Post on 01-Jun-2018
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
1/53
Federal Comprehensive
Claims Policy vs.Recognition of Aboriginal
Title & Rights
ABORIGINAL PUBLIC LECTURECARLETON UNIVERSITY
FEBRUARY 5, 2015
BY RUSSELL DIABO
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
2/53
Chretién and Trudeau2
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
3/53
1969 White Paper on Indian
Policy
3
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
4/53
1969 White Paper Proposals
Eliminate Indian Status.
Dissolve the Department of Indian Affairs within 5years.
Abolish the Indian Act & remove section 91.24.
Convert reserve land to private property that canbe sold by the band or its members.
Transfer responsibility for Indian Affairs from the
federal government to the province and integratethese services into those provided to otherCanadian citizens.
Provide funding for economic development.
Appoint a commissioner to address outstanding
land claims and gradually terminate existing Treaties.
4
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
5/53
Frank Calder5
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
6/53
Background to CCP
The first time the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)ruled on Aboriginal title in Canada was 42 years
ago (1973), in the Ca ld e r c a se . The Nisga’a Tribe lost the Calder case.
The Court ruled in favor of Aboriginal title; but thebench was split on whether Aboriginal title was
extinguished – three for, and three against
The 7th ruled against the Nisga’a on atechnicality.
6
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
7/53
1973 Statement of Policy
The federal government responded to theCa ld er d ec isio n b y wa y o f a “sta tem ent o f
po l i cy ”, issued by the then Minister of IndianAffairs, J ean Chretien.
The federal policy was to negotiate three typesof claims; 1) Comprehensive C laims, 2) SpecificClaims, and 3) Claims of another nature.
7
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
8/53
Evolution of CCP
Over the years, the 1973 “sta tem ent o f p o lic y ”has undergone a number of changes, the
biggest of which involved separatingComprehensive C laims and Specific Claims intodiscrete policies with additional definition.
The original statement on Comprehensive Claimswas amended in 1981 when Canada released“In A ll Fa irne ss ”.
8
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
9/53
McKnight and Mulroney
Minister of IndianAffairs Prime Minister
9
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
10/53
1985 Coolican Report
Early in 1985, David Crombie, then Minister ofIndian Affairs and Northern Development, put
reform of the Comprehensive land claims policyon his political agenda, he announced theappointment of a five-person task force, headedby Murray Coolican, to: "review all aspects of thecurrent comprehensive claims policy and makerecommendations as to future policy”.
10
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
11/53
1985 Coolican Report (cont’d) Recommended 4 main principles: (1) recognition
and affirmation of Aboriginal rights; (2) negotiationof Aboriginal self-government; (3) shared Aboriginal
government responsibility for land and resourcesmanagement and (4) third party interests be treatedfairly.
Also recommends shift from cash and land deals,
and broadening of the land claims policy to permitnegotiation of economic, social, political andcultural issues. It recommended that rather thanextinguish Aboriginal rights, land claims settlementsshould affirm them.
11
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
12/53
1986 CCP
In response to the Coolican Report this policywas changed again in 1986, and renamed the“Comprehensive Land Claims Policy”(emphasis
added). The word “Land” was added to clarifythat from the federal government’s perspective,“self-government” was a separate issue to benegotiated in accordance with the federal 1985Community-Based Self-Government Policy.
The 1986 Comprehensive Land Claims Policy hasessentially remained in effect as the federalnegotiation position regarding Aboriginal title upto today, except “extinguishment” has beenreplaced with the notion of “certainty”, as well
as some changes to the process.
12
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
13/53
1990 Mulroney’s Post-OkaFour Pillars Policy
Accelerating settlement of Land claims;
Improving the economic and social conditions
on Reserves; Strengthening the relationships between
Aboriginal Peoples’ and governments;
Examining the concerns of Canada’s Aboriginal
Peoples’ in contemporary Canadian life.
13
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
14/53
RCAP ReportWith regard to new treaties and agreements, the
Commission recommends that
2.2.6 The federal government establish a process for
making new treaties to replace the existingcomprehensive claims policy, based on thefollowing principles:
.
14
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
15/53
RCAP (c o n t ’ d )
(a) The blanket extinguishment of Aboriginal landrights is not an option.
(b) Recognition of rights of governance is anintegral component of new treaty relationships.
(c) The treaty-making process is available to allAboriginal nations, including Indian, Inuit andMétis nations.
(d) Treaty nations that are parties to peace andfriendship treaties that did not purport to addressland and resource issues have access to thetreaty-making process to complete their treaty
relationships with the Crown
15
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
16/53
RCAP (c o n t ’ d )
In relation to all treaties, the Commissionrecommends that
2.2.11 The following matters be open for discussion in
treaty implementation and renewal and treaty-making processes:
governance, including justice systems, long termfinancial arrangements including fiscal transfersand other intergovernmental arrangements;
16
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
17/53
RCAP (c o n t ’ d )
lands and resources;
economic rights, including treaty annuities and
hunting, fishing and trapping rights;
issues included in specific treaties (for example,education, health and taxation); and
other issues relevant to treaty relationshipsidentified by either treaty party.
17
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
18/53
1997De lgamuukw Decision The Supreme Court concluded that Aboriginal title is
a real property right, which enjoys constitutionalrecognition and protection via s.35 of the
Constitu t io n Ac t, 1982.
It he ld that, where Aboriginal title exists, and where ithas been infringed, the Crown must justify itsinfringement and reconcile its assertion of Crown title
with Aboriginal title. The Court identified two steps inthe justification test: (1) claimant proves infringement;and (2) Crown proves justified with fiduciary duty.
18
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
19/53
1997De lgamuukw Decision Justification Test – consistent with fiduciary duty:
Consultation
Compensation - acknowledging the valueinherent in Aboriginal title lands and resources,the Court indicated that diminished rights wouldnormally require “valuable consideration”.
Surrender/extinguishment of Aboriginal title - onlyrequired when extreme measures are proposedby the First Nation, ones which would sever theconnection between future generations and theland.
19
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
20/53
1997De lgamuukw Decision (cont”d)
In De lgamuukw, the Supreme Court of Canadaelaborated on nature of Aboriginal title:
The right to exclusive use and occupation of theland.
The right to choose to what uses the land can beput, subject to the ultimate limit that those usescannot destroy the ability of the land to sustainfuture generations of Aboriginal peoples.
Lands held pursuant to Aboriginal title have aninescapable economic component.
20
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
21/53
1997De lgamuukw Decision (cont”d)Reconciliation:
In short, the Supreme Court of Canada has
recognized that Aboriginal title is a real propertyright, and that has a value. The Court has alsorecognized that othergovernments must justifyany infringement of that property right, andreconcile the assertion of Crown title with thereality of Aboriginal title.
21
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
22/53
CCP inconsistencies with De lgamuukw
CCP sayscompensation is available, butnot part of the actual negotiations
because the Crown takes the positionthat negotiations should be future lookingand not focus on compensation for pastinfringements.
Yet, the April 28, 2000 Sta tem ent o n
C e rta in ty Princ ip le s speaks to reconcilingpast infringements. Ironically,compensation is payable to third parties.
To add insult to injury, First Nations areasked to release the Crown from any
future claims to compensation.
22
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
23/53
CCP inconsistencies with De lgamuukw
The CCP alternatives to extinguishment, arestill forced and are not “recognition and
affirmation” i.e.,: certainty and finality;
modified and released; and
Non-assertion of rights.
23
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
24/53
CCP inconsistencies with De lgamuukw
The federal treaty model/templaterequires that settlement lands becomefee simple lands and no longer under the
jurisdiction of the federal governmentpursuant to section 91(24) by providingthat upon the coming into force of thetreaty, “there will be no more landsreserved for the Indians within the
meaning of the Constitution Act, 1867”.
24
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
25/53
CCP inconsistencies with De lgamuukw
Other inconsistencies with Principles ofFiduciary Duty, Honour of the Crown and
Reconciliation: Loan funding to negotiate, while
development on title lands is ongoing;
Forced elimination of tax exemption/immunity;
OSR – own source revenues affect programand services funding levels
25
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
26/53
UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples Article 3 & 4 – IP have right to self-determination
and self-government; Article 10 – IP have right not to be forcibly
removal from their lands; Articles 25 &26 – IP have rights to their traditional
lands and requires states to give recognition andprotection;
Article 27 & 28 – States shall establish fair andindependent processes to adjudicate rights, andIP have right to redress and compensation
26
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
27/53
Previous Efforts at CCP Reform
Coolican - 1985 Task Force on Comprehensive Claimsknown as the Coolican Report met with limited successbut failed to obtain removal of extinguishment ofAboriginal Title. The 1986 CCP merely changed thewording from extinguishment to “certainty”. The intentremained the same eliminate Aboriginal Title.
DISC - 1999-2000 AFN De lgamuukw Implementation
Strategic Committee (DISC). The federal response waswhy change he CCP if First Nations are ready tonegotiate under the existing CCP.
27
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
28/53
Previous Efforts at CCP Reform
DISC – Six point strategy:
1. Public education,
2. Political negotiation/pre-litigation strategy,
3. Litigation,
4. Policy development,
5. Direct action/exercise of Aboriginal rights, and
6. International campaign
28
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
29/53
Previous Efforts at CCP Reform
AFN Recognition & Implementation of First NationGovernment Committee – ConfederacyResolution May 2004 in Regina:
Post- FNGA; RIFNG Committee Report March 2005 – identified
need for policy reform in 5 areas:1. Comprehensive Claims Policy,
2. Treaty Implementation,3. Inherent Right of Self-Government,4. Specific Claims, and5. Code of Conduct for Honour of the Crown
29
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
30/53
Previous Efforts at CCP ReformRIFNG (cont’d)
Under PM Paul Martin’s Roundtable process –towards “transformative” reform;
Cabinet Retreat – May 31, 2005 First Nation-Federal Crown Accord Political
Accord on RIFNG signed – provided forrecognition and implementation approach in jointaction and cooperation on policy change in
areas identified in RIFNG Report Change of government and Harper government
refused to honour RIFNG Accord
30
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
31/53
Previous Efforts at CCP Reform
Common Table: in 2007 process established underBCTC to address common (policy) obstacles to
progress 6 key topics identified:
1. Recognition/certainty,
2. Constitutional status of lands,
3. Governance,4. Co-Management of Traditional Territory,
5. Fiscal Relations, ie., OSR and Taxation, and
6. Fisheries
31
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
32/53
Previous Efforts at CCP Reform
Federal Response: mainly negative
1. Insist on certainty, no to recognition, stay withexisting models, but willing to explore wording;
2. Constitutional status of lands – not willing tochange federal mandates;
3. Governance – concurrent law model andharmoniozation, not exclusive FN jurisdiction,
4. Co-management – area and resourcespecific solutions, third party interests need tobe balanced;
5. Fiscal relations, ie., OSR and taxation – nochange
6. Fisheries – no but will explore fish arrangements
32
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
33/53
Previous Efforts at CCP Reform
BC Response: less negative – two avenues:
1. Re certainty, recognition, andconstitutional status of lands –complicated, more study required notwilling to change federal mandates;
2. Re governance, co-management,fiscal relations, ie., revenue sharing andtaxation, fisheries – address in specificnegotiations at individual tables
33
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
34/53
Federal Results Based
Assessment – Sept. 4, 2012
Assess acceptance of Harper government’score negotiating ComprehensiveClaims/Self-Government mandatesanddesired results, which are comprised of thefollowing key tenets:
Ac c ep t the ex t ingu ishm ent (m od ific a tion )
o f Ab o rig ina l Title;
Ac c ep t the leg a l re lea se o f Crow n lia b ility
fo r p a st viola tio ns o f Ab o rig ina l Title &
Rig hts;
Ac c ep t e l im ina tion of Ind ia n Reserves b y
a c c ep ting la nds in fee sim p le ;
34
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
35/53
Federal Assessment (cont.)
Ac c ep t rem ov ing on- reserve tax
exempt ions ;
Resp e c t e xisting Priva te La nd s/ Third
Pa rty Intere sts (a nd therefore a lie na tio n
o f Ab o rig ina l Tit le territory w ithout
compensa t ion ) ;
Ac c ep t (to b e a ssim ila te d into ) ex isting
fe d e ra l & p ro vinc ia l o rd e rs o f
government ;
35
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
36/53
Federal Assessment (cont.)
Ac c ep t a p p lic a tion o f Ca nad ia n
Cha rter of Rig hts & Fre ed om s ove r
g o ve rna nc e & institut io ns in a llmatters;
Ac c ep t Fund ing on a fo rm ula b a sis
b e ing linke d to o wn sourc e
revenue;
Other measures too, essentiallyaccepting to become Aboriginalmunicipalities.
36
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
37/53
PM-AFN Meeting J an. 11, 201337
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
38/53
Canada-AFN CC-SOC Process
Two Senior Oversight Committees wereagreed to: 1) Historic Treaties and 2)Comprehensive Claims.
AFN withdrew from Historic Treaty SOC.
Comprehensive Claims SOC was taken
over by actively negotiatingrepresentatives and excluded non-negotiating representatives.
Both SOC processes ended in Dec.
2013.
38
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
39/53
2014 Tsilhq o t ’ in Decision
Re-Affirms the principles & tests inprevious SCC decisions, includingDe lgamuukw and Haida decisions.
Sets out a framework for “progressive”recognition of Aboriginal Title from“assertion” to “establishment”.
Maintains “Doctrine of Discovery” infinding that the “radical or underlyingtitle to all the land” acquired byCrown.
39
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
40/53
2014 Tsilhqot’in Decision
Summary re: Proof of Aboriginal Title.
[50] The claimant group bears the onus of
establishing Aboriginal title. The task is to identify
how pre-sovereignty rights and interests can
properly find expression in modern common law
terms. In asking whether Aboriginal title is
established, the general requirements are: (1)
"sufficient occupation" of the land claimed to
establish title at the time of assertion of European
sovereignty; (2) continuity of occupation where
present occupation is relied on; and (3) exclusive
historic occupation.
40
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
41/53
2014 Federal Response to
Tsilhq o t ’ in
In September 2014, the federal Minister ofAboriginal Affairs, Bernard Valcourt issued an“interim” policy entitled “Renew ing theCom p rehensive La nd Cla im s Po lic y: Towa rd s a
Fram ewo rk fo r Ad d re ssing Sec tio n 35
Ab o rig ina l Rig hts ”.
The “interim” policy is merely a restatement ofprevious federal section 35 policies regardingextinguishment of Aboriginal Title andmunicipalization of Indian Bands.
41
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
42/53
Federal Consultation Process
J oe Oliver acceptsDoug Eyford Report
Douglas Eyford appointedMinisterial SpecialRepresentative in Sept.2014.
Eyford consultation process
announced Sept. 2014.
Consultation Reportexpected early in 2015.
42
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
43/53
“Algonquins of Ontario”Example of What’s Wrong with
Policy
Essentially a land grab of the EasternOntario/National Capital Region,
Parliament Hill, etc. by Crown gov’ts.
Pikwakanagan (Golden Lake Band)asserted land claim in 1983 to Canadaand again in 1985 to Ontario, without
agreement from other AlgonquinNation bands.
Ontario accepted to negotiate first in1991 then the federal government in
1992.
43
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
44/53
“Algonquins of Ontario” (cont.)
“Algonquins of Ontario” is a policyfiction created by Ontario and federalgovernments.
The Algonquin Nation is not divided bythe Ottawa River, which was a majortravel route to and from Oka.
There are 10 federally recognizedAlgonquin communities 9 in Quebecand 1 in Ontario, 8,000-10,000 People.
44
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
45/53
“Algonquins of Ontario” (cont.)
The federal approach to beneficiariesin the AOO claim gives standing to
about 6,000-8,000 non-status individualsand 9 non-status groups who in manyinstances will likely not meet the legalrequirements as title holders.
As a result the non-title holders areprovided with an opportunity toextinguish Algonquin Title and Rrights toterritory over which other AlgonquinFirst Nations assert Aboriginal Title &
Rights.
45
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
46/53
“AOO” AIP Highlights
Extinguishes Algonquin Aboriginal Title with nocompensation for prior infringement (modify&release);
Non-Title Holders get section 35 status.
Replaces Golden Lake Reserve with privateproperty (Fee Simple);
Converts Pikwakanagan Indian Act Band
Council system into Municipal typegovernment through a self-governmentagreement & Pikwakanagan gives up taxexemption/immunity & OSR/funding levels;
$18,553,381 Loans (to date) come off top of
settlement.
46
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
47/53
Algonquin Nation Territory circa 1850-1867
47
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
48/53
“Algonquins of Ontario” Settlement Area
48
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
49/53
Timiskaming-Wolf Lake-Eagle VillageAsserted Aboriginal Rights/Title Area
49
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
50/53
â
Trilateral Agreement Territory: Location
MITCHIKANIBIKOK INIK
Quebec
Trilateral Agreement
Territory
Rapid Lake
Community
La Verendrye
Wildlife Reserve
Boundary
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
51/53
Traditional Management
Areas
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
52/53
Algonquin Nation Secretariat
Issues Federal officials have refused to act on
evidence presented in the SAR whichdemonstrates that within the Algonquin Nation
Aboriginal title is held at the band/communitylevel.
Canada has so far refused to engage seriouslyon this issue despite best efforts, and in factcontinues to negotiate with the “Algonquins of
Ontario” (AOO) over lands that are used andoccupied by TFN-WLFN-EVFN and over whichthey assert Aboriginal Title.
Canada continues to be in breach ofAgreements with ABL.
52
8/9/2019 Diabo Carleton Univ Presentation Feb 5 15
53/53
Conclusion
What’s it going to take to bring about a change inthe CCP?
Crown engagement? More litigation?
Lobbying?
Direct action?
International efforts?
53