our treaty rights. Both governments
hold that until their rights are created or granted at future First Ministers Conferences they do not exist and therefore the box is empty.
Section 37 states, "In addition to the conference convened in March 1983,
at least two constitutional ' conferences composed of the Prime Minister of
Canada and the First Ministers of the Provinces shall be convened by the Prime
Minister of Canada, the first within three years after April 17, 1982 and the
second within five years after that date.''
The amended Section 37 of the Constitution Act 1982, guarantees two more
First Ministers Conferences after March, 1984.
The AFN takes the position that the purpose of their conferences is to clarify
or clearly define those rights which already exist and are presently protected
by Section 35.
The federal government, on the other hand argues that Section 35 is and
"empty box" containing no aboriginal or treaty rights and the purpose of the
Section 3 7 conferences are to create rights of Indians .
The example of boxes best illustrates the Indian-Government relations from
the time of our treaties to the present time . The rights that we as Indian people have always had and have taken as a fact are yet to be recognized or implemented by either level of government.
·
�Aboriginal Rights
An essay by David Ahenakew, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations, to be published in a forthcoming book edited by Prof Menno
Boldt, Dr. J. Anthony Long, and Prof Leroy Little Bear, University of Lethbridge, April, 1984.
ABORIGINAL
RIGHTS,
AN
ESSAY BY DAVID AHENAKEW,
NATIONAL CHIEF, ASSEMBLY
OF FIRST NATIONS .........
.
The most precious aboriginal right
of the First Nations is the right to selfgovernment.
Just as the wording of section 91(24)
of the Constitution Act, 1982 refers to
'' Indians and lands reserved for the
Indians'', the concept of First Nation
self-government is usually understood
to mean two broad groups of jusidictions: a First Nation governing its own
people and their affairs, and secondly, governing their land and its use.
Traditionally among First Nations,
these two concepts are combined the Creator gave each people the right
to govern its own affairs, as well as
land on which to live and with which
their lives could be sustained. These
Creator-given rights can not be taken
away by other huma .n beings. Before
the European ,settlement of North
America, it was unknown among the
First Nations that one nation could by
force deprive another nation of its
right to self-determination and to sufficient land§ and resources to maintain
the lives of its people.
In Europe, however, conquest and
domination
were frequent occurrences. Entire peoples were displaced
and forced to submit to government
by others. The right of land was a
Royal Prerogative. Although title carried with it the- right of use and occupation, it was only at the continuing pleasure of the Crown. It did not
carry with it rights of self-determination.
International law has been struggling for several centuries to deal with
this situation. Since the Second World
War and the ostensible demise of colonialism, the collective human right of
self-determination has been advanced
and entrenched in international conventions.
Since First Nation concepts are
generally not recognized in Canadian
law, the federal government seems to
have taken the position that selfgovernment and aboriginal title are
section 37 concepts, meaning, it says,
that they are not , 'existing'', but must
be "identified and defined".
"The right of a people to
govern their lands and resources
is a right which flows from
aboriginal title. ''
First Nations are at a point of having to discuss these questions not only from their own viewpoint, but from
the Western European perspective
which separates rights from title, and
title from self-determination.
Within these realities, then, the
right of a people to govern their lands
and resources is a right which flows
from aboriginal title. A people's right
to live on their land, and to have use
and occupancy of it, is equally flowing from their aboriginal title. Their
right to permit settlement by other
peoples while at the same time retaining certain rights for themselves as
well as all residual rights also flows
from aboriginal title. But the right to
govern their own lives and affairs is a
collective human right which would
accrue to them if they were living collectively no matter where they might
live.
As well, there are extraterritorial
rights which do not stem from title,
but which stem from maintenance of
sovereignty. The pre-existing right,
i.e., the aboriginal right, to cross the
U.S./Canada
border freely and to
have trade and commerce with other
First Nations has never been surrendered. The limits of this class of
rights are not easily discerned. While
it might be possible to claim a right to
be exempt from the application of
municipal traffic laws on the grounds
that such application violates a preexisting right, that seems to be going
beyond reasonable limits, and First
Nation governmepts are likely to press
the rights of their people only where
it is necessary for political, cultural, ·
and economic survival.
Thus it is possible there may be
three classes of aboriginal rights: 1) the
rightswhich flow to a people from
aboriginal title to govern and control
land and resources; 2) the rights which
flow to a people to its cultural survival
and elements of self-determination
which flow from their common identity, language, culture, values; 3) the
right of a people to be exempt from or
protected from the application of the
laws of another jurisdiction to which
they have not agreed to be subjected,
which would have the effect of unreasonably abrogating pre-existing
rights or privileges.
Another matter is with whom aboriginal rights lie. Can the demand be
made by an individual aboriginal person that the federal government
recognize aboriginal rights, or must
those rights be demanded by the First
Nation to which the individual
belongs?
Does an aboriginal person have
special rights by reason of being
''aboriginal'',
or by virtue of his/her
being part of an aboriginal collective,
such as a First Nation? If the former
is the case, just what is an "aboriginal
person'', and who is to determine that
definition? On the other hand, an
aboriginal collective - particularly
one which has a governmental structure through which it can determine
who is and who is not a member of
that collective - can be simply be
recognized as existing. It need not be
defined. International relationships
between countries are conducted in exactly this way - an ambassador and
his country are not subjected to having to submit to definition.
It seems, then, that although an .
aboriginal right may be exercised by
an individual member of a First Na-
�ing the situation with the First Nations
on its head. They, as relative
newcomers to the scene, have arrogated to themselves the right to
judge what is and what is not an
aboriginal right, what criteria will be
applied regarding the exercise of an
aboriginal right, and the legal system
under which any actions will be heard.
Their own title, and their own rights
in Canada, are considred to be absolute, and thus are not open to discussion. The federal position is that Canadian courts cannot recognize any
sovereignty over the territory of
Canad~ other than that of the Crown,
and the Crown's
sovereignty is
unfettered.
The federal government has protected itself with a number of Catch-22
situations. As an example, federal officials say aboriginal rights could be
considered at a political, rather than
legal, level, if the right to selfgovernment could first be established.
To establish that right, however, one
must rely upon the current legal situation which does not recognize First
Nation government. This is a classic
example of begging the question, or as
logicians would say, a circulus in probando (arguing in a circle).
Federal officials pretend that they
are unable to make a political determination of the question of aboriginal
rights because it is essentially a legal
question. This policy is itself a political
decision, no matter how much federal
officials might deny it. Worse, it seems
that federal officials themselves have
made this political decision. Perhaps
this is why they deny its political
nature, since no Minister of Government is prepared to take responsibility for it.
There are two options open to the
Federal Government. Either it can approach the question of aboriginal title
and rights as a political matter, or it
can have the matter re.solved through
the use of international arbitration.
Currently, a United Nations Working
, Group is engaged on a five-year plan
to draft an international convention
regarding the rights of the ''entrapped nations" - indigenous peoples encircled by a dominant government not
of their own making. If this work is
successful, the First Nations will be
strengthened in their efforts to obtain
the obvious justice to which their claim
and cause is entitled.
When other societies attempted to
identify and define their rights in a
constitutional manner, they did not
find it an easy task. One historical
Either it can approachthe question of aboriginaltitle and rights
as a political matter, or it can·
have the matterresolvedthrough
the use of international
arbitration.''
parallel is the framing of the United
States Constitution.
Interestingly
enough, it was a process in which the
First Nations
were very much
involved.
The founding fathers and writers of
the U.S. Declaration of Independence
and Bill of Rights had been compelled by the example of freedom-loving
First Nations to revise their concepts
about the fundamental nature of
human beings. Benjamin Franklin
and others wrote lengthy treatises on
the political structure of First Nations,
particularly the ones closest to them,
namely, the Iroquois Confederacy .
· They did not attempt to devise an
exhaustive list of the individual and
collective human rights which ''the
People'' of the new nation were to
have once they had been cut loose
fromn the authority of the King. Instead, they took the reverse tack of
defining those powers which ''the People" were willing to permit their
government to exercise. "The People'' retained for themselves all powers
which were not specifically delegated
to government.
Special care was taken with regard
to those of their rights which the People considered to have been most
violated by the King's agents. The
Constitution
made it clear that
freedom of press, religion, speech, the
right to bear arms, the right against
search and seizure, etc., was to be retained by the People, and Congress
was prohibited from passing any laws
affecting the free exercise of these
rights.
What would the Constitution of the
United States look like today if instead
of leading a revolutionary army,
George Washington had .gone to London to hold a special conference with
Ministers of the Crown "to identify
and define" the rights of the American
People?"
If such a meeting -were to have been
held in the same way the First Nations
and other aboriginal peoples are forced to submit to in Canada, there
would be a Section 35 in which the
King would allow rights which he had
permitted to the people to continue.
He would call together colonial Governors to "identify and define" rights of
the People, and he would allow the
People to send a few representatives
to be present. Would it have been
possible for the People to make an exhaustive list of the rights which they
considered themselves to have? And
even if such a list had been made,
would it have been valid for decades
and centuries ahe · t.l. ,>r would changing circumstances ha ve rendered the
list invalid before the narrow interpretations of the King's lawyers? If the
King had said he could not grant
rights without the participation of the
colonial Governors ,'\ is there any real
likelihood th a t t!H .' w uld have given
their appro ai a,_rnrdinrr to a formula
which the I.ad tn:-1:-;t(' l 11 on in order
to protect · t l •r >\\ ll ,. 1·, c·d interests?
Basical h
Lt, Fi1:-.r I rations find
themselves 1H in 'lll'h a situation to "identify ;,11d d1 fine" all their
natural, human ng ts ~ rights which
the Creator gave to them when he
placed them on this land? They are
asked to define these rights in a manner which will suffice for all time, and
which will meet with the approval of
the provincial governments. It is as
impossible a task now for the First Nations as it would have been in 1775 for
George Washington.
The way to achieve protection of
aboriginal rights is not to identify and
define them. Such a process would
result in limiting rights , not protecting
them.
Rights can best be protected only by
protections. International standards
will soon make it clear - if they do
not already do so - that Canada has
no jurisdiction to interfere with any
right which the peoples of the First Nations enjoyed before Europe .ans arrived in Canada and which the peoples
of the First Nations have not expressly and voluntarily delegated or surrendered to the Crown.
That, in essence, is what aboriginal
rights are all about. Is any further
'' identification
and definition''
necessary?
Once Canada has accepted these rational standards and perspectives, then
the First Nation governments and the
federal government can sit down in a
spirit of mutual accommodation and
readjust the balan~e between the two
titles - aboriginal and settlement.
Their common goal will be to find the
balance needed so that the Peoples of
the First Nations and the settler
peoples can prosper as free peoples in
a multi-national democratic state .
1 ·.,
�Treaties and Treaty Rights
preserve their internal sovereignty
under the Imperial Crown and jurisdiction over other lands was to be
shared.
While the non-Indian settlers comprised a small struggling community,
the Europeans respected the sovereignty of the Indian nations. Since
treaties are, by definition, only entered
into between two or more sovereign
nations, they are historical proof that
the Crown recog~ized the sovereignty of Indian nations. However, this
principle has continued to be undermined in the Canadian courts. In particular, the motives of the Crown are
the only ones to have been taken into
account; the Indian motives have only recently been accorded some slight
consideration.
TREATIES AND TREATY RIGHTS
The following document was prepared by Delia Opekokew and researched by Stuart Raby for the Assembly of First Nations. This paper outlines
the treaty position to be followed throughout the constitutional negotiations.
I BACKGROUND
A treaty is a binding, legal agreement between two or more sovereign
nations. Treaties have been utilized as
long as nations have existed. Indian
Nations made treaties with other Indian Nations long before non-Indians
came to North America. Treaties are
made because of the need for mutual
understanding and agreement. Usually, the subject matter of treaties relates
to one of the following:
1. Peace and Friendship
2. Military Alliance
3. Boundaries
4. Trade
Indian peoples, therefore, clearly
entered into treaties with the Europeans on a nation-to-nation basis.
The treaties entered into with the
Europeans which are relevant for our
purposes include the following:
1. Maritime Treaties - Peace and
Friendship Treaties between allies.
The term~ include the preservation
of hunting and fishing rights secured to the Indian nations.
2. The Jay Treaty of 1794 which secured to the Indian people the right
to cross the United States-Canada
border freely with their possessions.
3. Iroquois and Dakota Treaties of
Alliance with the British Crown.
The Iroquois acquired lands where
they were guaranteed their independence (sovereignty) under
the protection of the Crown.
4. Those with the Hudson's Bay
Company,
being treaties purportedly involving land cessions.
5. Treaties in Ontario and the West,
which commenced in the late 18th
century after the American Revolutionary War, and include the
"numbered"
treaties of southern
Canada. These latter continued up
to the adhesions made to them in
the 1970's.
6. Northern treaties of Peace and
Friendship,
which include the
North West Territories portions of
Treaty 8 and 11, and Treaty 9, in
that the land cession terms are
regarded as fraudulent.
The Crown clearly entered into the
majority of these treaties to extinguish
Indian rights to the land, whereas the
Indian nations entered into them to
establish peace between themselves
and the non-Indians, and to obtain
guarantees of protection over their
way of life. The lands that were not
surrendered were to remain as '' dominions self-governing''. They were to
II (1) THE LEGAL NATURE OF
TREATIES UNDER CANADIAN LAW
It has been stated in Canada, legally, that the Indian treaties are neither
international in character nor are they
simple private contracts. Neither are
they analogous to legislative enactments. However, it has been stated
that a court would consider both parties bound by the terms of the agreements, regardless of any formal difficulties in fitting the Indian treaties into
a traditional legal framework of Canadian law.
(2) THE COMPONENTS OF A
LEGALLY
BINDING
TREATY
Prior to section 88 of the Indian Act
having been enacted in 1951, the
leading case regarding the question of
what constituted a binding treaty was
R. v. Syliboy. In dealing with the
Crown's contention that a Maritimes'
Treaty of 1752 was not a valid treaty,
the court utilized criteria developed in
international law. The court first
noted that to be legally binding a treaty had to be ratified by the appropriate
legislative body. Furthermore, according to the court, the treaty was
not a binding agreement, because the
two parties to it were not independent
nations. And the Governor of the Province of Nova Scotia had not been
given authority by Great Britain to
enter into a proper treaty.
In other words, the Indian parties
were judged not to have the capacity
to enter into treaties:
Treaties are unconstrained acts of
�independent persons. But the Indians were never regarded as an independent power. .. Indeed, the
very fact that certain Indians sought
from the Government the privilege
or right to hunt in Nova Scotia as
usual shows that they ,did not claim
to be an independent nation owning or possessing their lands. If they
were, why go to another nation asking the privilege or right and giving promise of good behavour that
they might obtain it? In my judgement, the treaty of 1752 is not a
a treaty at all and is not to be treated
as such; it is at best a mere agreement made by the Governor and
council with a band of Indians giving them in return for good
behaviour food , presents and the
right to hunt and fish as usual. ..
After 1951, with the passage of section 88 of the Indian Act, the criteria
needed for an Indian treaty to constitute an enforceable obligation were
changed. It is no longer necessary to
meet the rigorous qualification of an
international compact. All that is required is that the document in question be a "treaty" within the meanding of s. 88, which states:
Subject to the terms of any treaty
any any other Act of the Parliament
of Canada, all laws of general application from time to time in force
in any province are applicable to
and in respect of Indians in the province . ..
In Francis v. The Queen, it was ruled that the term "treaty" in section
88 refers only to Indian treaties and
not to international agreements such
as the Jay Treaty. Later , in White
and Bob, the Supreme Court of
Canada accepted that a document of
an informal nature constituted a valid
treaty within the meaning of section
88. The court agreed that , ... "In the
section (i.e. section 88), "Treaty" is
not a word of art and in my respectful
opinion, it embraces all such agreements made by persons in authority
as may be brought within the term
'word of the white man. . . ' '' .
White and Bob, therefore, broadens
the scope of enforceable treaties within
the meaning of section 88 of the Indian Act.
(3) THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
Until the last twenty (20) years,
Canadian courts have tended simply
to apply the rules of interpretation
developed in other areas of law.
However, recent case law is develop-
ing special rules to construe Indian
treaties in favour of the Indians. These
rules follow to a degree the special
canons of constrution related to Indian
treaties developed by the United
States' courts.
In R. v. White and Bob the rule in
the American case of Worcester v.
Georgia was affirmed, that, "The
language used in treaties with the Indians should never be construed to
their prejudice". This was recently
reaffirmed in Nowegijick v. Her Majesty the Queen by the Supreme Court
of Canada on January 25, 1983:
It is legal lore that, to be valid, exemptions to tax laws should be
clearly expr~ssed. It seems to me,
however, that treaties and statutues
relating to Indians should be liberal1y construed and doubtful expressions resolved in favour of the Indians. If the statute contains
language which can reasonably be
construed to confer tax exemption,
that construction, in my view, is to
be favoured over a more technical
construction which might be available to deny exemption. In Jones v.
Meehan, 175 U.S.1, it was held
that Indian treaties must be construed, not according to the technical meaning of their words, but in
the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians.
The Canadian courts have also
allowed oral evidence to be admitted
to the record. The willingness to consider all relevant circumstances when
interpreting treaties, including promises not included in the body of the
text, is a new development. In R. v.
Taylor and Williams, the Supreme
Court of Canada on December 21,
1981, accepted the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision that Treaty No. 20,
signed in 1818, which includes the oral
terms recorded in the minutes of the
Council Meeting which preceded and
followed the signing of the Treaty,
preserves the historic right to hunt and
fish on Crown lands in the area
covered by the Treaty. The records
not included in the written portion
provided evidence of additional terms.
This ruling furthers the Indian argument that all terms were not properly
recorded.
However, the recent case of The
Queen v . Secretary of State (the Indian Association of Alberta case),
handed down onjanuary 28, 1982 by
the Court of Appeal (England),
regressed because the motives of the
Indian people at the time of treaty-
making were not properly advanced
and therefore, could not be considered. The Canadian courts had
recently been careful to note Indian
motives.
In the Indian Association of Alberta case, the court had specifically inquired as to the status of Indian
political development at the time of
treaty-making. The lawyer representing the Indian Association of Albert a replied
they were '' simple
societies'', and that they did not
develop political competence until the
1950's. Because of this information,
the court had little opportunity to rule
other than that: '\
. . .although the relevant agreements with the Indian peoples are
known as '' tre~ties'', they are not
treaties in the sense of public international law. They are not treaties
between sovereign states, so that no
question of state succession arises.
This point of the lack of capacity in
the Indian nations attacks the heart of
our position that treaties are of an international nature because our pe9ple
were nations who agreed to the treaties
in exchange for peace and friendship,
military alliance, boundaries, and/or
trade, and reserved their internal
sovereignty. If they were not capable,
then they were uncivilized and as such
had no sovereignty they might retain
to themselves. Because only one side's
motives have been given the full force
of law, then Indian treaty law in
Canada is based on one sided legal
canons.
However, the courts' recent development to accommodate
Indian
motives following United States case
law may be a step towards the consideration of inherent Indian nations'
sovereignty as it has been accepted in
the American case law.
III POLITICAL
POSITIONS
AND VIEWS
(a) THE INDIAN NATIONS
The Indian peoples of Canada and
the United States generally have a
common view that the exercise of the
treaty-making power by Great Britain
and the United States is in itself the
recognition
of an Indian group
(whether designated band, tribe, or
nation) as an independent, sovereign
power.
The United States Supreme Court
in Worcester v. Georgia, stated that
international law is mvoked by the
Europeans when entering into treaties
with the Indians:
The words "treaty" and "nation"
�Jrnpnsth1!184Qtnnstituttnnal
.Arcnrh
nnt!Jt
WHEREAS pursuant to the 1983 Constitutional Accord
on Aboriginal Rights a constitutional conference · composed
of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of
the provinces was held on March 8 and 9, 1984, to which
representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and elected
representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory
and the Northwest Territories were invited;
AND WHEREAS it was agreed at that conference that certain amendments to the Constitution Act, 1982 would be sought
in accordance with section 38 of that Act;
AND WHEREAS that conference had included in its agenda the following matters that directly affect the aboriginal
peoples of Canada:
- Equality Rights
- Aboriginal Title, Aboriginal Rights, Treaties and Treaty
Rights
- Land and Resources
- Aboriginal or Self Government
AND WHEREAS as it was agreed in the 1983 Constitutional Accord on Aboriginal Rights that future conferences
be held at which constitutional matters that directly affect the
aboriginal peoples of Canada will be discussed;
AND WHEREAS the Senate and House of Commons of
Canada and the legislatures of nine provinces that have, in
the aggregate, more than fifty per cent of the population of
all the provinces have passed resolutions supporting changes
to the Constitution of Canada that were the subject of the 1983
Constitutional Accord on Aboriginal Rights;
NOW THEREFORE
the government of Canada and the
provincial governments hereby agree as follows:
1. The Prime Minister of Canada will lay or cause to be
laid before the Senate and House of Com:i;nons, and the first
ministers of the provinces will lay or cause to be laid before
their legislative assemblies, prior to December 31, 1984, a
resolution in the form set out in the Schedule to authorize
a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General under
the Great Seal of Canada to amend the Constitution Act, 1982.
2. The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to negotiating with representatives of
the aboriginal peoples of Canada to identify and define the
nature, jurisdiction and powers of self-governing institutions
that will meet the needs of their communities, as well as the
financing arrangements relating to those institutions, and to
presenting to Parliament and the provincial legislatures legislation to give effect to the agreements resulting from the
negotiations.
/
3. The government of Canada and the provincial governments, in consultation with representatives of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada and representatives of the governments of
the Yukon T~rritory and the Northwest Territories, shall
review all aspects of social, cultural and economic programs
for and services to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, with the
following objectives:
(a) clarification of federal and provincial responsibilities for
programs and services provided to the aboriginal peoples of
Canada, having regard to the existing and potential roles of
aboriginal governments;
(b) enhanced participation of the aboriginal peoples of Canada
in the area of programs and services, including their increas-
'\
ed involvement in the design
services, taking into account
economic needs of the abori1
(c) assessment of financial pi
tion of existing arrangemen 1
Canada and the provincial g
(d) examination of eligibility
services for the aboriginal J
residency requirements; and
(e) examination of programs
peoples of Canada, includin1
comparable with services recei
in similar communities.
4. The government of Ca li
ments shall report on the fini
in article 3 to the first constitu
to the proposed section 3 7. 1
agreed to in the 1983 Consti
Rights.
5. In preparation for the 1
templated by the changes to tl
were the subject of the 19
Aboriginal Rights, meetings
government of Canada and
together with representative :
Canada and representatives o
Territory and the Northwest
at least annually by the gove
6. Nothing · in this Accor 1
substitute for, any bilateral or
between governments and the
in particular, having regard
under Class 24 of section 91 a
to the special relationship th,
exist between the Parliament ,
the peoples ref erred to in th
without prejudice to any bilc
may be established between t
those peoples.
7. Nothing in this Accord
fect the interpretation of the
SCHE
Motion for a Resolution to
Governor General to issue a p
ments to the Constitution of
WHEREAS the Constitutic
amendment to the Constitutic
proclamation issued by the Go
�!Ug!Jts
of tlJtAboriginalJtnplts nf C!ranaha
11d
-delivery of programs and
e special social, cultural and
1alpeoples of Canada;
nsions, including considerabetween the government of
•ernments;
quirements of programs and
oples of Canada, including
nd services to the aboriginal
he degree to which they are
dby other Canadians residing
ia and the provincial govern11gsof the review referred to
1nalconference held pursuant
the Constitution Act, 1982, as
tional Accord on Aboriginal
nstitutional conferences conConstitution of Canada that
: Constitutional Accord on
omposed of ministers of the
he provincial governments,
Jf the aboriginal peoples of
liegovernments of the Yukon
'erritories, shall be convened
ltllent of Canada.
is intended to preclude, or
lierdiscussions or agreements
irious aboriginal peoples and,
the authority of Parliament
he ConstitutionAct, 1867, and
~as existed and continues to
dgovernment of Canada and
Class, this Accord is made
ral process that has been or
:government of Canada and
1allbe construed so as to afonstitution of Canada.
IULE
11thorize His Excellency the
damation respecting amend:anada
Act, 1982 provides that an
.of Canada may be made by
mor General under the Great
Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the
Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the
legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada, reflecting
the country and Canadian society, continues to develop and
strengthen the rights and freedoms that it guarantees;
AND WHEREAS it is fitting that the government of
Canada and the provincial governments work with the
representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to develop
their special place in Canadian society through the strengthening of self-governing institutions and the preservation of their
cultural heritage.
,
NOW THEREFORE
the [Senate] [House of Commons]
[legislative assembly] resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation under the
Great Seal ·of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada
as follows:
PROCLAMATION
AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION
OF CANADA
1. ( 1) Section 25 of the Constitution4ct, 1982 is renumbered
as subsection 2 5( 1).
(2) Section 25 of the said Act is further amended by adding
thereto the following subsection:
Rights of equality of both sexes
"(2) Nothing in this section abrogates or derogates from
the guarantees of equality with respect to male and female
persons under section 28 of this Charter . ''
2. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after Part II thereof, the following Part:
"PART 11.1
COMMITMENTS
RELATING TO
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
Commitments
relating
to cultural
heritage
and
self-government
35.2 Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of
them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority,
(a) Parliament and the legislatures, together with the
government of Canada and the provincial governments, are
committed to
(i) preserving and enhancing the cultural heritage of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada, and
(ii) respecting the freedom of the aboriginal peoples of
Canada to live within their heritage and to educate their
children in their own languages, as well as in either or both
of the official languages of Canada;
(b) the aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to selfgoverning institutions that will meet the needs of their communities, subject to the nature, jurisdiction and powers of
those institutions, and to the financing arrangements relating
thereto, being identified and defined through negotiation with
the government of Canada and the provincial governments;
and
(c) the government of Canada and the provincial govern-.
ments are committed to participating in the negotiations referred to in paragraph (b) and to presenting to Parliament and
the provincial legislatures legislation to give effect to the
agreements resulting from the negotiations.''
�are words of our own language,
selected in our diplomatic and
legislative proceedings, by ourselves, having each a definite and
understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians as we have applied them to other nations pf the
earth: they are applied to all in the
same sense.
Throughout the political history of
Indian na ions and the colonial
powers, the struggle over which
government would prevail in a particular situation has been crucial.
Which power may exercise sovereign
powers has sometimes been determined by military force, and at times by
political arranagements in the form of
treaties and agreements. The result of
these struggles was that powers were
dispersed among the various units of
government.
Indian governments
reserved power to themselves in certain situations: ". . .and , they will
maintain peace and good order between each, other, and also between
themselves, and other tribes Indians
... '' (Treaty #6, 1876)
It becomes important to understand
Indian motivations as to the true terms
of the treaties. The poi.nt to remember, however, is that all of the powers
were once held by the Indian nations,
not the Canadian or any other government. Whatever powers the federal
government may exercise over Indian
nations it received from them, not the
other way around. What then did Indians give to the Canadian Government, and what did they retain for
themselves? Because the motives oflndian people are not in the written text,
they must be inferred from speeches
recorded at the treaty councils or
through oral history. Furthermore, Indian motives have to be understood in
the context of specific Indian cultures,
the conditions of the day such as local
policies, and the strength or understanding of the Indian nc1tions, all of
which affected the consensual nature
or otherwise of the written treaty or
agreement, or of promises which were
not properly recorded. Such variables
are the evidence by which we can
understand the ·acceptance or not of
the treaty terms.
Many of the treaties cited earlier
have received recent comment from
Indian leaders, particularly from those
appearing before the House of Commons' Committee on Indian SelfGovernment. Their history, and the
recent comments will be dealt with in
brief. No current Indian opinion is at
hand on the Hudson's Bay Company
treaties in Manitoba and British Columbia, and in any case these matters
are subsumed into later treaty and
aboriginal rights claims.
1. Maritime Treaties
The present provinces . of Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick were areas
of British and French competition for
control until the matter was resolved
through the fall of New France in
1760. Continuous British authority
was asserted in most of the area
through the Treaty of Utrecht (1713),
but from then until the end of the century there was intermittent hostility
between the Indian Nations and the
British, with French support on the
side of the Indian inhabitants. Treaties
were used throughout this period in
the broad region in efforts to achieve
peace with the Indians.
In the first, that of 1693, the Indians
affirmed their unity and friendship
with the English, and agreed to abandon and forsake the French interest.
The English Crown's Dominion over
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was
acknowledged in the written 1725 treaty, being qmfirmed in later docu- ·
ments, as was a mnutual commitment
to peace. There were promises of
material aid to the Indians, and confirmation of hunting and fishing
rights. The treaties included, too, promises that settlers would be able to
reoccupy, peaceably, lands which they
had settled, there was no surrender of
tribal territory, nor any system set up
for transferring Indian land rights.
Indian rights were acknowledged in
a Proclamation of 1762, under which
the Crown was determined to "keep
inviolable the treaties and compacts.''
Land rights might be acquired from
the Indians under the terms of the
1763 Royal Proclamation, but treaties
under its conditions have not been executed in the Maritime Provinces.
2. Jay Treaty
The peace treaty which concluded
the American Revolutionary War did
not address the rights of the Indian nations allied to the British Crown.
These nations' territories in the Ohio
Valley - Lower Great Lakes area were
cut by the new boundary agreed under
the treaty. The serious omission of actions on this brought renewed tension
and hostilities on all sides. An attempt
to deal with this and other problems
was through the Jay Treaty of 1794,
though the Indian nations were party
neither to . the negotiations nor the
signing of it.
Under Article III of the Jay Treaty
there was recognition between Britain
and the United States that Indian people should continue to enjoy the rights
of free passage and freedom from duty on their personal goods at the
Canadian-United States border. The
treaty also applied to "the respective
territories and countries of the two
parties on the continent of America .''
The War of 1812 between Britain
and the United States was concluded
through the Treaty of Ghent. The
United States agreed to terminate
hostilities with the Indians, and was
"forthwith to restore to such tribes or
nations, respec4vely, all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they
may have enjoyed or been entitled to
in 1811, previous to such hostilities.''
This includes Indian rights under the
Jay Treaty; thus that treaty has not
lapsed. But these rights have not been
given legislative
expression
by
Canada, and have not been recognized by courts in this country. The right
of North American Indian people to
travel freely across their traditional
lands is a part of their selfdetermination, and those rights should
also include legal exemptions from requirements of immigration, registration of aliens, work permits, deportation and other restrictions present in
Canadian law. The United States having ratified the Jay treaties now extends these rights to North American
Indians born in Canada whereas the
Canadian government does not.
3. Pelagic Treaty
Please note that another treaty, the
Pelagic, signed by Great Britain, the
United States, Japan, and Russia
recognized Indian rights, in this c.ase,
the right to hunt fur bearing animals.
4. Iroquois and Dakota Treaties
Iroquois and Dakota sovereign independence was acknowledged in a
number of treaties made with the
British Crown during the eighteenth
and early nineteenth century. In particular, Britain agreed to reserve to
their
Iroquois
allies their
independence
within Briths North
America after the American Revolution. This was fully in keeping with the
political and legal relationships which
had developed between the Crown and
the Iroquois.
British promises of protection and
compensation were extended to the Six
Nat ions through
the American
Revolutionary War and its aftermath
of contention over the Ohio. Under a
treaty guaranteeing security for con-
�tinued Six Nations independence, territorial rights were acquired by Britain
in 1784 in lands on the Grand River
in what became Southern Ontario.
5. Ontario and The West
The treaties made by the Crown
and the Indian Nations of Ontario and
the West, like earlier ones made in the
Ohio with the Iroquois and other nations, are formal recognitions of Indian sovereignty. As the Grand Council Chief of the Anishingbek Nation
put it to the Committee on Indian Selfgovernment this March, "We began
our relationship with the Crown on an
equal basis, as evidenced in the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 and in the signing of treaties both before and after
Confederation. we want to continue
our relationship
in the same
government-to-government
fashion .
. . " (28th March, 1983) The Proclamation established an Imperial
statutory basis for a treaty-making
process for land and political negotiations and transactions between the
Crown and the Indian Nations,
without interfering in the internal affairs of those nations.
After the American Revolutionary
War, with the influx of settlers into
what has become southern Ontario,
Indian treaties were concluded within
the framework of the Royal Proclamation. A sequence of over thirty treaties
(including four with the Six Nations)
had been concluded by the mid1830's. Four more were signed between 1850-1862, from which there is
clear continuity to the so-called
"numbered treaties" of north-western
Ontario and the Prairie provinces.
The Chippewa
and Mississauga
Treaties, relating to lands bounded by
Georgian Bay, Lake Ontario and the
Ottawa River, date from 1923. Adhesions to the "numbered treaties" were
made in recent years.
Before ,the same Hbuse of Common
Committee
on
Indian
Selfgovernment, Chiefs from Ontario, as
from further west, consistently emphasized the need for full recognition
of the pre-Confederation treaties and
of the sovereign, independent authority of their nations to make them with
the Crown. Indian lands and political
institutions were to be protected, and
trust responsibilities assumed by the
Crown. Aboriginal rights existing at
the time of treaty making were
recognized, and provisions were made
for specific services. A Chief from the
Robinson-Huron Treaty area called
his treaty "a sacred document" to
which his people had lived up; he called _upon the federal government to
follow suit. (24th March, 1983)
From a Chief in the Treaty No. 3
area came the demand that the terms
of his treaty be honoured by Canada:
"Had Treaty 3 been kept, had we retained control of the resources and
shared in their development, we would
not be in the present state of subjugation." (17th January,
1983 Proceedings). The Chief of the Saugeen
Indian Band in southwestern Ontario
saw the treaties as international in
nature, signed by political entitites
which, dealt with each other as nations. To him, Canada's present
policy of not recognizing
preConfederation treaties with the Crown
unless it can be shown that Canada
assumed liability for them, is clearly
a violation of international law and
standards. Those standards "should
be applied and enforced'' in respect of
his Band's treaty rights (28th March,
1983).
6. Northern Treaties of Peace and
Friendship
The descendants of the signatories
of the Northwest Territories portion of
Treaties 8 and 11, and Treaty 9 in
northern Canada have advanced the
position that the intentions of the
original Indian signatories were to
enter only into treaties of Peace and
Friendship with the Crown. The land
cession aspect of treaties made in the
south was not part of the terms from
their point of view. As such, any cessions inputed to those northern treaties
are fraudulent and should be deemed
invalid.
A Specific View
The Indian nations' position in the
Prairies is that they effectively controlled identifiable territory within those
lands now known as Canada. Within
such territory their Nations exercised
government over their peoples. This
government had political, economic,
adjudicative and military powers as
well as structured forms for decisionmaking. These Nations were Sovereign within their territory, not being
subject to any other power, and under
no other effective control. By their arranagements and compacts with each
other and with the British Crown, they
demonstrated
their authority and
capacity to enter into treaty relations
as subje~ts of international law.
The British Crown acknowledged
the title of the Indians to the territory.
At no time was it claimed that such
territorial rights could be extinguish-
ed by occupation or conquest. On the
contrary, it was declared in the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 and afterwards
that all dealings with the Indians were
to be .on the basis of mutual respect
and consent and Indian lands were only to be acquired by the Crown with
such consent. Without it, no individual subject of the British Crown
could purchase, settle upon or take
possession of Indian land. Neither
might provincial governments grant
patents of land or survey warrants . At
no time did the Crown express ariy
doubt as to the capacity Df the Indians
to enter into Treaties, itself choosing
to designate the instruments
as
Treaties, rather than as agreements or
contracts .
The British Crown, rather than any
department
of government
or
ministry, entered into the treaties. The
negotiations leading to their conclusion were conducted on the basis of
mutual Sovereignty. Mutual acceptance of them was solemnly accompanied by ceremonies appropriate to
the conclusion of international treaties.
Further there have been adhesions to
these treaties. This is the appropriate
method for later participation by other
parties in international treaties.
By the treaties, the Qommissioners
acting on behalf of the Crown agreed
to the Indian nations' retaining the
following:
( 1) To reserve or set aside for the sole
and exclusive use of the respective
Nations plots of land to be allocated in the manner prescribed
in the respective Agreements.
(2) That the lands so reserved would
only be sold, leased or otherwise
disposed of by the Crown for the
use and benefit of the respective
Indian Nations, with their consent
thereto first had and obtained.
(3) To provide medicine chests arid
maintain schools for the Indian inhabitants of the reserves, and
assistance in e~onomic development.
(4) That the Indian Nations should
have hunting, fishing, trapping
rights over the lands referred to in
the Treaties.
(5) They would maintain peace, and
good order between each other,
and also between themselves, and
other tribes of Indians, which implies their maintainence of control
over their internal affairs, and
relations with other Indian Nations including those outside the
Canadian boundary.
�During the preliminary negotiations
and in order to induce the Indian nations to execute the treaties, the Commissioners agreed orally that the Indians could also retain the following
powers, and which powers are part of
the treaties:
The Proclamation
refers to '' the
several nations or Tribes of Indians
with whom we are connected, and who
live under our protection''
and to
'' certain lands which were reserved
under our Sovereignty, protection and
dominion, for the use of the said Indians.'' The Proclamation established a monopoly by the Crown on the
acquisition of Indian lands, so as to
avoid the "great fraud and abuses"
committed
upon the Indians in
previous dealings.
While the prairie treaties were signed, it is clear that the Indian nations'
were the supreme military force. As
such, both sides agreed to settle their
differences,
and to define their
jurisdictions by entering into a treaty
on a nation to nation basis as opposed to engaging in hostilities. This arrangement is a clear incident of international relations. More importantly,
by entering into a treaty-making arrangement as opposed to a contract,
for instance, the Crown respected the
Indians' sovereignty. By agreeing to
protect the 'way of life' they were
recognizing an unceded right to selfgovernment derived from Indian nations' sovereignty.
(b) FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENTS'
VIEWS
Today, the governments interpret
Indian treaty rights as narrowily as is
( 1) Their tribal autonomy would be
respected and they would suffer no
direct or indirect complusion to
alter their traditional ways of life.
(2) They would continue to enjoy the
unrestricted rights to hunt, fish,
trap and gather over their traditional lands (whether ceded or
not), to the exclusion of nonIndians.
(3) They would continue to enjoy all
sub-surface rights in respect of
their traditional lands (whether
ceded or not).
( 4) They would be provided with
prompt and adequate relief in
times of famine, and proper
medical care, and those who were
aged or infirm would receive all
necessary attention.
(5) They would not be conscripted into military service nor taxed
without their consent.
The Prairie Indians maintain that
the Royal Proclamation
of 1763,
which has the force of law and has
never been repealed, applies to the
lands which now make up Canada.
FSIN Statement
/
possible, and will follow the narrow
legal position earlier enumerated. This
includes, for instance, the only recent
case touching on Indian self-government, Isaac v. Davey, in which the
Canadian
courts
refused
to
acknowledge the concept or that any
such powers were vested in the Iroquois Confederacy in spite of the
recognition in one of the extent source
documents at bar. The Simcoe Patent,
1793 which confirmed the Haldimand
Treaty's granting of lands to the Six
Nations' also state that, the lands ...
... [are] are to held and enjoyed by
them in the most free and ample
manner and a~cording to the several
· customs and usages of them. . . ''
IV THE NEED FOR A PROCESS
TO CONSIDER TREATY INTERPRETATION
In the Indian nations' struggle to
obtain justice for themselves within the
Canadian context, the differences in
interpretation of the treaties continues
to be a stumbling block. Clearly the
conflicts in understanding the true
spirit and intent of the treaties cannot
be corrected by the courts who are
restricted by evidence rules confining
them to narrow legal and historical
factors. For justice to occue Indian
data must be considered. A process for
that consideration
may now be
established because of the recent constitutional breakthrough.
on Citizenship
The following is a statement of Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Chief Soloman Sanderson to the House of Commons Special Committee on Indian Affairs.
This statement addresses the issue of citizenship of Indian Nations particularly the issue of Indian women who lost membership under the Indian
Act.
At the recent First Ministers Conference the Assembly of First Nations
exercised their veto against the Provinces and the Federal Government
against any changes in Indian membership without the full participation
of the Indian Governments.
The following statement clarifies the Treaty position:
The interests and goals of the Indian
peoples of Saskatchewan, and indeed
in Canada and the world are focussed
on the struggle for survival. Preservation of our Indian identity, and lands,
and the attendant need to be in control of our own culture, and institutions are fundamental to our existence.
Today, you are studying the effects
of the Indian Act which, among other
things, includes Section 12(1)(6) which
declares that an Indian woman who
marries a non-Indian man loses her
Indian status, whereas if the reverse
occurs, an Indian man retains his
status. As much as this double standard legislation may shock the conscience, such discrimination is not the
issue. The real issue is that the Indian
Act is the product of the Canadian
parliament and therefore not representative of Indian government and
�culture. The right of Indian peoples to
preserve their identity by exercising
their right to self-determination
through their Indian governments
?ver their lives, . is the paramount
issue.
The power of an Indian government
to grant and decide questions of
citizenship comes from its status as a
sovereign nation. The right to enrolment depends upon the laws and
usages of the Indian nations' governments, and should be determined by
the nation without
outside interference. Each nation must retain for
itself the power to determine who are
Crees, Assiniboines,
Saulteaux,
Sioux, or Dene, and who is eligible to
be a member of a nation.
In 1960, Indians were granted full
citizenship rights as Canadians. Many
Indians refused to accept this grant of
citizenship because of the fear that
they woufd be forced to give up their
citizenship in their Indian nation.
Since the concept of dual citizenship
is well established in both domestic
and international law, it should be accepted that Indians can be Canadian
citizens as well as citizens of their Indian nation.
Indian bands' jurisdiction over the
citizenship of their members and the
rights and responsibilities of Indian
citizens must be codified in the governing documents of each band. These
rights and responsibilities must be based on the principle that every person
who is born as Indian has the right to
have that birthright honoured and
protected. The right to be born and
live as an Indian is founded on religion
and is cherished by Indian custom.
If the Indian Act is changed without
due regard to this funadmental principle, the changes will be made on the
government's imposition of individual
equality principles, and not on the collective equality of th~right of the Indian nations to survive 'equally in
Canada. The greater discrimination
against Indian culture will continue.
The United Nations has stated that
the prevention of discrimination and
the protection of a people are two of
the most important branches of its
work. The equality referred to in the
UN requires that a person who engages in some activity need not renounce his/her own culture but must
be accepted with all his/her cultural
values. Collective equality is measured
in terms of the extent of control each
cultural group has over its governments, as in Indian government. For
the community to progress within its
own culture it must have the means to
do so by the development of strong
economic and political institutions.
Cultural preservation does not occur
unless the community has control of
its institutions. Those UN principles
of equality are not recognized by the
Canadian government as applying to
Indians. It in fact will be undermining overall Indian institutions to protect the "equality"
of certain
individuals.
The government of Canada has
identified the individual equality provision in the Charter of Rights and
Freedom of the Constitution Act, 1982
as supportive of its intention to end
discrimination based on sex. It probably is further influenced by Section
6, which provides for the mobility
rights of every citizen in Canada.
However, Section 25 of the Charter
purports to guarantee that Aboriginal
rights and treaty rights are not affected
by the Charter. Later, Section 35 attempts to recognize existing aboriginal
and treaty rights, and Section 37(2) invites the participation of aboriginal
peoples to a constitutional conference
which will include "on its agenda an
item respecting constitutional matters
that directly affect the aboriginal
peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of the rights
of those peoples ... ''. Will this Committee be identifying, and defining our
rights without such consultation? Our
great concern was and continues to be
that our rights were/are not being adequately protected by the new constitution. Our fears appear to be founded
by your sudden action to review these
matters, and perhaps to act without ·
our consent.
Another ground for the suggested
change is the Lovelace case in which
the United Nations Committee found
that Canada was in breach of Section
27 of the Convenant on Civil and
Political Rights since, after her marriage dissolved, Mrs. Lovelace was not
allowed to be recognized as a member
of her band. The Human Rights
Committee in its final decision on page
8 states,
''. . . the signiificantmatteris her last claim,
that ''the major loss to a person ceasingto
bean Indian is the lossof the culturalbenefits
of living in an Indian community, the emotional ties to home, family, friends and
neighbours, and the loss of identity''. ''
The Indian women who are affected
are therefore pursuing the same right
as our Indian governments - to safeguard the Indian community, and
identity.
Without
group rights
through our right to Indian government being recognized then Article 1
to the Convenant
on Civil and
Political Rights, which guarantees that
'' all peoples have the right to selfdetermination''
is breached.
The government of Canada has
received criticism that arbitrary, and
unfair membership decisions will be
made by Indian governments if the
matter is in their hands. If the inherent
powers are to be exercised properly,
Indian governments must be recognized by express legislation, so that Indian people can create, and maintain
institutions with the proper supporting
resources such as funds, and programs. Included in these institutions
are Indian controlled legal systems
which can properly enforce laws made
by Indian governments, and with the
right to review decisions which may be
against natural justice. Checks and
balances will also be provided in the
Indian government constitutions so
that individuals can be protected from
arbitrary decisi<?ns.
The Indian governments' underlying position is that a person's birthright even if marrying outside
his/her nation is paramount and that
guarantee would be included in our
laws.
FEDERATIONOF SASKATCHEWANINDIANNATIONS
EDUCATION CONFERENCE
May 1, 2, 3, 1984
Saskatoon Inn
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan .
�The Impact of the Penner Report
The following item was prepared by the Law firm of Soonias and Pennington for the FSIN. The report provides answers to various questions,
that were addressed to the Special Committee of the House of Commons on
Indian Self-Government.
The questions in~lude; various aspects of the implementation of Indian Government
including;
Membership,
Control, Land, Revenue
Economic Base, and The Crown Trust Responsibility.
What is tlie report aiming at?
The Parliamentary Committee in
its Report on establishing Indian SelfGovernment says that Indian people
ha ve the right to a special place within
the Canadian Constitution and political system. They say that the relationship today between Indian people
and the federeal government is not
working. Federal policies and agencies
are operating to increase Indian poverty and dependence.
The Committee
agreed
with
witnesses from the Indian First Nations that Indian peoples must control
their own affairs . They said a new
relationship with the federal government was needed. Whate v.er new
system is adopted should allow the different Indian nations across Canada
to control their own affairs and protect their own rights and traditions.
An essential part of this new relationship with the federal government
should be Indian self-government , the
Committee says. Their report fails to
answer many of the practical problems
involved in putting a system of Indian
self-government in place, however .
Much work must still be done to
answer many questions individual
bands have about membership, coming into the system, accountability of
Indian governments, treaty rights and
financial arranagements. Many bands
are also concerned about the continuing trust relationship with the federal
government if Indian Affairs is phased out as the Committee recommends.
How would bands
their membership?
determine
The Committee agreed with the
F.S .I.N. that Indian self-government
must begin with existing bands. The
A.F.I.N . suggested that each Band
would at first be considered an Indian
first nation. Some bands may wish to
join together to allow their original nation to form a central Indian government . In a few cases, where different
peoples have been brought together to
form one band, an existing band may
separate into two or more units .
It was felt that a necessary first step
on the · road to achieving
selfgovernment was for each band or first
Nation to adopt a membership code to
determine who would be allowed to
participate in setting up its government. Re-instatement of persons re-
moved from band membership by
operation of the Indian Act should be
done first, however. The A.F.N. and
other Indian representatives argued
that Indian governments themselves
rather than the federal government
should decide on who should be reinstated. It is not clear from the Committee's report whether they agreed
with this or not.
The Committee suggests a procedure by whid1 each Indian band or
First .Nations could determine its
membership or citizenship. All those
presently on a band list under the Indian Act plus those re-instated get
together to decide who else should be
included in their membership. This
group would then agree on the rules
to use to determine membership. The
only restriction on .what rules a band
could use to determine its membership
is that these rules should follow international human rights convenants
against discrimination. This group of
members would also set up a procedure for membership appeals. All
those qualifying for membership
under the rules adopted by this group
would then decide what form their
government would take and apply to
the federal government for recognition.
The Committee also liked the idea
of the two tier system of status and
membership. This system would allow
the federal government to set up a
general list for status Indians who are
not members of an Indian First Nation. Status Indians on the general list
would receive program benefits from
the federal government but would
�have no right to vote or share in the
land or property of an Indian First
Nation.
The Committee says nothing about
issues such as which government will
be responsible for providing education, social services and health care
services to those on the general list.
Although these matters are within provincial jurisdiction,
disputes have
arisen in the past about the province
providing these services to Indian
people.
Nothing
is said either about
members of First Nations who live
outside the territory of their Nation.
Who will be responsible for providing
services to these people - the province,
the federal government or their Indian
government? Will their Indian government have the power to make laws
affecting them and to enforce those
laws against members living off
resrrve? These very practical questions must be answered in whatever
system oflndian government is set up.
At present, the Indian Act allows
only band members ordinarily resident on the band's reserve to vote and
participate in band go\rernment. Band
by-laws apply only on reserve. Services are usually provided to status Indians living off reserve by both federal
and provincial governments according
to each' s area of responsibility .
Whether this arrangement would continue with Indian self-government has
yet to be worked out.
How would
function?
band
government
The Committee says that the people belonging to each Indian band or
nation should determine the structure
of government they wish to have.
Some may wish to continue with the
band council format or adopt the
west'ern parliamentary system. Some
may feel more comfortable with
another structure .
Most bands will likely want to adopt
a written constitution describing the
structure and powers of its government. A constitution would also set
out the way in which the people can
keep their government accountable.
The Committee suggests several
ways in which each Indian band or nation can make sure its government is
accountable to the people. They suggest a band may wish to include in its
constitution a requirement that financial and other information, annual
reports and audits be available and
easily understood. Another way to insure a government is accountable is for
the people to retain certain powers
which government officials cannot exercise without holding a referendum
to get the people's approval. A constitution should also include a way to
remove government officials from office for improper use of their powers.
Procedures to appeal unjust or improper decisions should also be work-
ed out. Individual and collective rights
should also be protected in a constit- ·
ution.
Constitutional government also requires that the powers oflaw making,
enforcement and adjudication be exercised by separate government bodies .
Division of power between legislative,
executive and judiciary helps to provide restrain ts and checks and
balances on political powers.
Constitutional government also requires openness and disclosure of the
affairs of the government. The people
cannot participate effectively in their
own government without being .informed of its activities. This is why
most constitutions
require
the
legislature to publish its debates . Effective responsible government can
only be achieved if the people are wiliing to take part and keep themselves
informed .
Traditional
Indian governments
were usually democratic in the sense
that power and authority were spread
among several institutions . Each local
group was sovereign in creating laws
that reflect the needs of its people .
Decisions affecting the entire tribe
were usually made by a council or
assembly which represented
the
various clans or bands of the tribe. In
turn, many tribes or nations maintained associations with a confederacy of
other nations which had common
political or economic goals. The sharing of expertise and resources in such
alliances helped to maximize group efforts through unity while still preserving the autonomny of the band.
A written constitution is usually
kept rather vague and general and has
clauses like the "right to life, liberty
and happiness''
such as in the
American constitution. This lets the
socr~ty adapt to changes more easily.
�~.
~ ~
A constitutional government cannot
survive where the constitution sets
down rules for conducting its affairs
foreign to the customs and way of
thinking of the people.
Where a people wish to govern itself
in a way significantly different from
the present system , a written statement in a constitution of the goals
towards which they wish their community to move is both desirable and
adviseable. Reaching a consensus on
goals and principles can strengthen a
community. A clear declaration of
these in a written constitution will help
a people to make a break from the existing system.
What would bands control?
The Committee made several recommendations about the powers of Indian government. We have already
discussed
bands controlling
reinstatement of band members and
future membership in their nation .
The Committee also says that Indian
governments
should
have full
legislative and policy making powers
on matters affecting Indian people .
They say the exact scope of jurisdic tion of Indian governments should be
decided by negotiation with the federal
government.
Indian gover:nments should have
power to make laws about their nations social and cultural development,
including education and family relations. Some bands may wish to continue existing federal or provincial
programs or services and this they
should be allowed to do, the Committee says. Indian governments should
also be allowed to set up their own
system of law enforcement and justice .
They say Indian governments
should also have sole control of and the
power to make laws about the use of
lands and resources within the bounds
of their territory. This would include
the power to raise revenue and make
laws about economic and commercial
development.
Indian governments
would exercise its power jointly with
provincial or federal governments on
lands subject to Indian rights which
are not reserved for Indians, that is in
treaty land claims areas .
Within each subject area, an Indian
government would exercise powers
over all people inside its territorial
limits . Non-members moving onto Indian lands to live , do business or visit
would be governed by the laws of the
Indian nation. During the transition
from provincial or federal jurisdiction
to Indian government power, existing
laws would prevail until an Indian
government exercised its power in a
given area .
The Committee does not address
the crucial question of who owns Indian lands . At present the federal
Crown owns the underlying legal title
to lands reserved for the use of Indian
bands. Would an Indian nation
"own" its land in the same way a province-or the federal Crown does so that
it would remain a part of its territory
regardless of whether "sold"
to
private interest? If sold, would an Indian government have the power to
expropriate private lands? Thes~ questions are fundamental to the power
and jurisdiction of a government's
control over its territory and will have
to be worked out before any system of
Indian self-government can be put into place .
How would bands get control of
their land and matters affecting
their people?
The Committee says the Canadian
Constitution should be changed to
give Indian nations the right to be selfgoverning. Until the Constitution can
be amended, however, the Committee says the federal government should
adopt legislation called the '' Indian
First Nations Recognition
Act".
Under this Act, an Indian government
would be recognized as the government of its nation by showing it has
the support of a large majority of the
people belonging to the particular nation. An Indian government would
also have to show that it had established an acceptable membership code,
with a procedure for appeals, as well
as a system of accountability to its people before the nltion or band would
be recognized as self-governing under
the Act.
A Ministry of State for Indian First
Nations Relations with a panel appointed jointly by the Minister of State
and designated representatives of the
Indian nations would determine
whether an Indian government met
the criteria necessary for recognition
under the Act. It is also recommended that an independent secretariat be
jointly appointed and funded to provide a neutral forum for conducting
negotiations
between the federal
government
and the designated
representatives of the First Nations.
The Committee also recommends
other legislation to allow the federal
government to make agreements with
Indian bands and nations as to the
jurisdiction each government will occupy. It is not clear exactly what the
Committee has in mind here. Separate
agreements as to the jurisdiction of
each Indian government could very
well lead to an incredibly complex
system of Indian government. Each
individual band, part of a band or
larger Indian nation across the country could negotiate a different agreement with the federal government.
The varying degree and scope of
powers and jurisdiction assumed by
each individual Indian government
would leave the federal and provincial
governments with varying degrees of
residual power as well. This could lead
to a proliferation of litigation and
jurisdictional
disputes
between
governments . The
Committee
(perhaps with this possibility in mind)
does recommend that a specialized
tribunal be set up to decide disputes
with other governments over these
agreements.
Although individual bands must be
allowed to develop their own governments at their own pace, it would seem
more practical to develop a statement
�of the areas of jurisdiction in which all
Indian governments may legislate
once they are ready. The transition
period could be handled by provisions
allowing federal or provincial laws to
continue to apply until the particular
Indian nation formulated its own
policy and legislation on the matter.
This may be what the Committee
has in mind in the third legislative
measure it recommends be adopted by
the federal government:
Legislation under the authority of
section 91(24) of the Constitution
Act, 1867 designed to occupy all
areas of competence necessary to
permit Indian First Nations to
govern themselves effectively and to
ensure that provincial laws would
not apply on Indian lands except by
agreement of the Indian First Nations government.
Here again, it is not clear what exactly the Committee has in mind. The
mention of section 91(24) does raise
another question however, and that is,
what power the federal government
would retain under section 91(24) to
legislate with regards to Indians and
their lands if and when all the bands
have achieved self-'lovernment. Retention of this power for the time being may provide some reassurance to
bands concerned about the loss of
federal trusteeship and being taken
over by the Indian governments they
feel unable to control.
How would band government be
paid for?
·The committee recommends special
one-time funding be available to bands
to help them develop a constitution
and membership code and put their
government in place.
The Committee suggests that Indian government administration initially be paid for by grants and
transfer payments from the federal
government.
It recommends longterm
entrenched
financial
arranagements and resource revenue
sharing be implemented to finance Indian governments. Settlement of land
claims and Indian
control and
development of their land base, it is
hoped, will eventually provide secure
finances for Indian governments.
As to the cost of administration of.
Indian governments, the Committee
hired a national accounting firm,
Coopers and Lybrand, to assess what
proportion of DIAND funds are absorbed in administration costs. The
firm concluded that, at present,
duplication of administrative structures within the DIAND and between
DIAND and Indian bands and councils result in almost one-quarter of all
program
funds being spent on
administration.
They felt that the administration
costs of Indian bands need not exceed
those of other small organizations or
businesses. At present the accounting
requirements
imposed on Indian
bands result in far greater costs,
however. In addition, transfer of administrative responsibility to bands
has increased costs because of expanded advisory and monitor.ing jobs
within the Department.
Cooper &
Lybrand advised that these costs be
reduced by doing away with the
Department's advisory and monitori'ng services. The cost of accountability systems within the Department
itself also increased costs of program
delivery even further.
Making Indian governments accountable for expenditure of funds to
their own people · rather than to
DIAND should, it is suggested, reduce
administration costs. Doing away with
DIAND advisory and monitoring
functions and leaving Indian governments free to set their own p_riorities
should further reduce costs, the Committee says. Accountability to their
people should insure Indian governments exercise their powers wisely and
that the people are in turn protected
against wrongful use of these powers.
It will take great courage and
dedication for the Indian nations to
assume the reins of self-government
and succeed in establishing efficient
and effective administration after living under the suffocating paternalism
of DIAND for the last hundred years
or more . There will inevitably be a difficult transition period as bands struggle to overcome years _of dependency
and poverty
in order to train
themselves how to run a responsible
government. One hopes the federal
government will fulfil its trust responsibilities until such time as effective Indian self-government is fully achieved.
What will be the economic base
for Indian governments?
The Committee
sees economic
development of lands and resources as
the ultimate source of financial security for Indian governments. No one
needs to be told how inadequate such
resources are at present. The Committee simply says that a new relationship
between Indian First Nations and the
federal government should result in
the provision of an adequate land and
resource base and the settlement of
claims. No mention is made of the fact
that the vast majority of land and
resources belong to the provinces. Provinces such as B.C., Alberta and Ontario have made no secret of their positions on Indian land claims. The
Committee does recommend though
that bands be given the financial
resources necessary to enable them to
carry on research and negotiations to
settle their claims.
In the meantime, until such claims
can be settled and an adequate land
and resource base provided, the Committee recommends Indian bands be
provided with substantial funding to
enable economic development. It also
recommends that sufficient funds be
provided to enable Indian nations to
build up their community infrastructure (e.g. roads, schools, housing,
water, sewer, etc.). The present level
of development in many Indian communities suggests that it will take
many years and much money to provide these communities with basic services at a level comparable to most
while communities. The Committee
suggests using the $345 million Native
Economic Development
Fund to
establish a special development bank
�How are the Crown's trust responsibilities secured in all this?
under Indian control for this purpose.
How would Indian lands and
resources be protected and claims
settled?
Each Indian nation would have full
control of its own lands. This would
include the power to decide upon
methods of land holding and land
management on reserves. The Committee recommends that the federal
gov~rnment institute changes to the
Canadian Constitution to recognize
Indian rights to lands, waters and
resources in all areas now or in the
future considered Indian lands.
In the meantime, the Committee
recommends that an official Registry
oflndian First Nation lands be set up.
It would record all lands under the
control of Indian nations, as distinct
from federal or provincial lands.
As to Indian rights in other lands
based on treaties or aboriginal title to
traditional . hunting and trapping
areas, the Committee seems to recommend recognition of these rights. It advocates joint control of these lands and
allowing Indian governments to share
in decision making on actions affecting
these lands and resources. The Committee also suggests resource revenue
sharing with Indian governments to
enable the Indian nations to become
self-sufficient.
The Committee recommends that
the federal government give high
priority to providing a land base for
those Indian
communities
now
without a reserve . It also says the
federal government should give priority to fulfillment of land entitlements
and settlement
of other claimns
through a just and effective land
claims process.
They recommend that a new claim
settlement process be decided through
bi-lateral negotiations with the federal
government and set out in legislation.
A new claims settlement process
should be shielded from political intervention. It should be set out in
legislation so that it cannot be readily
changed. Claims should be negotiated
between the government and the claimant with a neutral party to facilitate
the settlement. Where a settlement
cannot be reached, there should be access to a quasi-judicial process. For Indian governments to participate effectively in claims negotiations, they
must have adequate financial support,
the Committee says.
Pre-Confederation
treaties and
other rights should be recognized and
claims should not be regarded as
superceded by law. The Committee
also recommends
that settlement
agreements be limited to those matters
specifically negotiated and that the
doctrine
of extinguishment
be
eliminated from settlement of claims .
The Committee's
report on the
trust relationship between the federal
crown and the Indian nations begins
with this question:
Does the existence of a trust imply
that Indian people are like children
or wards of the state, or does the
concept refer to solemn promises
between nations that must be hon ored?
While rejecting the view that Indian
nations or peoples are wards of the
state, the Committee does agree that
in the past the Qrown's trust responsibilities have been honored more in
the breach than in being fulfilled. The
Committee therefore says that a new
approach to this relations is needed.
In the renewed relationship proposed by the Committee, the old distorted
paternalistic notions of protection of
Indian people and nations would be
discarded. In the new era, the federal
government's primary responsibility
would be to promote self-government
in a manner that reflects the rights and
interests of the Indian First Nations,
the Committee says.
The report sets out five basic
elements of the new trust relationship
put forward by the Committee:
1. recognition of Indian First Nation
governments with powers and jurisdiction appropriate to a distinct
order of government within the
Canadian Federation;
2. Fiscal arranagements suited to selfgoverning entities;
3. A secure economic base , including
land, water and resource rights,
which, together with educational
and community services appropriate to modern society would
strengthen the culture and economy of First Nations;
4. Economic settlement of claims to
restore capital trust accounts resources and lands to the First Nations;
5. Legally enforceable agreements
between the federal government
and the First Nations to implement the arrangements.
Together, these elements make up the
Committee ' s central proposal for Indian self-government.
The trust responsibility
of the
federal government would therefore be
to recognize the right of First Nations
to self-government and to provide the
resources to make this goal possible.
The Committee says federal duties
and responsibilities should be defined
in the Constitution and in legislation
�so that they are legally enforceable.
Certairi other protections are also to
be set up to fulfill the Crown's trust
responsibilities.
The Ministry of State for Indian
First Nations Relations should be
responsible for advocating and protecting Indian interests against competing interests, even where e_ncroaching interests are those of the
federal government.
The Committee also suggests an independent officer like an ombudsman
to monitor the governmental actions
affecting Indians and their rights. This
officer would report directly to Parliament. It is also recommended that
federal funding be made available to
set up an advocacy office under Indian
control. Funds should also be provided to allow this office to represent the
interests of Indian nations in legal
disputes affecting their rights.
Indian revenue trust funds should
be transferred from the Department to
each Indian nation for administration
by its government. Capital monies
should go to a trust management
system set up by the nation to be used
for the use and benefit of the people.
Once funds are transferred,
the
Minister of Indian Affairs would be
relieved of any future responsibility for
their management. Claims could still
be made, however, for mismanagement occuring before funds were
transferred.
Once funds are transferred and Indian governments set up and provided with adequate resources and secure
fiscal arranagements,
the Crown's
trust responsibility will be fulfilled
through its Ministry of State, the
monitoring agency and an advocacy
office funded by the government.
None of these agencies can effectively protect or advocate Indian interests
until treaty and aboriginal rights more
fully identified and defined, however.
Until this is accomplished, existing
legal principles and case law will continue to erode Indian rights.
financial arranagements and transfer
payments are to be made to provide
funds for services such as education
and health care. These funds would be
used to provide such services directly
by the government of the Indian nation according to its own priorities.
Achievement of self-government itself
would ultimately be fulfillment of the
most basic of all aboriginal and treaty
rights.
Where does all this put treaty
rights?
What if bands want to stay with
the Indian Act and Indian Affairs or try new ideas for awhile?
Treaty and aboriginal rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. They have yet to be fully identified and defined, however. The
Committee recommends that the right
of Indian nations to self-government
be one of these rights entrenched in the
Constitution.
Many bands may see Indian selfgovernment as ultimately denying
them their treaty rights. Once an Indian government attains sufficient
resources and becomes self-sufficient,
it will be expected to use its own
resources to provide services such as
education and health care to its people. These services are considered by
many to .be treaty rights owed by the
Crown to Indian people in return for
surrendering their land years ago.
The Committee's report does not
deal directly with this question.
Although claim settlements may be
difficult to ever achieve, the Committee does recommend joint control and
recognition of hunting and fishing
rights as well as resource revenue sharing over traditional areas surrendered
under treaty. Long term entrenched
Federation of Saskatchewan
Indian Nations
Spring
Legislative
AsseDlbly
\.
Although the Committee suggests
that Indian Affairs be phased out
within five years, they give no basis for
this time projection. Bands wishing to
institute self-government must apply
for recognition. It should not be forced upon them before they are ready.
Bands wishing to stay under the Indian Act system may assumably do so.
There is no suggestion in the report
that the Indian Act be repealed in the
near future .
Realistically as well, it is difficult to
see how Indian self-government can be
fully implemented and Indian Affairs ·
abolished in five years time. It has
taken over a hundred years to build up
the present system. It should be apparent that a carefully planned transition period is essential if Indian selfgovernment is ever to become a reality in Canada. It would be the ultimate
breach of the Crown's trust responsibility to simply dump responsibility
for self-government on bands not yet
ready for ·it after years of forced
dependencyd at the hands of the
federal government and DIAND.
Federation of Saskatchewan
Indian Nations
EconoDlic
DevelopDlent
Conference
May 7 - 10, 1984
June 4 - 7, 1984
Hotel Saskatchewan
Sinco Centre
Regina, Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
�Technical Status on the Horizon for SICC
TECHNICAL STATUS ON THE
HORIZON FOR SICC ........
.
At the recent Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations meeting in
January, the Saskatchewan Indian
Community College (SICC) made a
presentation regarding their bid for
educ\ltional status as a technical institute. Further meetings and presentations are planned to pursue this important development. The change in
status from community college to
technical institute has been brought
about by the increased accredited
technical courses offered by SICC.
This development is part of the ongoing philosophy of the college to provide Indian people with the appropriate skills to secure employment
in the labour market, while at the
same time offering training programs
that are relevant to individual and
community needs.
However, the road of progress has
not been an easy one for the community college. In the fall of 1982 the college was in a crisis situation, and
almost forced to close down. Serious
management and financial problems
were cited as causing a lack of
credibility with the .federal and provincial governments and their suppliers.
"One of the weaknesses the college
had at that time is that most of our
skills and trades programs had not
been accredited through the provincial
institutes and so we had been giving
people certificates
that weren't
marketable
at all,''
states Ray
Ahenakew, SICC president.
With the challenge faced, the board
of directors and president, decided to
initiate a dynamic organizational
development effort designed to increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of the Saskatchewan Indian Community College.
Ahenakew speaks bluntly of the
results of that retrospective assessment, "We were doing more harm to
our people than good. Changes were
needed in SICC's programming and
delivery."
In 1983, aided by $3. 5 million in
contracts from the federal and provincial agencies, Ahenakew and staff initiated educational programs intended to turn SICC into a sound institute.
"A top ranked institute," points out
Ahenakew.
SICC training needs assessment
had to be tied to provincial and onreserve labour demand and supply.
Priority must be given to courses
developed in response to labour
demands of the on-reserve economy.
Especially in the construction trades,
because housing is the major source of
economic activity on the reserves, and
at present the majority of work is being contracted out, due to the lack of
qualified Indian contractors. And that
priority in adult basic education
courses be given to students who have
clearly identified vocational goals.
At present the community college
through the Saskatchewan Training
Institute Plan is offering a series of accredited courses at satellite training
centres throughout
Saskatchewan.
These are on-reserve programs using
technical institute instructors and curriculum, providing joint certification
by the Department of Education and
the Saskatchewan Indian Community College to Indian students.
These programs were made possible by the committment of $800,000
by Canada Employment and Immigration Canada for the setting up
of five regional training centres. Those
courses currel\tly
underway
are
recreation technology at Fort Qu'Appelle, a welding course at Y orkton, an
industrial mechanics program in Shellbrook, health sciences in North Battleford and a business- administration
program in Prince Albert. The plan
being to expand the satellite colleges
to include a library technicians program in Saskatoon and to incorporate
the Prince Albert business college's office administration program, both by
the fall of 1'984.
SICC is also offering adult basic
education at the grade 8-12 levels,
allowing individuals to obtain the required academic pursuits necessary for
enrollment in a technical or vocational
course. Through the skills and trades
program fully accredited courses are
being delivered by means of affiliation
or contractual agreements with the
provincial technical institutes.
To meet the future needs of Indian
people, SICC has recognized that due
to the increasing complexity of Indian
local government, staff in these organizations are to be provided with the appropriate management and administrative skills.
To accommodate this demand the
Prince Albert business college was
purchased. Now Indian people will be
able to receive through the satellite colleges accredited training in the areas
of word and data processing, as well
as in conventional secretarial and
receptionist skills.
Furthermore it has been proposed
that the Saskatchewan
Indian
Management Training Institute be
established . Its' function would be to
assist band councils to assess their
management
systems and overall
organizational needs. Plus refine existing training packages and develop
additional packages in newly defined
areas.
�SICC and Manpower
staff at important
satellite college agreement
Federated College
Introduction
Since 1976, the major emphasis of the
Saskatchewan Indian Federated College has been to provide effective profession<;ti training programs at the
university level for Indian people. The
major reason for this is the demand for
trained professionals by all levels of
Band Governments to carry forth their
mandate in the years ahead.
The importance of the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College to
Indian people is unparralled by no
other institution . As the situation dictates, the College will continue to
develop quality programs to serve Indian communities. The present degree
offerings are unique in Canada and
are not offered by any other university in North America.
Since 1976, the College has
graduated well over 200 students. The
enrollment increase since the fall of
1980 has been approximately 44. 4 % .
The College also strives to serve the
Indian people by liste:r1ingto problems
and concerns. Planning of_programs
takes
into
consideration
the
possibilities of success in Indian communities. Research and development
operations are being phased in to
create an improved education delivery
system and to seek alternative methods
to help band governments.
New Organizational Structure
In 1983, the Board of Directors of the
Saskatchewan Indian Federated College unanimously passed ·a motion to
change the organizational structure.
The main purpose was to reflect the
College's increasing role as a major
educational institution in Canada. As
signing.
Already a pilot project at Montreal
Lake has been conducted. Training
packages in project management,
financial management and public administration have been designed and
delivered. Based upon the success of
the Montreal Lake pilot project, it has
been proposed that evaluations of
systems for four additional b~nd councils be undertaken.
According to Ray Ahenakew, his
goal for the college over the next few
years is simply stated, "I'm looking
to see more and more people graduate.
More and more people with the training and attitude to make it in whatever
endeavour they undertake. I'm looking for people success .''
Report
a result, degree offering programs
became departments, several positions
were reclassified and additional areas
of concentration were added.
The executive structure now consists of a College president assisted by
three vice-presidents,
one vicepresident
of administration,
an
academic vice-president and a vicepresident in charge of research and
development. The Board of Directors
was also expanded to include one
representative for the Province, Indian
Affairs, the University of Regina and
the University of Saskatchewan in addition to one member from each of the
districts and agency.
New Degree Programs
Several programs have been added
in addition to programs presently
available through the Saskatchewan
Indian Federated College. In May of
1983, a two-year certificate program
in Indian Communication Arts was
approved by the University of Regina.
This program studies the mass media
with emphasis on Indian media. Joel
Demay, who was recently appointed
department head, indicates that plans
are underway to have available a fouryear advanced degree program by
September of 1986 .
In November of 1983, a certificate
program in Indian Career and Community Counselling was approved.
The general objective of this program
is to develop skills in the field of
counselling and career guidance. This
program is available through the
Department of Indian Education and
successful candidates can be accepted
. . . by Louis Oakes
for credit in the Bachelor of Education
(Elementary) program.
A Bachelor of Arts in Indian
Languages will be available in the immediate future. A recent proposal to
offer a degree in Indian Languages is
in the process of approval from the
University of Regina.
The Department of Indian Studies
now offers both a regular three-year
Bachelor of Arts and a four-year Advanced Bachelor of Arts degree with
a major in Indian Studies. The department has also recently submitted 15
new Indian Studies classes to the
University of Regina for approval.
This brings the total class offerings to
twenty-eight.
The College continues to research
other areas relevant to Indian people
so that programs such as Indian Law,
Indian Nursing and Indian Performance Arts can be made available in
the near future.
International Issues
In 1983 the Saskatchewan Indian
Federated College opened up an International Affa,irs office. The objectives of this office includes the sharing
of information with other Indian institutions , to develop projects directed
to the protection of Indian rights in the
field of education and to pursue the exchange of material and human resources. As a result of these relationships,
agreements have been made with the
Indigenous
Institute
of Temuco
(Chile), the South American Indian
Council, the Central Institute of Nationalities in Peking (China), and also
with the College of Ganado situated on
the Navajo Reservation in Arizona.
�Grand Entry at the 6th Annual SIFC Pow-wow.
-Photo Credit: The Leader Post
CULTURAL WEEK ACTIVITIES
The College enjoyed another sucThe panel ofspeakers includedjim
cessful Cultural Week in Regina on
Sinclair, Metis National Council, Ian
March 12-18, 1984. In total more than
Cowie, Deputy Minister of Indian and
12,000 people participated in the
Native Affairs, Province of Saskatweek-long activities.
chewan, and Senator John Tootoosis
from the Federation of Saskatchewan
Traditionally,
Cuitural
Week
Indian Nations. Blair Stonechild,
started with a Tipi raising ceremony
Head, Department of Indian Studies,
by Elder Consultantjim
Ryder, who
was the moderator.
set up his tipi on the University of
Regina Campus. Noon-hour performances included Franklin Carrier,
Other activities included children's
King Trapper of the Prince Albert
activities held at Connaught School,
Division I to Division III students
Winter Festival, who entertained the
were entertained by Franklin Carrier
audience with animal and bird calls
and Rev. Adam Cuthand. A film
and some fancy northern jigging, Bill
festival was held at the Museum of
Brittain, hoop dancer, was also on
hand to welcome the Shan Dong
Natural History, open to high school
Acrobats from China and a Speakers
students, and a film night at the
Forum was held to discuss "InEducation/Auditorium,
University of
Regina. One other major activity
digenous Peoples and the Canadian
Constitution''.
w~ich was quite successful included
the 1st Annual Lady Pumas Basketball Tournament. Teams included the
Lady Pumas, Saskatchewan Indian
Federated College, Fort Yates, Oglala
Lakota and Fort Belknap Community Colleges. In the final game of the
tournament, Oglala Lakota defeated
Fort Belknap 71-49 to take third place,
while the Lady Pumas outscored Fort
Yates 68-64 to take the championship
game.
As expected,
the 6th Annual
Cultural Week Pow-Wow held during
the week-end was very successful and
attracted people from as far away as
Washington,
Iowa and Ontario,
Canada. In total, there were 26 drums
and approximately 330 dancers.
�In addition, the College is seeking
membership with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC) which is an association of 18
Indian-controlled
colleges in the
United States. Membership would
enable the College to gain ideas from
established institutions in the field of
education. Membership is also being
pursued with the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada
(AUCC) which will strengthen the
College's role as a major institution in
the Canadian education system. A
delegation .of AUCC members will be
visiting the College to meet with College personnel and view its operations.
Field Services
Field Services has also played a vital
role in the dessemination of information to band governments and Indian/federally-controlled high schools.
In 1983, two field workers were hired
to provide a link between the College
and the communities it serves. Other
responsibilities of the field workers include counselling of students, speaking to school officials on College programs and general promotion to band
governments. Requests for visitations
may be requested through Sharon
Carrier, Director of Student Services.
Athletic Programs
The College recognizes the need for
"total" student development. Because
of this need, an Athletic Program was
initiated and a ladies basketball team
was organized. The team played exhibition games in the Prairie Athletic
Conference (PAC) and had a ten win
and three loss record. The Lady
Pumas also played in several tournaments in Canada and in the United
States. This has been an exciting start
for the College's Athletic Program. In
the immediate future, College teams
(both male and female) will compete
in other sports at the provincial and
international level.
SIFC Lady Pumas - 1984 Champions of the 1st Annual Pumas Prairie Basketball Classic, coached by Wes Stevenson.
-Photo: L. Oakes
For more information on College Programs or services, contact
us at our new address below:
Information Officer
SaskatchewanIndian Federated.College
12 7 College West
University of Regina
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4S OA2
(this move was in effect as of December
1, 1983)
SASKATCHEWAN INDIAN
FEDERATED COLLEGE
SUMMER INSTITUTE
IN MANAGEMENT
AND ADMINISTRATION
The
Saskatchewan
Indian
Federated College through its Department of Indian Management and Administration
will be presenting a
3-week Summer Institute in Management and Administration during the
period July 31 to August 17, 1984.
Designed for individuals employed
as Band Administrators,
Program
Managers, Senior Band Staff, and
employees of Government Agencies
providing services to Indian Governments, the Institute will provide participants an opportunity to develop
selected competencies to further their
professional development
as Administrators and Managers.
Participants will develop through
active involvement, Administrative
and Managerial
competencies required to. actively participate in:
- Developing Indian Government Administrative Structures
- Managing Human Resources m
Organizations
- Managing Financial Resources
In addition, participants will receive
"hands-on" experience in Writing for
Business Purposes and Using Computers
in
Management
and
Administration.
Individuals wishing to apply for
enrollment in this Summer Institute
should have at least completed a
Grade X academic standing supplemented by 2 or more years of work
experience in a related field. Enrollment is open to applicants from across
Canada but will be limited to a maximum of 25 participants.
Tuition for the Sum~er Institute is
$750 per participant.
Room and Board plus Travel costs
are the responsibility of the individual
participant
and the sponsoring
organizations. Assistance in arranging
accommodations will be provided by
the College.
Deadline for the receipt of applications for the 1984 Summer Institute is
June 21 , 1984.
Further information may be obtained from:
The
Department
of Indian
Management
& Administration,
Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, University of Regina, College
West 127, Regina, Saskatchewan. S4S
0A2 (phone 306-584-8333)
�Ladies' Fancy
First - Josephine Kaysaywaysemat,
Broadview, Saskatchewan; second Claudia Adams, Poplar, Montana;
third - Irene Goodwill, Fort Qu' Appelle, Saskatchewan; fourth - Grace
Her Many Horses, Rosebud, South
Dakota
Boys' Traditional
First - Stanley Asapace, Quinton,
Saskatchewan;
second - Barclay
McNabb, Punnichy, Saskatchewan;
third - Wendell Froman, Ohsweken,
Ontario
Boys' Fancy
Grand Entry flag bearers - front (1-r) Micheal Laliberte, John Sheepskin, Bob
Boyer, back (1-r) Dennis Acoose, Boye Ladd, Del Anaquod.
-Photo Credit: Carole Tierney
SASKATCHEWAN INDIAN
FED ERA TED COLLEGE
6th Annual .Cultural Week '
Pow-wow Competition Results
Men's Golden Age
First - Walter Bull, Cut Knife, Saskatchewan; second - John Sheepskin,
Regina, Saskatchewan; third - Pat
Adams, Brockton, Montana
Ladies' Golden Age
First - Ruth Bull, Cut Knife, Saskatchewan;
second - Betty Bear,
Gallivan,
Saskatchewan;
third ·Celina Wijunta, Fort Qu'Appelle,
Saskatchewan
Ladies' Traditional
First - Edith Adams, Poplar, Montana; second - Brenda Lightning,
Wetaskiwin, Alberta; third - Vera ·
Morrisseau, Sioux Valley, Manitoba;
foui·th - Hazel Ahenakew, Canwood,
Saskatchewan
First - Frank Merasty, Tweedsmuir,
Saskatchewan; second - Kerry Goodwill, Fort Qu' Appelle, Saskatchewan;
third - Cory Alexson, Broadview,
Saskatchewan
Girls' Traditional
First - Kisa Pisim Ahenakew, Canwood, Saskatchewan; second - Gina
Lavallee, Broadview, Saskatchewan;
third - Patrice Adams, Brockton,
Montana
Girls' Fancy
First - Lisa Ewack, Carlyle, Saskatchewan; second - Diana Red Elk,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota;
third Suzette
Bull, · Cut
Knife,
Saskatchewan
Men's Traditional
First - Kipp Whitecloud, Poplar,
Montana; second - Austin Kay, Quinton, Saskatchewan; third - Brooks
Goodiron, Mandaree, North Dakota
Men's Grass Dance
First - Gerald Baptiste, Cando,
Saskatchewan; second - Wade Baker,
New Town, North Dakota; third Willis Packineau, New Town, North
Dakota; fourth - Harvey Yuzicappi,
Fort Qu' Appelle, Saskatchewan
Men's Fancy
First - Duke Dionne, Wolf Point,
Montana; second - Byron Goodwill,
Fort Qu'Appe~, Saskatchewan; third
- Ap.drew Mecas, Waywayseecappo,
Manitoba; fourth - Ron McNab, Punnichy, Saskatchewan
Franklin Carrier, King Trapper of the Prince Albert Winter Festival entertains
during Cultural Week's children's activities.
-Photo: Carole Tierney
�Constitutional
Accord on Aboriginal Rights
Whereas pursuant to section 3 7 of the Constitution
Act,
1982, a constitutional conference composed of the Prime
Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces
was held on March 15 and 16, 1983, to which representatives
of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and elected representatives
of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest
Territories were invited ;
And whereas it was agreed at that conference that certain
amendments to the Constitution Act, 1982 would be sought
in accordance with section 38 of that Act;
And whereas that conference had included in its agenda
the following matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples
of Canada:
AGENDA
1. Charter of Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples ( expanded Part
II) including:
• Preamble
• Removal of '' Existing'', and expansion of Section 35
to include recognition of modern treaties , treaties signed outside Canada and before Confederation,
and
specific mention of '' Aboriginal Title '' including the
rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada to a land and
water base (including land base for the Metis)
• Statement of the particular rights of aboriginal peoples
• Statement of principles
• Equality
• Enforcement
• Interpretation
2. Amending formula revisions, including:
• Amendments on aboriginal matters not to be subject to
provincial opting out (Section 42)
• Consent clause,
3. Self-government
4. Repeal of Section 4 2( 1)( e) and ( f)
5. Amendments to Part III, including:
• Equalization
)
• Cost-sharing
) Resourcing of
• Service delivery ) aboriginal governments
6. Ongoing process, including further first ministers conferences and thf entrenchment
of necessary mechanisms to implement rights
And whereas that conference was· unable to complete its
full consideration of all the agenda items;
And whereas it was agreed at that conference that future
conferences be held at which those agenda items and other
constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples
of Canada will be discussed;
NOW THEREFORE
the Government of Canada and the
provincial governments hereby agree as follows:
1. A constitutional
conference composed of the Prime
Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada
within one year after the completion of the constitutional
conference held on March 15 and 16, 1983.
2. The conference convened under subsection ( 1) shall have
included in its agenda those items that were not fully considered at the conference held on March 15 and 16, 1983 ,
and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite respresentatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate
in the discussions on those items.
3. The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected
representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory
and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of the conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime
Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
4. The Prime Minister of Canada will lay or cause to be laid
before the Senate and House of Commons, and the first
ministers of the provinces will lay or cause to be laid before
their legislative assemblies, prior to December 31, 1983,
a resolution in the form set out in the Schedule to authorize
a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General under
the Great Seal of Canada to amend the Constitution Act,
1982.
5. In preparation for the cons ti tu tional conferences contemplated by this Accord, meetings composed of ministers
of the governments of Canada and the provinces, together
with representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada
and elected representatives
of the governments of the
Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, shall be
convened at least annually by the government of Canada.
6. Nothing in this Accord is intended to preclude , or
substitute for, any bilateral or other discussions or
agreements between governments and the various aboriginal peoples and, in particular, having regard to the
authority of Parliament under Class 24 of section 91 of
the Constitution Act, 1867, and to the special relationship that has existed and continues to exist between the
Parliament and government of Canada and the peoples
referred to in that Class, this Accord is made without prejudice to any bilateral process that has been or may be
established between the government of Canada and those
peoples.
7. Nothing in this Accord shall be construed so as to affect
the interpretation of the Constitution of Canada.
�Reunion '84
Qu' Appelle Indian Residential School
''Celebrating 100 Years''
August 6-12, 1984
ATTENTION
All Ex-Graduates
- former students
- former Staff, Teachers & Supervisors
Doris Bellegarde
or Anita McLeod
Qu'Appelle Indian
Residential School
Lebret, Sask. SOG 2YO
Phone: 332-5628
Vern Bellegarde
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask.
Phone: 332-5664
,..
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Saskatchewan Indian Magazine
Subject
The topic of the resource
First Nations--Saskatchewan--Periodicals
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1970/2011
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
PDF
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Saskatchewan
1970/2011
Description
An account of the resource
The <em>Saskatchewan Indian</em> was the official publication of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and served as an effective communication vehicle for the First Nations in the province of Saskatchewan between 1970-2011. It provided coverage of people, issues and events both entertaining and informative throughout First Nation communities. The magazine was distributed to all First Nation communities in Saskatchewan and to all First Nation groups, organizations and institutions throughout the duration of its publication.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Saskatchewan Indigenous Cultural Centre<br />#305 - 2555 Grasswood Road East<br />Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7T-0K1<br /><br />Phone: (306) 244-1146<br />Email: library.services@sicc.sk.ca<br />Website: <a href="https://www.sicc.sk.ca/" target="_blank" title="Saskatchewan Indigenous Cultural Centre" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.sicc.sk.ca/</a>
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Magazine
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Saskatchewan Indian, Special Edition (April/May 1984)
Subject
The topic of the resource
First Nations--Saskatchewan--Periodicals
Description
An account of the resource
Contents:
Background To The Constitutional Struggle
A series of First Minister's Conferences addressing Aboriginal issues were set in motion following the creation of a made in Canada constitution.
By: Saskatchewan Indian
Treaties And Treaty Rights
By: Delia Opekokew
Proposed 1984 Constitutional Accord On The Rights Of The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada
By: Saskatchewan Indian
The Impact Of The Penner Report
The following item was prepared by the Law firm of Soonias and Pennington for the FSIN. The report provides answers to various questions, that were addressed to the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Self- Government.
By: Law Firm of Soonias and Pennington
Technical Status On The Horizon For SICC
At the recent Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations meeting in January, the Saskatchewan Indian Community College (SICC) made a presentation regarding their bid for educational status as a technical institute.
By: Saskatchewan Indian
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1984-04/1984-05
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
Opekokew, Delia
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Saskatchewan
1984-04/1984-05