Indigeneity in a Federalist Structure

Environment and Climate Change Canada defines “protected areas” as "those whose land or water have laws or agreements to limit the amount and type of human activity." This includes parks, historic sites, migratory bird sanctuaries, and other areas with a federal or provincial designation. Currently, a protected space must be recognized and regulated by the federal, or a provincial government. This excludes private lands that have been set aside for ecological conservation and those belonging to Indigenous governments which are set aside for sustainable management.

Visual representation of Canada's national parks. Does not include provincially protected areas.

 

Protected Space as it Relates to Federal-Indigenous Governance

Canada is structured as a federalist state, meaning jurisdictional responsibility is shared by stratified tiers of municipal, provincial/territorial and federal government. In the context of this decentralization, the role and responsibilities of Indigenous government organizations are often ambiguous. This is made worse by the historic divergence between the expectations and priorities of Canada’s Crown and Indigenous groups.

Land allocation has been a contentious issue between the Crown and Indigenous peoples, with the effects of European colonial land seizures still starkly recognizable on the political and socio-economic landscape of Canada. The designation of protected areas has recently become a politically charged issue internationally, with the Indigenous Peoples Ad Hoc Working Group for the Worlds Parks Congress claiming government-regulated protected spaces have contributed to the “cultural genocide” of Indigenous peoples. While the political discourse around protected spaces in Canada has not often been characterized by such outward hostility, Indigenous groups have been increasingly calling for a nation-to-nation partnership in the administration of protected areas.

Nation-to-Nation: Co-management, Guardianship and Indigenous Protected Areas

Under the current administrative framework of protected spaces many Indigenous peoples see the federal/provincial hegemony of land preservation consistent with the historic imbalance between colonial (and later post-colonial) political structures and Indigenous governments. Given the violent nature of most colonial land seizures, the idea that only the Crown and it’s Ministers can confer special significance on traditional Indigenous territory is considered incompatible with efforts for reconciliation.

Historic distribution of Indigenous languages in North America.

Steven Nitah, lead negotiator for the Thaidene Nene protected area project summarized the dynamics between former Crown-Indigenous land partnerships:

“We noted that past crown actions to establish parks or undertake on-the-land conservation programs have resulted in, at worst, the alienation of indigenous peoples from their traditional territories, and at best, limited opportunities for jobs working for another government."

Nitah's testimony can be accessed here.

Attempts at Establishing New Relationships

There are several international examples of federal-Indigenous land preservation partnerships, and two main initiatives have received the most widespread support in Canada. Both would entail co-management of protected areas between the federal or provincial government and local Indigenous organizations.

The first is the Indigenous Guardians Program, which aim to “empower communities to manage ancestral lands according to traditional laws and values." This partnership would see Indigenous peoples directly managing the ecological and cultural integrity of historically significant land. In addition to the program’s inherent socio-cultural benefits, it is estimated that the Guardians program generates between $2.50 - $3.70 for every dollar invested in conservation, health and economic results.

Photo of Australia's Ngarrabullgin Indigenous Protected Area.

The Indigenous Guardians program is closely related to the second major co-management initiative; called “Indigenous Protected Areas” or IPAs. There are a variety of different methods for establishing an IPA which includes land being transferred back to Indigenous governments under the condition the area is established as a conservatory space primarily administered by the Indigenous group. Alternatively, land already under Indigenous title can be established as an IPA with federal investments established as a self-perpetuating trust fund.

This model has been successful in Australia, with approximately 40% of Australian protected spaces being administered as IPAs. The Lutsel K’e First Nation’s Thaidene Nene project, which is in the late stages of final establishment, is based on an IPA model and would be Canada’s first protected area with this classification.

Towards Reconciliation

Examining protected spaces in the context of post-coloniality and Indigeneity provides a revealing commentary on contemporary Crown- Indigenous/First Nation relationships. This was well explained by Nitah in his testimony to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on September 27. In response to a question from a sitting Member of the committee on how the Government of Canada could improve its partnerships with Indigenous groups, Nitah responded that a principle challenge to good faith negotiations between Crown government and Indigenous governments have been the ultimate authority of the Crown and its Ministers.

“One of the biggest challenges we had at the negotiating table was fettering the minister's authority. When we're talking nation-to-nation discussions, the minister has to be able to get into a partnership relationship with indigenous governments and be able to share responsibility and authority over those areas."

Utsing Point along Great Slave Lake in the proposed Thaidene Nene Indigenous Protected Area.

As Nitah explained throughout his testimony, genuine nation-to-nation partnerships cannot exist when one government retains exclusive decision-making authority. Expanding on this sentiment, back-to-the-land programs, and true collaboration between federal/provincial governments and their Indigenous counterparts can be a pathway to reconciliation. While this endeavour will not singularly overcome a history fraught with structural violence and mistrust, redressing this historic imbalance by eschewing the Crown’s paramount authority would be a substantial shift in the Indigenous-Crown relationship.

It is not difficult to imagine why protected spaces have been a point of contention with Indigenous persons both in Canada and internationally. From a Canadian perspective, the colonial legacy has given the Crown and its Ministers complete authority over traditional Indigenous lands. While contemporary efforts to reconcile past wrongs should not be overlooked, the legacy of institutionalized racism is still profoundly visible in Canada’s political, judicial and social fabric. Moving past this uneven relationship requires the development of genuine and equal partnerships. In the context of protected spaces, this nation-to-nation relationship acknowledges the fundamental right of Indigenous peoples to be a part of the discussion on how Canada designates its sovereign territory.