Canada is home to Aboriginal Peoples who are seeking recognition and self-determination on the world stage.

After identifying some of the key challenges facing Indigenous peoples in Canada, as well as important developments in the international rights movements we can now begin to discuss where we should go from this point.  The Indigenous Rights movement is growing in importance, and the international community is watching to see what role Canada and Canadians (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) will play in this movement.   

Deciding on how best to proceed is not about finding a single "correct" technical solution - your choices will reflect your beliefs, values and assumptions. In the final section of the discussion guide, three broad value-based approaches are presented as a starting point for your discussions on what actions you think Canada and Canadians need to advance to address Indigenous rights. These are meant to stimulate your thinking about the most important steps to take, the choices you are prepared to support and why. You are not being asked to pick one!   You may choose to take elements from one approach and combine it with elements from another, adapt the approaches with new ideas, or reject all three of the approaches and develop a new one based upon your own fresh thinking, experience and knowledge.  

The economic development approach emphasizes the importance of economic independence and success as the first step forward to improving conditions for Indigenous peoples.  The rights based approach focuses on the need to have the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and respected both on the international and domestic levels.  The final approach, favours following political paths and integrating Indigenous perspectives in policy making as the way forward. 

Approach One

Emphasize economic development to advance Indigenous rights.

This approach focuses on economic development as the most effective and timely way to improve the lives of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples would take advantage of economic opportunities - often in natural resources, energy and ecotourism, to create new sources of revenue and income for their communities. Other goals, such as cultural preservation and self-government cannot be fully achieved until economic independence is realized.

Economic development would focus on obtaining the necessary resources, education, skills and professional training to create and grow strong community businesses. Other key actions would be the creation of Indigenous controlled financial institutions needed for investment and growth; economic control over land and resources for Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples would work with national governments and international institutions like the United Nations, for financial support to become economically self-sufficient.  
 
This approach would adapt successful models in Canada and abroad. For example the Osoyoos Indian Band in BC, which owns nine businesses including an award-winning winery, re-invests its profits to create a state-of-the-art education and health centre, and a cultural centre, and improve living conditions, especially housing for its band members.

Arguments in favour

√  This is a pragmatic approach that positions Indigenous people in the drivers' seat. It recognizes the leadership, talents and ability of Indigenous people to take control of their own communities and move away from passive support.   

√  The current system recognizes that efforts to improve living conditions and education levels in too many Indigenous communities have had limited or slow results. It is time to try a new approach that provides economic incentives.  

√  The timing is right.  New land settlements offer opportunities in terms of compensation and resource development to help Indigenous peoples generate long-term wealth in their communities.

Arguments against

× This approach may allow governments to ignore their financial and historic responsibilities to support Indigenous communities. While economic development is important, so too is the movement to recognize Indigenous rights and this will do little to further the strengthening of their rights.

× This approach ignores the diversity of Indigenous communities. Not all Indigenous communities have access to economic opportunities such as tourism and natural resources. It fails to acknowledge those Indigenous Peoples whose traditions of community ownership may not work under a profit driven and individualistic business models.

× This approach cannot be achieved until Indigenous Peoples have legal control over the use of their lands’ natural resources.

Questions

1.    What factors have influenced the economic disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the past?  Are those factors still relevant today? If so, how can they be addressed to create economic prosperity?  

2.    Are cultural values of collective ownership of land and resources compatible with a market based business model?

3.    Can economic success and increased wealth address the key concerns identified by the Indigenous rights movement (e.g. economics, politics, culture, discrimination)? Which concerns does this approach best address? Which concerns (if any) might be neglected in this model?

Approach Two

Emphasize legal action (at home and internationally) to further Indigenous rights.

This approach positions the legal route for recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, lands, and cultural identity as the most important step to make progress.  Indigenous values and governance systems would be recognized as equal, not inferior, to non-Indigenous legal and governance systems.  Working with and through international institutions, especially the United Nations, would be a priority to gain international legal recognition of rights. An international advocacy campaign to pressure the non-signatories, including the Canadian government, to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be organized.

Other key actions would include: strengthening legal protection for cultural and linguistic identities through the courts and international bodies; funding of international (and national) Indigenous rights institutions; pressuring countries with Indigenous people to fulfill their obligations under national and international treaties and Conventions (for example, reducing Indigenous child poverty as required under the Convention on the Rights of the Child). If governments fail to settle land and treaty claims in a timely fashion, Indigenous organizations would turn to the courts for remedy. This approach also emphasizes the need to strengthen and enforce existing rights. 

Arguments in favour

√  This approach recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples globally to determine their own political and economic solutions and allows Indigenous leaders and organizations to drive change.

√  This approach promises justice for historical wrongs and offers good prospects for future progress and healing by acknowledging past mistakes. It also increases cross cultural awareness and understanding and offers new opportunities for shared understanding.

√  This approach creates opportunities to demonstrate Canadian leadership in furthering the international Indigenous Rights movement. Furthering the full legal recognition of Indigenous self-government at home would improve Canada's reputation as a promoter of human rights abroad.

Arguments against

×  Self-determination that is inherent in these legal arrangements will definitely create new challenges for non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities. This may result in confusion about which legal systems and laws apply to which groups and what are the boundaries.  Indigenous and non-Indigenous people co-exist within national territories and yet could be living under very different systems of law and government.

×  Legal routes are notoriously slow and unpredictable. Taking this approach will require lots of patience and may lead to frustration. This approach may divert attention and resources from dealing with the real pressing problems facing Indigenous peoples - basic survival.   

×  This approach is sure to create greater distance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples by emphasizing feelings of guilt and embarrassment and relying on formal and legalistic approaches, rather than building dialogue among people. It also understates the merits and value of current systems and programs by focusing on failures and mistakes, rather than successes and progress.

Questions

1.    Can two or more different types of government systems co-exist within one country? If yes, what would that look like?

2.    This approach makes reference to enforcing and strengthening existing rights.  How can we ensure that the established and internationally recognized rights of Indigenous peoples are respected?   

3.    Are the courts – internationally and nationally – prepared to take on a larger role in defining and promoting Indigenous rights? What is most appropriately handled by courts?

Approach Three

Emphasize political approaches to further Indigenous rights.

This approach reflects a belief that bringing Indigenous leaders and non-Indigenous leaders together in political processes (rather than a focus on seeking remedies through national and international courts) to define and implement Indigenous rights is the best path forward at this time. It recognizes that Indigenous peoples have significant contributions to make in developing meaningful and culturally appropriate ways to move from formal recognition of Indigenous rights to effective implementation. It would become routine - not exceptional - to have Indigenous political organizations part of political negotiations and processes. A key to improving the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples is to include Indigenous peoples in decision-making processes - not just within national communities but also at the regional and international levels. This could take of the form of guaranteed seats for representatives from Indigenous communities in national government, as is the case in New Zealand with the Maori peoples.   

Other key actions in Canada would include: integrating Indigenous knowledge (drawing on thousands of years of experience working with land and natural resources) into policy making (e.g., environmental and natural resource management, and sustainable technological and business practices); actively promoting cultural and knowledge based exchanges between and Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities at home and abroad. This approach recognizes the important contributions Indigenous Peoples have made to the world. In 2007, for example, Canadians were proud to learn that Sheila Watt-Cloutier, former chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, was nominated for a noble peace prize for her efforts in combating climate change.

Arguments in favour

√  Ultimately many aspects of implementing Indigenous rights - making them real for communities - must involve political processes. This approach promises faster advancement over spending years in legal battles and asking courts to settle what are really political issues.  Promotes Indigenous rights and participation within existing systems, instead of creating parallel or separate societies that do not mix.    

√  By engaging Indigenous Peoples in policy making we would help ensure that policies do not exclude or conflict with Indigenous traditions and culture. Where there are conflicts or tensions, political processes could be used to find solutions.

√  Recognizes that modern science and technology are not enough to solve today's complex social, environmental and economic problems. We need Indigenous knowledge and wisdom to help us find innovative solutions.

Arguments against

×  This approach fails to acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples may prefer to develop their own governance systems and policies independent of national governments.

×  Putting faith in political processes to achieve greater recognition of, and to advance Indigenous rights is just that, faith. Unfortunately, the history of political negotiations between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous governments has been very encouraging. Indigenous peoples have achieved more through the courts than they have through political negotiations.

×  We are not yet at a place where political processes will work - Indigenous peoples still have too much mistrust of non-Indigenous communities and they bear the heavy burden of past injustices. More healing must occur before political processes can work. This may come in the future but in the current context the two groups will not be able to work together in an effective way to move Indigenous rights ahead.

Questions

1.   What does it mean to participate in decision-making processes in a significant and culturally appropriate way?  What changes or policies need to be in place to make this happen?

2.    What (if any) pre-conditions need to be in place to make this approach a success?

3.    What are some of the key benefits of combining Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in international problem solving?  Are there potential drawbacks associated with this?

Conclusion

Now it's your turn, what approach do you think Canada should take in advancing Indigenous Rights at home and abroad? If Indigenous people are moving to the international stage to advance their rights how should Canada respond?

This issue, like any foreign policy issue, is complex. The world often doesn't wait for policymakers to draft statements or leaders to sign agreements. Navigating the best course for Canada, even with the tools we have, is difficult.

As a thought experiment, imagine that you are the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the weekend. You have to report in on Monday - to a committee, to the House of Commons, to your spouse. What ideas, insights, questions, and options would help guide your decision making? How would you address the issue of Indigenous Rights, and what do you think Canada and Canadians should do?