The Trudeau government has been quietly orchestrating a massive overhaul of the relationship between Canadian governments and First Nation communities in an effort to address the many social problems that disproportionately afflict them. The situation of First Nation peoples in Canada, and their relationship with the Canadian government, has been unique, storied, and marked by a string of failures extending from the turn of the 19th century until today. The goal of Trudeau's overhaul is not only to improve the social outcomes in First nations communities, but also to formally transfer the means and rights required for indigenous groups to enact full self-governance and political autonomy - sovereignty - which will allow them to rebuild and repair the cultural losses they have suffered in the past. For historical, legal, and cultural reasons, the Canadian government believes it owes a significant debt to First Nations groups, and may be preparing to transfer vast amounts of land and resources, for the first time, to the direct control of indigenous groups for the repayment of that debt. I wonder: what the legal and ethical implications, and outcomes, of attempting to do so will actually be?

A Brief History of Developments



In 2016 Canada fully endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which is the broadest and strongest possible rhetorical commitment toward repairing and restoring the sovereignty and culture of indigenous groups impacted by modern colonialism, and more or less represents an ideal standard that the government has ostensibly decided to aim for. In 2017 Trudeau dissolved the decades old government branch and institution which had previously managed indigenous communities (INAC) and is forming at least two new branches along with launching a massive series of nation wide meetings meant to gather input from different communities. It's not clear at all what will come of this reform shakeup. Indigenous groups are fearing that it's more of the same shit from the table top that will delay meaningful change, and some critics fear it's more of a PR campaign meant to pacify rather than seriously transfer control and sovereignty to First Nations communities like their rhetoric suggests.

What is clear is that the gargantuan task of remedying social ills (addiction, sex trafficking, no access to quality education or health facilities on or near reserves, and others) while also transferring the duties of care that are currently held by Canadian governments, is made extremely difficult and additionally complex by the unique history and circumstances of Canadian constitutional law and identity (the diverse plethora of treaties, Canada's Crown-inherited obligations, and the series of conflicting constitutional developments), and especially more complex by the unique situations that are facing the thousands of individual indigenous communities and groups, each with their own individual needs and claims to self-governance.

Canada does currently have a constitutional obligation to care for indigenous people and communities with the same standards that it applies to non-indigenous communities and individuals (1982 Constitution Act), and even though it is currently failing to do so in many ways, it is not clear that transferring direct financial control to individual communities would result in improvement (it might result in an even lower standard of care being delivered). The band-council system which does or has functioned as a political conduit between indigenous groups and Canadian governments may lack the expertise and oversight required to act as efficient managers of social services. If the Canadian government did transfer jurisdictional and financial control to individual First Nation groups and communities, and for whatever reason it resulted in an increase in social problems for those communities, then Canada will have failed in its constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of indigenous peoples, despite having in some sense relinquished it by allowing self-governance.

There's also an inherent conflict of interest between the Canadian government's ability to care for non-indigenous Canadians and how much land and resources it is actually prepared to invest in the sovereignty and physical/cultural restoration of indigenous First Nations groups. Huge swaths of land which would otherwise be exploited for natural resources would, by ancient rights, belong to specific indigenous groups, and capital which would otherwise be invested in Canadian national interest might be required to fund a kind of archipelago of internal sovereign nations, and the expenses this would generate might not be sustainable.

Assimilation seems to still be the knee-jerk utilitarian response to such obstacles, but it is a painfully learned truth that forceful integration and assimilation of a people who wish to retain their culture does not work. It is also legally and constitutionally true that Canada owes indigenous groups a debt of loyalty, of care, and of earth and water. With the second era of Canadian-Indigenous relations coming to a close (an era marked by inadequacy, incompetence, and failure on the part of the Canadian government) how can the Canadian government ensure success in all of its commitments for social improvement while relinquishing managerial control? What are the logistical implications of establishing possibly hundreds of locally sovereign governments and jurisdictions in indigenous communities across Canada? What expense should Canadian federal and provincial governments be prepared accept toward reaching its newly proclaimed intentions?