Still waiting for my nation to exhibit "Nation-to-Nation" respect
While the proposed mechanisms to regulate Indigenous Peoples’ participation may offer improvements to existing processes, all federal mechanisms will fall short in upholding First Nations rights, until such time that the ORAL Treaties are mutually understood and respected by all parties within all agencies involved.
I suggest that no Canadian agency is qualified to define the rights of another Nation, or to determine on the behalf of another Nation, when their rights may be infringed upon.
“As long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the waters flow,” the Treaties legitimize Canada as a legal entity on Turtle Island. The Two Row Wampum Treaty positions the First Nations and the Crown as equals, no one subservient to another. Metaphorically, the Crown promised to respect the autonomy of the Canoe. Treaty 6, as orally negotiated, was limited to lands “to the depth of a plow” or approximately 6 inches. The Treaties were negotiated by First Nations in ceremony with Crown representatives and Creator. It is widely discussed, and evident through archival research, that the Treaty documents written by Crown and online today fail to reflect ceremonial Treaties.
Could projects like mines and pipelines fall outside the scope of original Treaties?
Why does Canada attempt to define and control the Inherent Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without fully recognizing or upholding the original Treaties?
When will First Nations right to refuse projects be honoured?
I suggest the following changes during implementation of this work:
- Extend timelines to allow closer to adequate community engagement on projects. Where genocide left traditional knowledge limited, fractured, and requiring research to effectively recover. As opposed to, “timelines under the IAA would still be mandatory and additional expectations or requirements that are not consistent with the IAA could not be imposed”
- Fund First Nation-led, owned, and governed archival research to such that Nations may participate within enforced timelines.
- Protect Indigenous Jurisdictions from litigation, in an effort to allow authentic participation without duress. As opposed to, “An Indigenous jurisdiction’s decision-making could be subject to litigation, similar to the way federal decisions are sometimes challenged in court.”
- Reserve Indigenous Jurisdictions’ right to withdraw consent, similar to OCAP. As opposed to “Indigenous jurisdictions would make specific, binding decisions at certain points throughout the IAA process either jointly with IAAC or independently”
- Fund dedicated project management personnel and community training within all existing Indigenous Jurisdictions to build sufficient capacities therein.
- Develop mechanisms to build capacities within “potential” Indigenous Jurisdictions such that they may become ready to engage.
- Fund and empower First Nations-led mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples and Knowledge Keepers who may be ostracized within their respective “Jurisdiction,” but whose knowledge is determined to be essential, and for eligible "Jurisdictions" who may refuse to engage through other pathways.
Entry-level Resources:
Two Row Wampum – Gaswéñdah
https://www.onondaganation.org/culture/wampum/two-row-wampum-belt-guswenta/
Sylvia McAdam. (2014). Treaties
https://youtu.be/vey0HMGrxtA?si=v0bTKliwIVfj5WTD
Chief Arvol Looking Horse. (2010). White Buffalo Prophecy
https://youtu.be/PHqVdZmpRgI?si=Oh6HcUbv2185BBa7
Sharon Venne. (1997). Understanding Treaty 6: An Indigenous Perspective. https://www.nccih.ca/docs/WebinarResources/Webinar-Starblanket-Venne.pdf
Alberta Wilderness Association. (2025). Beaver Lake Cree Nation’s Unwavering Challenge of Alberta’s Land-Use Approvals Moves Forward
Brenda Parlee. (2015). Avoiding the resource curse: Indigenous communities and Canada’s oil sands. World Development, 74, 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.004
Thank you for your contribution!
Help us reach out to more people in the community
Share this with family and friends