Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-xx4dx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T06:42:26.613Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indigenous Constitutionalism and Dispute Resolution Outside the Courts: An Invitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Karen Drake Open the ORCID record for Karen Drake [Opens in a new window]
Karen Drake*
Affiliation:
Waabigon Saaga’igan Anishinaabeg (Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation), Osgoode Hall Law School at York University
*
The author may be contacted at kdrake@osgoode.yorku.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights filters Indigenous laws through the lens of liberal constitutionalism, resulting in distortions of Indigenous law. To overcome this constitutional capture, this article advocates for an institution that facilitates dispute resolution between Canadian governments and Indigenous peoples grounded in Indigenous constitutionalism. To avoid a pan-Indigenous approach, this article focuses on Anishinaabe constitutionalism as one example of Indigenous constitutionalism. It highlights points of contrast between Anishinaabe constitutionalism’s and liberalism’s foundational norms and dispute resolution procedures. This article argues that a hybrid institution—combining features of both liberalism and Indigenous constitutionalism—would merely reproduce the constitutional capture of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence. It also illustrates how the procedures of talking circles—which are one means of giving effect to persuasive compliance—promote the voice of all involved. Finally, this article argues that from the perspective of Anishinaabe constitutionalism, the non-binding nature of the processes offered by the new institution would be a strength, not a drawback.

Type
Articles
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 570 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am very grateful to A. Christian Airhart and Gabrielle Pellerin for their excellent research assistance, and to those in attendance at the workshop for this special issue, to the anonymous reviewers, and to the journal’s editors for their valuable suggestions and improvements. Any errors are my responsibility alone.

References

1. Gordon Christie, Canadian Law and Indigenous Self-Determination (University of Toronto Press, 2019) 17, 130 (‘Canadian Law’).

2. Canada Act 1982 (UK) c 11, sch 3 (‘Constitution Act 1982’).

3. I use the term ‘Indigenous’ to cohere with preferences for this term. I use the term ‘Aboriginal’ when referring to rights or peoples described in s 35.

4. R v Powley [2003] 2 SCR 207.

5. Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia [2014] 2 SCR 257 (‘Tsilhqot’in Nation’).

6. R v Marshall [1999] 3 SCR 456.

7. R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 507 [31] (‘Van der Peet’).

8. Ibid; R v Pamajewon [1996] 2 SCR 821.

9. Tsilhqot’in Nation (n 5) [149]–[151]; Gordon Christie, ‘Who Makes Decisions over Aboriginal Title Lands?’ (2015) 48(3) University of British Columbia Law Review 743. See especially 754.

10. Christie, Canadian Law (n 1) 130.

11. Aaron Mills, ‘The Lifeworlds of Law: On Revitalizing Indigenous Legal Orders Today’ (2016) 61(4) McGill Law Journal 847, 855 n 14 (‘Lifeworlds’).

12. Aaron James (Waabishki Ma’iingan) Mills, Miinigowiziwin: All That Has Been Given for Living Well Together: One Vision of Anishinaabe Constitutionalism (PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, 22 July 2019) 39 (‘Miinigowiziwin’).

13. Mills, ‘Lifeworlds’ (n 11) 862; Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 41–3.

14. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 41–3.

15. Ibid 45.

16. Ibid 46.

17. Ibid 40–1.

18. Ibid 41.

19. Ibid 8, (n 45) 59–62. See also Gordon Christie, ‘Culture, Self-Determination and Colonialism: Issues Around the Revitalization of Indigenous Legal Traditions’ (2007) 6(1) Indigenous Law Journal 13 (‘Culture’); Sara J Mainville, ‘Treaty Councils and Mutual Reconciliation Under Section 35’ (2007) 6(1) Indigenous Law Journal 141, 173, 177 (‘Treaty Councils’) (advocating that Treaty Three should be understood through the lens of the sacred laws of the Anishinaabeg, and not through the lens of Canadian institutions).

20. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 8, 28, 36.

21. Christie, ‘Culture’ (n 19) 14–18, cited in Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 36.

22. Christie, ‘Culture’ (n 19) 16–17; Christie, Canadian Law (n 1) chs 7–8.

23. Gordon Christie, ‘Indigenous Legal Orders, Canadian Law and UNDRIP’ in UNDRIP Implementation: Braiding International, Domestic and Indigenous Laws (Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2017) 48, 49.

24. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 36.

25. Ibid 35–6.

26. ‘Comprehensive Claims’, Government of Canada (Web Page, 13 July 2015) <www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100030577/1551196153650>.

27. ‘The Government of Canada’s Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government’, Government of Canada (Web Page, 15 September 2010) <www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100031843/1539869205136>.

28. ‘Specific Claims Tribunal Canada’, Specific Claims Tribunal Canada (Web Page, 12 May 2020) <www.sct-trp.ca/hom/index_e.htm>. For a discussion of the development of Canada’s Specific Claims and Comprehensive Claims policies, see Michael Coyle, ‘ADR Processes and Indigenous Rights: A Comparative Analysis of Australia, Canada and New Zealand’ in Benjamin J Richardson, Shin Imai and Kent McNeil (eds), Indigenous People and the Law: Comparative and Critical Perspectives (Hart Publishing, 2009) 371, 383–5 (‘ADR Processes’).

29. ADR Processes (n 28) 398. See also Michael Coyle, ‘Transcending Colonialism? Power and the Resolution of Indigenous Treaty Claims in Canada and New Zealand’ (2011) 24(4) New Zealand Universities Law Review 596, 619 (‘Transcending Colonialism?’) (explaining that ‘both the Specific Claims Policy and the enabling legislation of the Specific Claims Tribunal fail almost entirely to incorporate indigenous values as relevant criteria in resolving treaty claims’).

30. An exception may be the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan which collected and documented elders’ understandings of the treaties covering what is now known as Saskatchewan: Harold Cardinal and Walter Hildebrandt, Treaty Elders of Saskatchewan: Our Dream Is That Our Peoples Will One Day Be Clearly Recognized as Nations (University of Calgary Press, 2000).

31. Douglas R Eyford, A New Direction: Advancing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (Report by the Canadian Ministerial Special Representative on Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy, 2015) 29; Musqueam Indian Band v British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management) [2005] BCCA 128, [54]–[55]; @benralstonyxe (Benjamin Ralston) (Twitter, 28 February 2020) <https://twitter.com/benralstonyxe/status/1233576426961391616>.

32. Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, [186]; Tsilhqot’in Nation (n 5) [17].

33. Hayden King and Shiri Pasternak, Canada’s Emerging Indigenous Rights Framework: A Critical Analysis (Yellowhead Institute, 5 June 2018) 19.

34. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res 61/295, UN Doc A/RES/61/295 (2 October 2007, adopted 13 September 2007) art 27.

35. ‘Overview of a Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework’, Government of Canada (Web Page, 10 September 2018) <www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1536350959665/1539959903708>.

36. Ibid.

37. King and Pasternak (n 33) 4; Joyce Green, ‘It’s Time for a Recognition of Wrongs Framework’, Policy Options (online), 26 September 2019 <policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2019/its-time-for-a-recognition-of-wrongs-framework/>; Jorge Barrera, ‘Battle Brewing over Indigenous Rights Recognition Framework’, CBC News (online), 11 September 2018 <www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-rights-framework-bennett-1.4819510>.

38. ‘Indigenous Rights Framework Far from Dead as Trudeau Government Rolls It Out in Pieces’, APTN News (online), 1 February 2019 <aptnnews.ca/2019/02/01/indigenous-rights-framework-far-from-dead-as-trudeau-government-rolls-it-out-in-pieces/>.

39. Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Mandate Letter from Justin Trudeau to Carolyn Bennett, 13 December 2019 <https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/2019/12/13/minister-crown-indigenous-relations-mandate-letter>.

40. Ibid.

41. This conclusion might also follow from the different expressions of Anishinaabe constitutionalism, but my knowledge of Anishinaabe constitutionalism is not sufficient to make this claim.

42. For more comprehensive accounts of Anishinaabe constitutionalism, see Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12); Mills, ‘Lifeworlds’ (n 11). See also Aaron Mills, Karen Drake and Tanya Muthusamipillai, ‘An Anishinaabe Constitutional Order’ in Patrick Smith (ed), Reconciliation in Canadian Courts: A Guide for Judges to Aboriginal and Indigenous Law, Context and Practice (National Judicial Institute, 2017) 260.

43. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 68–9. For further discussion of miinigowiziwin, see Mainville (n 19) 177.

44. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 69–72, 74.

45. Ibid 69–70; Aimée Craft, ‘Navigating Our Ongoing Sacred Legal Relationship with Nibi (Water)’ in UNDRIP Implementation: More Reflections on the Braiding of International, Domestic and Indigenous Laws (Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2018) 53, 59.

46. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 75.

47. Ibid 82.

48. Ibid 78–9.

49. Ibid 79. For a relational account of individual autonomy that remains committed to a liberal view of the relationship between the individual and the state, see Jennifer Nedelsky, Law’s Relations: A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy, and Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).

50. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 175.

51. Ibid 80; Craft (n 45) 57–8.

52. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 80.

53. See Van der Peet (n 7) [18]; Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 84.

54. Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford University Press, 1995) 80.

55. For a discussion of negative and positive freedom and formal and substantive equality, see Christie, Canadian Law (n 1) 278–80, 281–2.

56. This is a feature of positivism rather than liberalism. For a discussion of the liberal positivism underlying the Supreme Court of Canada’s s 35(1) jurisprudence, see Christie, Canadian Law (n 1) chs 7–8.

57. Ibid 353. Exceptions have emerged in recent years, such as New Zealand’s Te Urewera Act 2014 (NZ), which establishes that Te Urewera ceases to be a national park and is a legal entity with the rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person: see Jacinta Ruru, ‘Tūhoe–Crown Settlement—Te Urewera Act 2014’ (2014) (October) Māori Law Review <http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/10/tuhoe-crown-settlement-tuhoe-claims-settlement-act-2014-te-urewera-report-of-the-waitangi-tribunal/>. This development, however, is still subject to constitutional capture, as the legislation is still firmly ensconced within the rights discourse of liberalism, discussed in the next sub-section. For a list of similar developments: see Craft (n 45) 55. Craft highlights the constitutional capture to which these developments are subject when she explains that by using non-Indigenous, state-derived legal mechanisms to recognize our sacred relationships with water and land, we risk losing the spirit of the relationship: at 55, 56.

58. Kymlicka (n 54) 80.

59. One might argue the developments recognizing rights of aspects of the natural world, such as those discussed above at n 57, constitute an example of the weakening of one pressure point.

60. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 96–7, 98.

61. Ibid 100–1, 102.

62. Ibid 98.

63. Ibid 88.

64. Ibid 114.

65. Ibid 115–16.

66. Ibid 117, 119.

67. Ibid 107.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid 113.

70. Ibid 106.

71. Ibid 154.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid 101–2.

74. Ibid 125–6.

75. Ibid 126.

76. Ibid.

77. See John Borrows, Law’s Indigenous Ethics (University of Toronto Press, 2019) 129.

78. Craft (n 45) 56.

79. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 101.

80. Ibid 161, 163.

81. Ibid 164–5.

82. Little Bear, ‘Jagged Worldviews Colliding’ in Marie Battiste (ed), Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision (UBC Press, 2000) 77, 84, cited by Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 161. See also Phil Lancaster, ‘Omaminomowayak: Anishinaabe Justice in Muskrat Dam First Nation’ (1994) 14 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 331, 340.

83. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 65–6.

84. Ibid 136, 138–9.

85. Ibid 135, 166.

86. Ibid 140.

87. Ibid 135, 140.

88. Ibid 135, 142.

89. Ibid 144.

90. The other two are negative social force and negative manidoo/medicine force: Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 135.

91. Ibid 175.

92. Mainville (n 19) 157.

93. Aaron Mills, ‘What Is a Treaty? On Contract and Mutual Aid’ in John Borrows and Michael Coyle, The Right Relationship: Reimagining the Implementation of Historical Treaties (University of Toronto Press, 2017) 208, 209–10, 214 (‘Treaty’).

94. See John Borrows, Canada’s Indigenous Constitution (University of Toronto Press, 2010) 80 (‘Indigenous Constitution’) 81–4; Lancaster (n 82) 342–3.

95. Borrows, Indigenous Constitution (n 94) 35. The other sources include sacred law, natural law, positivistic law and customary law: ch 2.

96. Ibid 36. For an account of the dispute resolution procedures of Muskrat Dam First Nation which reflect mutual aid and persuasive compliance remarkably clearly, see Lancaster (n 82) 337–43.

97. For a similar point regarding a Navajo legal order, see Chief Justice Robert Yazzie, ‘Navajo Peacemaking and Intercultural Dispute Resolution’ in Catherine Bell and David Kahane (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 107, 110.

98. See Government of Canada, ‘What We Heard So Far on the Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights’ (Web Page, 13 July 2018) <www.rcaanc cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1531408653300/1539960280640> (reporting feedback from Indigenous people on the lack of understanding and education among government employees and representatives).

99. See Kerry Wilkins, ‘Reasoning with the Elephant: The Crown, Its Counsel and Aboriginal Law in Canada’ (2016) 13(1) Indigenous Law Journal 27, 67–70.

100. Deborah McGregor, ‘Truth Be Told: Redefining Relationships through Indigenous Research’ in Karen Drake and Brenda L Gunn, Renewing Relationships: Indigenous Peoples and Canada (Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre, 2019) 9, 14–17, 21.

101. Rebecca Ratcliffe and Catherine Bell, ‘Western ADR Processes and Indigenous Dispute Resolution’ (Draft Paper) 14–15 <www.coemrp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Final-Western-DR-Systems-.pdf>.

102. See Mills, ‘Treaty’ (n 93) 238.

103. Ibid 225; Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, ‘Respect, Responsibility, and Renewal: The Foundations of Anishinaabe Treaty Making with the United States and Canada’ (2010) 34(2) American Indian Culture and Research Journal 145, 149.

104. Leanne Simpson, ‘Looking after Gdoo-naaganinaa: Precolonial Nishnaabeg Diplomatic and Treaty Relationships’ (2008) 23(2) Wicazo Sa Review 29, 35.

105. See The Centre for Indigenous Studies, ‘Alan Corbiere: 250th Anniversary of the Treaty of Niagara’ (YouTube, 15 December 2014) <www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGMIyGtyT7E>.

106. Stark (n 103) 153, 155, 156.

107. See The Centre for Indigenous Studies (n 105); John Borrows, ‘Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal History, and Self-Government’ in Michael Asch (ed), Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference (UBC Press, 1997) 155, 165–8.

108. Mainville (n 19) 155–6, 163, 166, 176, 178.

109. Neil Brooks, ‘The Judge and the Adversary System’ in Allen M Linden and HW Arthurs (eds), The Canadian Judiciary (Osgoode Hall Law School, 1976) 93–4, 98–9.

110. David Kahane, ‘What Is Culture? Generalizing about Aboriginal and Newcomer Perspectives’ in Catherine Bell and David Kahane (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 28, 31.

111. See Diana Lowe and Jonathan H Davidson, ‘What’s Old Is New Again: Aboriginal Dispute Resolution and the Civil Justice System’ in Catherine Bell and David Kahane (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 280, 280–1; Wenona Victor, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Aboriginal Contexts: A Critical Review’ (Research Paper, Canadian Human Rights Commission, April 2007) 5 <https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/adrred_en_1.pdf>.

112. Kahane (n 110) 33.

113. Jeremy Webber, ‘Commentary: Indigenous Dispute Settlement, Self-Governance, and the Second Generation of Indigenous Rights’ in Catherine Bell and David Kahane (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 149, 151.

114. For discussions of hybrid systems developed by Indigenous peoples, see Dale Dewhurst, ‘Parallel Justice Systems, or a Tale of Two Spiders’ in Catherine Bell and David Kahane (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 213; Catherine Bell, ‘Indigenous Dispute Resolution Systems within Non-Indigenous Frameworks: Intercultural Dispute Resolution Initiatives in Canada’ in Catherine Bell and David Kahane (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 241.

115. Coyle, ‘ADR Processes’ (n 28) 392.

116. Morris Te Whiti Love, ‘The Waitangi Tribunal’s Roles in the Dispute Resolution of Indigenous (Maori) Treaty Claims’ in David J Kahane and Catherine Bell (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 128, 128, 135, 140.

117. Ibid 140.

118. Coyle, ‘Transcending Colonialism?’ (n 29) 617.

119. Coyle, ‘ADR Processes’ (n 28) 397.

120. Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 28.

121. Ibid 28, 272. The adoption of ubuntu into South African law might be an instance of a successful hybrid, given the apparent overlap between some aspects of ubuntu and an Anishinaabe constitutional order: Marieke de Mooij, Human and Mediated Communication around the World: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis (Springer International Publishing, 2014) 141. But this system still seems prone to constitutional capture if the relationship between ubuntu and African law is analogous to that of equity and the common law, as TW Bennett suggests: TW Bennett, ‘An African Doctrine of Equity in South African Public Law’ (2011) 57(4) Loyola Law Review 709, 721. Equity is not a self-sufficient system; it presupposes the existence of the common law and thus is described as appendicular to the common law: AH Oosterhoff et al, Oosterhoff on Trusts: Text, Commentary and Materials (Thomson Canada, 6th ed, 2004) 6. Treating Anishinaabe law as appendicular to the common law would do nothing to avert constitutional capture.

122. See Dale Turner, ‘Perceiving the World Differently’ in Catherine Bell and David Kahane (eds), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (UBC Press, 2004) 57, 60–1.

123. Brooks (n 109) 93–4.

124. Ibid 100.

125. For example, talking circles are used for decision-making, dispute resolution/healing, teaching and sentencing.

126. See Larry N Chartrand, ‘Principles of Dene/Metis Dispute Resolution: Implications for the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim Arbitration Panel’ (Research Paper, Norman Wells: Arbitration Panel Meeting, 1996) 3.

127. R v Francis-Simms [2017] ONCJ 402, [14].

128. R v Moses (1992) 71 CCC (3d) 347 [38], [49] (‘Moses’).

129. Deborah Simmons et al, ‘Aboriginal Talking Circle: Aboriginal Perspectives on Caribou Conservation’ (2012) 32(2) Rangifer 17, 19.

130. See Lyn Trudeau and Lorenzo Cherubini, ‘Speaking Our Truths in “A Good Way”’ (2010) 33(1) Canadian Journal of Native Education 113, 113.

131. Moses (n 128) 368. See also Lancaster (n 82) 343.

132. Simmons (n 129) 18.

133. Moses (n 128) 357.

134. Lancaster (n 82) 338, 340.

135. Ibid 340.

136. But see Ryan Beaton, ‘Articles 27 and 46(2): UNDRIP Signposts Pointing beyond the Justifiable-infringement Morass of Section 35’ in UNDRIP Implementation: More Reflections on the Braiding of International, Domestic and Indigenous Laws (Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2018) 111, 117.

137. Joanne Cave, ‘From Rights Recognition to Reconciliation: Reflecting on the Government of Canada’s Proposed Indigenous Rights Recognition Framework’ (2019) 77 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 59, 71.

138. Coyle, ‘Transcending Colonialism?’ (n 29) 596, 601.

139. Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) [2004] 3 SCR 511, [42] (‘Haida Nation’).

140. Ktunaxa Nation v British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) [2017] 2 SCR 386, [83].

141. Haida Nation (n 139) [48].

142. See comments of Senator Murray Sinclair quoted in Justin Brake, ‘“Let Us Rise with More Energy”: Saganash Responds to Senate Death of C-262 as Liberals Promise, Again, to legislate UNDRIP’, APTN National News (online), 24 June 2019 <https://aptnnews.ca/2019/06/24/let-us-rise-with-more-energy-saganash-responds-to-senate-death-of-c-262-as-liberals-promise-again-to-legislate-undrip/>.

143. Beaton (n 136) 115.

144. My current knowledge of Anishinaabe constitutionalism is limited in many ways, for example, by being mostly academic, which is only one limited form of knowledge within Anishinaabe epistemology: Mills, Miinigowiziwin (n 12) 131.

145. Ibid 151.