POL SCI 2F03 march 11, 2013 Citizenship Regime (following jane jenson) 1. Responsibility mix 2.

2. Rights and responsibilities 3. Access to power to develop, protect, and enjoy rights and responsiblitiwes 4. Sense of identity and belonging from bring a member of the political community (above is not on the test, but segway to his lecture) The relationship has to be negotiated over time - the aborginals It can be negotiated in ways that can be normatively reasonable And over the years, the topic may be same, but the terminology, what is considered fair has changed This is an imp area because of the topic: what is the relationship of the aboriginal peoples to the canadian state. Two kinds of general points: 1. Conflict of nationalism Great diversity of ppl with aborginal people. The diificult of aborginal people doing international politics. People see them themselves as part of the broader historical nation, but not smaller community ideas o These groups see themselves as separate groups with dif povs o Do they have a treaty or not? Thus, they will be interacting with the state a diff way 2. Distinctions bw those who have status as indians under can. Law and those who dont Creates tensions between traditional and nontraditional legitimacy of determining leadership Indian act has created difficult relationships bw men and women, depending on status of marriage or not. o Women who married indian men, could not pass it on to their children until a certain time o Creates questions between diff categories of aborginals groups, who is identified or who is not? 3. The forms of relationships vary greatly over space of neighbouring nations, and they have different ideas of a fair relationship Easy to tell story of nations by telling this "heroic" story of judges and politicians realizing past historic mistakes, and thus negotiated these new policies and changed things. It reminds us, that to affect change, you still have to organize, and take advantage of the institutions of change. Signposts Confederation and Post-Confederation o Aborginal ppl fell off the radar beginning aof the 19th century o Before this, they were involved in the conflict bw the british and the french, and were involved in opennig trade industries (fur) o But by mid 19th century, they were seen as ppl who fell back, and seen to die out o So in 1867 (confederation), aborginal ppls were absent from the discussions Their consent was in no way sought out

When you get to the constitution act of 1867, s. 91, para.24 Land reserved for Indians - jurisdiction of federal govt. Indians were seen as things to be governed like patents

Indian Act restrictions Ppl who have rights t participate in public life was seen lacking in aboriginals Not allowed to vote, like women, ppl from china Post- world war org. o The indian act limits mobility, certain forms of fundraising, basic acts of civil rights are denied, and this makes these nations development o Only in 1951, were they lifted o 1960, the right to vote was extended (included women) o They were seen from beyond the zone of citizens (exclusive) This is also a period of creating international organizations (variety of first nations) She's talking about a nation that is not constricted to Canada. (50s and 60s - trying to defend first nations) 1969: White Paper on Indian policy - jean chrietien, and pushed strongly by trudeau Broken down view that they cant be citizens See this problem solved by equal canadian citizenship Wanted to wrap up first nations, and promote equality Wanted to try to remove stigma of hsitorical inequality, discrimination Treat everyone more or less the same Kier Lattimer - Really sparks a modernation and brings an unprecedented organization and mobilization. Paper is saying that there should not be differntial treatment. And the aborginal leaders are trying to sya: we are in the presence of multiple soverigns: there are groups that see themselves as separate nations, and there are multiple sovergnities existing bw the state. Thus, there has to be negotiation. Out of this idea, the Aborginal ppls thought they should have their own seperate realms of goverance. Trudeau is thinking of one canada, one nation, while aborginbals are beginning to think its more multinational. o We may have different nations, that have and overlapping area, but do have their own ideas. 1970s - period of bubbling new ideas, and new relationships, groups, and spills into mainstream politics of the lead up to the constitution act 1982: Constitution Act, 1982, s.25 and s. 35 o "the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canda are hereby recognized and affirmed" (s.35) The ppl who signed this, probably would not be able to tell you what rights they signed to. This is a box of full of rights, but it is not clear what are those rights. For the people who signed this, from the federal, and provincial level saw this is as a box of rights for negotiation. Significant move from white paper, as they acknowledge these rights do exist, and recognition of some form of diversity. Land claim agreements as constitutional; requirement of consultation; gender equality (1983

Commitments to constitution for aboriginal were seen as needing to be discussed by leaders Three further meetings were held in 1984-87 to further discuss. and all ended in deadlock 1992 - another attempt to change constitution - to include aboriginal ppl - assembly of first nations: were all closely involved, this excluded the native women's group. 1992: Charlottetown Accord and self-government. (new s.35). NOTE: The Accord failed. o Recognition of the Aboriginal people's inherent right of self-government within Canada o This inherent right is to be interpreted in light of the recognition that Aboriginal governments are one of three orders of government in Canada (fed., provincial, and aboriginal) o Delay "justiciability" for five , in order to take time to work though what it means. o Charter applies immediately to the governments of Aboriginal peoples

Failed: Was not popular with first nations parts of bC: inherent right to self- govern was seen as dangerous, as many ppl thought it would be a loss of their property rights FINAL BOOK REVIEW When in doubt, consult page 2 of course outline INTRO (0.5 -1 pg) Summary (2 pgs max.) : book's arguments o Skills: reading comprehsension and summarization Critical Discussion (6-8 pgs): critically discuss one or several aspects of the book's arguments. "it is expected that students will consider significant claims or positions taken by the author, particularly as they relate to the material studied in the course: What is the critical discussion? Evaluating arguments, and comeparing them with other arguments. Be sure tos et out the aspects of the argument you are discussing so the reader can form some assessment of your point. Take time while reading to think about hoe the book's arguments fit with other readings you have done in class. What are the points of agreement and disagreement? Bad Answer can lead to better answers when you: Take yoruself out of the spotlight and draw linkages or comparisons You an start with questions like "why did I like/not like this book" or what did I find useful and what did I find useles in this book, but you will want to push furtehr to explore and defend the reasons behind your answers. Ex. Bad answe: the book was interesting because I had never thought abour x that way before. Good ans: the book provides an interesting way of discussing x, which was lacking in other course readings dealing with the subject. For instance Bad. The author was too opeinioted for my taste. Good: a weakness with the book was that author let opinos dominate the anylsis, which led hiem to ignore oter potentilal discussions,a nd relevant facts Critical thinking - think through and evaluate throgh the argument.

Synthesis - is there a way arguments you have seen in the course come together or dont. Is there a patten, or lack of one Conclusino: -.5-1)

Bibliography: would contain your book, plus any material referred to in your discussion, (note: I am not expecting any reading outside of the course outline for this book review, so you will be referencing course materials and placing them in your bibliography. Us standard from of bibliographic referencing and use it consistently. Marking rubric will be posted outline, as well as above. Back to lecture: 1996: Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples o Very lkarge and expensive commission o Royal commissions was huge tring to rethink this entire relationship which we see as complex o Many ways, the report tried to develop a richer understanding of the natuons relaitonship grounded in treaties o The relationships of aboriginial people to the can. State are through theese histroical treateies. (big pic) o Moves us closer to the dual sovergign, that ultimately we share a political space, but the citiznship fo aborginals and canadians is diff, and they are held togetrher by these treaties. o At the same time, it set out this image, and also tried to re-make what the inter-locketer was going to look like bw the aboriginal ppls, and the canadian state. It defines a more hierarchical view of what these relationships are going to be. o The royal comission said we can have tehse relationships, but this nation has to be fairly large to govern themselves. Tehre has to be this regrouping of communities. o Might be able to address 60-80 deals with the more well organized communities. So regardless, the way the nations saythemselves as separate, the other society is telling the other how it is going to be. (hierarchial). Similarly, the charter of rights and freedoms should apply. o Another aspect of Royal Commission says we are going to do this by the old treaties, but maybe should discuss new ones: for certain aborgincal groups this is problematic, as they have a set of historiacla relationship may involve the loss of what they feel is a loss of their historic rights o The royal commission represents the edn of the period of the constitutuibnal negotiations of the 1982. The big oicture thinking has become dominant form of interaction. To really move to nation to nation relationship would involve much cost to maintream candaidna state, which they are unwilling. 2000-present: First Nations Goverance Act; Kewlowna Accord; rescindings of the Kelowna Accord o Govts make shift to solving concrete problems, and not big constitutional impacts o Preceding discussions involved with aboriginals has given them rights and a desire to engage that did not exist before o First nations goverance act: increase forms fo surviellance of the first nations accountabilty and it has been criticized by first nations as paternallistic Also recognizes autonomy in first nations goverance o Kelwona accord - lets talk about specific social issues and so on

Harper federal govt. is working on a variety of ways to deal with specific governing issues We are in a place of experimentation, with a willingness to do a bit more deallings with first nations and recogniton of diveristy but still with the fed. Govt setting the limit

-MACDONALD view - devolution of authority to aborginal's nation - in terms of child welfare services What extent is this moving towards a greater form of autonomy, and the interets of the provinical and federal govt. - she see's it still as pretty constrained She questions: To what aspect, does this provide a big picture view of the nations? She is trying to say where aborginal views fit with the prevailing neoliberal thoughts o What are things that bring this discussion forward? Importance of certainity - especially for nations who are sitting on top of oil resources, and forestry resources. Companies who want to do resource extraction and such want to make sure that They want to make sure they have the right to do that

Empahsiis on evolving communities to solve problems o Macdonald - isnt neoliberalism about privatixing: its not about privatizing, its the devolving of these communities. There is a concern of social exclusion that create pathologies which are costly to deal with. Devolution agreements - create so many problems that they the govt. want to leave them to be dealt with communities, because they might be able to deal with it better, and it might cost them less, and it depoliticises them. For ex. If a kid dies in care (service underfunded) its not on govt. its on the community. The blame is shifted.

TUTORIAL OF MACDONAL ARTICLE: -autonomy from government - Oppoutunities - there are ppl that belive that show that this has showed a boom in certain groups: Merterta Inc. they had budgets surpluses from defecits and employment boom. - Cautions - regressive elements - Constraints - despite having jurdiistcion over certain polciies by indigenous ppl, there are many cases, the provincial minister is still the key authority. That means that this decision making policy has a sealing on it. - Funding element in both specific context of what policy sees the light of day if you control over funds - Caution : responsibility may be granted without proper funding Should we be sceptical as seeing devolution as a positive thing, or should we value it with limitations Criticisms: she didnt really provide an example of how to solve the issues - She should have put numbers for funding constraint - Fell short on examples, really just one.

Solution she puts forward need more focus on democratic requirement of self-government initiatives Arguments: 1. Macdonalds 2. Statement from a witness from aboriginal northern fairs committee : Warren Johnson - Openparliament.ca/committies/aboriginal-affairs/41-1/33/warren-johnson-21/ 3. 5 things to know about devolution in the NWT CBC.com 4. Hit the reset button First Nations: finance and governance