- Country experiences in decentralization in South Asia. Report of the subregional workshop
- Freedom and Self-governance
- 1. Explain the Reasons for Your Decisions
- Teaching Children to Govern Themselves
The AAPA attracted widespread support from Aboriginal communities and established 11 branches with a membership of more than at a time when the Aboriginal Protection Board reported the total Aboriginal population of NSW as less than 7, In its manifesto the AAPA demanded . There is "ample evidence" that the US policy of self-determination, formally adopted in the s, is the only US Indian policy ever linked to sustained improvements in socioeconomic conditions in Indian communities.
- Cultivating a Compassionate Heart: The Yoga Method of Chenrezig;
- A Companion to Bonaventure;
- Effective Health Care Management: An Evaluative Approach;
- Pars II: Instructions?
- Tribal Governance.
- Language selection.
The North American experience shows that self-determination pays off, provided that Aboriginal tribes not only assume responsibility for their own affairs but invest time and energy in building governing institutions that can capably exercise decision-making power and that have the support of their own peoples.
Non-Aboriginal governments must then take self-determination seriously. Dozens of treaties have been signed in the United States and Canada which afford First Nations communities varying degrees of genuine self-determination, from controlling their own schooling to giving them a real capacity to generate an economic base. There are more than Native American tribal courts across at least 32 states in the US, which handle everything from criminal matters to family court.
Native American corporations and individuals are exempt from various state and federal taxes, including state income tax for people living on reservations. It includes background information on each agreement; links to related agreements, organisations, signatories and events; a glossary of relevant terminology as well as direct access to published and on-line resources. Reconciliation Australia has a section on Aboriginal governance called the Indigenous Governance Toolkit.
If you continue using the site, you idicate that you are happy to receive cookies from this website. Thirsty to learn more? Understand better. Join a new generation of Australians! First name. Join more than 14, Smart Owls!
Join more than 14, Smart Owls who know more! In , the federal government commissioned a special committee of the House of Commons to review the legal and institutional issues related to the implementation of Indian self-government. The Report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, known as the Penner Report, recommended that a process be established for the negotiation of self-government, the constitution be amended to recognize explicitly and entrench the right of self-government, and that First Nations Government be included as a distinct order of government within the Canadian federation.
Though the federal government did not endorse the approach put forward by the Penner Report and rejected many of its recommendations, the need to establish a new relationship with Aboriginal people and the acknowledgement that Indian Nations have always been self-governing was accepted. As stated in the federal government's response:. The Government agrees with the argument put forward by the committee that Indian communities were historically self-governing and that the gradual erosion of self-government over time has resulted in a situation which benefits neither Indian people nor Canadians in general.
Between and , four First Ministers conferences took place, that included the Prime Minister, Premiers, and leaders from four national Aboriginal organizations, to discuss Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the constitutional recognition of the right of self-government. At the same time as the constitutional conferences and Charlottetown Accord negotiations were underway, modern forms of self-government were being passed by Parliament. This included a form of self-government under the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, which was passed by Parliament in , implementing a chapter of the James Bay and Northern Agreement.
It recognized a form of self-government for the first time in Canada. In , the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act was also passed by Parliament, whichresulted in a legislated, municipal style self-government. Through the policy, Canada proposed to consider various institutional and financial arrangements that would meet individual community needs while at the same time be broadly enough defined so as not to detract from, or be limited by, the ongoing constitutional debate.
While interest and participation in the CBSG was high, few agreements were reached under this policy. This was mainly due to the fact that the range of jurisdictions offered under the policy were delegated and therefore not protected under the constitution or as a treaty right.
This fell short of Aboriginal interests as many groups viewed constitutional recognition of self-government as a foundation to the negotiation of specific legislative self-government initiatives. Significant amendments to the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy also took place in that included, among other things, the possibility to negotiate self-government as part of a comprehensive land claim agreement.
Unable to gain support in a national referendum for the proposed constitutional package, the Charlottetown Accord failed in October It did, however, provide a signal that parties to the accord were prepared to recognize that Aboriginal peoples already possessed the inherent right to govern themselves within Canada.
Country experiences in decentralization in South Asia. Report of the subregional workshop
Against the backdrop of the failure of the Charlottetown Accord, in the federal government announced the IRP in which the Government recognized the inherent right of Aboriginal self-government as an existing right under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, The underlying objectives of the IRP are to build a new partnership with Aboriginal peoples and to strengthen Aboriginal communities by supporting stable and sustainable Aboriginal governments and greater self-reliance. Negotiated agreements under the IRP set aside legal debates in favour of practical arrangements that operate within the framework of the Canadian Constitution.
Agreements establish government-to-government relationships that provide for jurisdictional clarity and address capacity and responsibility for program and service delivery. The Report put forward an approach to self-government built on the recognition of Aboriginal governments as one of three orders of government in Canada and suggested that only once Aboriginal nations are reconstituted and recognized as nations can they exercise their right to self-government. Gathering Strength expressed its intention to focus on capacity building in relationship to the negotiating and implementing of self-government.
There has been significant evolution and transformation of the self-government landscape in a relatively short time frame. As stated by academics, Yale Belanger and David Newhouse,. The idea of self-government has broadened considerably over the last three decades. It has grown from an initial concept as local municipal style government rooted in the Indian Act to a conception as a constitutionally protected inherent right finding its most recent expression in the idea of 'Aboriginal national government' as a distinct order of government within the Canadian federation.
The scope of people affected by the discussions has grown considerably.
Freedom and Self-governance
The initial focus of self-government was on status Indians residing on reserve. The basis of self-government has fundamentally changed. We no longer conceive of Aboriginal self-government as rooted in the Indian Act but see it as an 'inherent' right, rooted in history and treaties. The scope of authority and jurisdiction for self-government has also enlarged considerably. Aboriginal governments are now seen as more than municipalities, also encompassing federal, provincial and municipal authorities as well as some unique Aboriginal authorities.
The debate about self-government has fundamentally changed. It is now about how rather than why. There are now multiple sites for the debate: among lawyers, Aboriginal leaders and academics, the literature focuses on broad issues and still has an element of why; but among local Aboriginal community leaders and politicians and consultants, it is about how to govern on a daily basis. Some want their own governments on their land base; some want to work within wider public governments structures; and some want institutional arrangements. The Government is prepared to support various approaches, taking into account the differing needs and circumstances, and to be flexible on the specific arrangements, which may be negotiated.
The following section provides profiles of three self-governing communities that participated in the evaluation.
These three agreements reflect the diversity among agreements, with Inuit and First Nation groups, self-government agreements separate and as part of a land claim agreement, and a sectoral self-government agreement. Self-Government is provided for by Chapter 17 of the Land Claim Agreement, which sets out the law making and regulatory powers, authorities, and responsibilities of the Nunatsiavut Government. Jurisdiction: The Nunatsiavut Government has law-making powers on Labrador Inuit Lands and in the Inuit Communities in relation to the environment and resources, culture and language, education, health, income support, child and family services, family matters and housing.
To date, the Nunatsiavut Government has developed policies and assumed responsibility for the management and administration of programs and services in each program area, but jurisdiction continues to be held by either the federal or provincial governments until such time that NG has the capacity to draw down the areas in their entirety.
1. Explain the Reasons for Your Decisions
The Agreement provides beneficiaries with a wide range of land and resource rights, and establishes a self-government regime for the Labrador Inuit within their settlement area. The Inuit of Labrador are direct descendants of the prehistoric Thule who spread from Alaska across to the circumpolar regions of Canada and Greenland. The LILCA represents approximately 7, beneficiaries living within and outside the settlement area known as Nunatsiavut.
Nunatsiavut, which means "our beautiful land" in the traditional language of Inuktitut, is home to 2, people residing primarily in five coastal communities located at Nain, Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik and Rigolet.subfikuturhe.cf
Teaching Children to Govern Themselves
The Labrador Inuit Association LIA was formed in to promote Inuit culture and advance the rights of Inuit to land, which they traditionally harvested and occupied. The Claim was accepted by Canada in , and agreement to participate from the Province was established in Negotiations formally began in and an Agreement in Principle was reached in The Final Agreement was initialed by all parties in and ratified in with The Agreement officially came into effect, along with the Labrador Inuit Constitution, on December 1, , at the first Assembly of the Nunatsiavut Transitional Government.
The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement constitutes the final settlement of the Aboriginal rights of the Labrador Inuit and sets out rights to land, resources and self-government, which are recognised and protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, Labrador Inuit Lands LIL , provide the most rights and benefits to the Inuit as these lands are owned in fee simple and are under the administration, control and management of the Nunatsiavut Government.
These comprise of 72, square kilometres in Northern Labrador, and approximately 48, square kilometres of adjacent ocean zone in which Inuit may exercise harvesting rights and rights to participate with governments in the management of wildlife, fish, plants and environmental assessments among other rights [Note 19]. Under the Agreement, NG has jurisdiction over its internal affairs, including Inuit language and culture, and the management of Inuit rights and benefits under the Agreement.
The Agreement also provides that Inuit Governments may make laws to govern residents of Labrador Inuit Lands and the Inuit communities on matters such as education, health, child and family services, and income support.