J12 - Indigenous Voices in Provincial and Territorial Politics
Date: Jun 3 | Time: 02:00pm to 03:30pm | Location:
Problematising the Federalisation of Indigenous Affairs in Canada: Elena Choquette (University of Cambridge)
Abstract: This paper problematises the federalisation of Indigenous affairs in Canada. If the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples before 1867 in British North America involved two main groups of authorities (Indigenous chiefs and the British Crown) and one main institution (treaty), the Confederation of 1867 complicated this relationship by multiplying the sites of non-Indigenous law-making. One of the most significant constitutional changes to affect the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples is the institution by the Constitutional Act, 1867 of a federal system of two orders of government, which assigns jurisdiction over the public lands and natural resources to provinces. If until the 1950s Indigenous peoples continued to interact with non-Indigenous authorities almost exclusively through the federal government, the provinces have since built capacities to develop policies and programmes that concern Indigenous Peoples directly (Jhappan, 1995, Borrows, 2016, 2017). This paper tracks this important process by comparing it to wider “federalisation” processes (Paquet, 2018) and by identifying some of the institutional mechanisms that facilitated it (e.g. Section 88 of Indian Act). I look into the institutional particulars of a “federalised” Canada by comparing the policy trajectories of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec with regards to Indigenous affairs and policy since 1950. I conclude by evaluating the consequences of the building of provincial powers and capacities in relation to federal and Indigenous governments for the rectification of certain colonial wrongs, most importantly political and territorial dispossession for Indigenous Peoples.
The Influence of Indigenous Peoples in Policy and Institutions; Examining Indigenous Policy and Institutional Change Differently: Rebecca Major (University of Windsor)
Abstract: Typical policy learning and change is understood as first, second, and third order change within historical institutionalism according the Peter Hall. In first order change; incrementalism is a series of small changes grounded in government power and associated with instrumental change. Second order change; punctuations, are changes through government power involving alterations to settings and instruments. Third order change is understood as a change that comes because society has shifted and is grounded in the power of the people, and goals are altered. With respect to Indigenous policy and institutional learning, the typical model does not fit because it fails to account for the colonial legacy and worldview, and motivations behind Indigenous engagement. This is not the societal shift seen in third order learning and change. Colonial policies were identity-based, with official definitions serving as the foundation of regulation. Over generations, Indigenous peoples responded by engaging with colonial institutions, culminated in significant institutional and policy changes. Through challenges based on Indigenous worldview motivated by colonialism, Indigenous peoples have created a third order change that is not social learning. The impact of Indigenous engagement is demonstrated through examples brought by Mi’kmaq peoples of Newfoundland, Algonquin peoples in Eastern Ontario, and Métis and non-status First Nations peoples in the Supreme Court of Canada Daniels case. By challenging through the use of colonial systems, Indigenous peoples are shifting government control of the goal of certainty. The difference in root is why we must understand Indigenous policy learning differently.