BLOOD TRIBE/KAINAI SUBMISSION TO: JAMES ANAYA UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RESPECTING:

Transcription

1 BLOOD TRIBE/KAINAI SUBMISSION TO: JAMES ANAYA UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RESPECTING: The Blood Tribe s Issues and Concerns in Relation to the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta Submitted by: BLOOD TRIBE PO Box 60 Standoff, Alberta CANADA T0L 1Y0 Telephone: (403) Presented by: CHIEF CHARLES WEASEL HEAD Dated: October 14, 2013

2 1. THE BLOOD TRIBE/KAINAI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Blood Tribe/Kainai has always existed as a nation and from time immemorial we have controlled our lands and our religious, political, economic and cultural destinies. We are the caretakers of our land and our rights, not for ourselves but for our children and generations into the future. This is a sacred trust given to us by the Creator and we are obligated to safeguard this trust against the immediate and short sighted interests of other parties, including the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta. The land is not ours to exploit and our Aboriginal and Treaty rights are not ours to negotiate or limit. They are for our future generations and must be kept intact for them. Our Elders Declaration Kainayssini sets out our tribal system and the guiding principles for the protection and preservation of that system. Kainayssini guides the Blood Tribe leadership in exercising its functions and carrying out its responsibilities to Blood Tribe members. The Blood Reserve is located in southern Alberta and is the largest Indian reserve in Canada. Our population is close to 12,000 members. We operate and manage our own government and administrative systems, and have delegated certain responsibilities to various Blood Tribeowned entities. We have enacted our own elections, finance and membership laws as well as other local government laws. 2. RELATIONSHIP WITH CANADA RESTORING THE TREATY RELATIONSHIP The Blood Tribe s relationship with Canada is rooted in Treaty 7, also known as the Blackfoot Treaty, which was entered into on September 22, We agreed to keep the peace and share the surface of our lands with the newcomers in exchange for the Crown s promise to take care of our people and assist us with the transition to a new way of life. These Treaty promises exist in perpetuity. We have kept our promises. Canada has not honoured its promises. It is the Treaty relationship that informs all dealings between the Blood Tribe and Canada, and such dealings are to be on a nation-to-nation basis. Canada has disregarded the nation-tonation relationship and this is unacceptable to us, particularly since it is the Treaties with First Nations that allowed for the creation and settlement of Canada. We have consistently voiced our concerns regarding Canada s disregard of our relationship and Treaty 7. We have done this through meetings and oral and written submissions on various matters that are tied directly to the Treaty and the Treaty relationship. Canada disregards our concerns and in fact, its recent actions lead us to conclude that it is taking steps to eradicate our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights. 3. SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE TREATY RELATIONSHIP WITH CANADA (a) Consultation and Federal Legislation and Legislative Initiatives Aboriginal rights are essentially rights we hold as a result of our prior occupation of our lands. Treaty rights are rights we hold as a result of Treaty 7. Aboriginal and Treaty rights are constitutionally protected in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, This protection requires that Canada meaningfully consult with us whenever it contemplates action that may adversely 1

3 impact on our rights. This is called the duty to consult and the scope of that duty may include accommodation of our rights. Canada has consistently and miserably failed in discharging its duty to consult with us by engaging in actions that clearly adversely impact our rights. The most obvious examples of Canada s breaches are found it in its recent barrage of legislation or proposed legislation that cover a significant number of areas, including: Bylaw-making procedures (for local government purposes), drinking water on First Nations reserves, education and schools, elections, estates and wills, family homes and matrimonial property on First Nations reserves, financial accountability of First Nations officials and First Nations, fisheries, housing, Indian reserve land designation procedures, self-government, and water and waterbodies (primarily related to environmental protection). All of this legislation or proposed legislation has either already adversely impacted our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights or has the potential to do so. Yet, we were not consulted. We have made our concerns known to Canada, which it has proceeded to ignore. Canada has a consultation policy which does not meet the legal duty to consult which has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada. We are of the view that this policy is aimed at protecting Canada s interests rather than ensuring that Canada s legal obligation to First Nations is properly discharged. (b) Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA) 1930 In 1930, the federal government arbitrarily transferred the natural resources of First Nations situated in Alberta to the Alberta government, including the Blood Tribe/Kainai. The Blood Tribe/Kainai is of the position that the NRTA did not transfer its full interests in the non-reserve lands and resources of its traditional territory. Further, if Canada did in fact transfer those interests to Alberta, in doing so Canada breached its fiduciary and trust obligations to the First Nation and failed to fulfill its obligations to protect the aboriginal title and rights of the First Nation in the lands and resources of its traditional territory. We proposed talks with Canada and Alberta to resolve this long standing issue which has far reaching implications. Most recently we have offered to discuss resource sharing agreements with the both the federal and provincial governments. (c) Education and Health Care Education and health care are Treaty rights which arise from the Crown s promise to take care of our people and assist us with the transition to a new way of life. These promises are to last forever: for as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, the grass grows and the mountains stand. We have kept our promises. Canada has not. With respect to education, Canada has provided some funding for the education of Blood Tribe members. This funding has never been adequate. Now Canada is proposing to introduce new federal legislation by the fall of 2014, the First Nations Education Act, which will deal with primary and secondary education on First Nation reserves. The primary motivation for the proposed Act is to save Canada money. Because education is a Treaty right, Canada is obligated to meaningfully consult with us whenever it contemplates action which may adversely impact on our right. Canada purports to 2

4 be engaging in some process with First Nations, as well as the general public and other stakeholders, but we are of the view that this process does not discharge its legal duty to consult. Once again, Canada is determining what is best for our people when in reality this is nothing more than what is best for Canada and what will save Canada money. (d) Specific Claims Specific claims are claims by First Nations against Canada which relate to Canada s: failure to fulfill a legal obligation arising from a Treaty (such as the provision of lands or other assets); breach of a statutory obligation relating to First Nations or First Nation reserve lands; breach of a legal obligation arising from its administration of First Nation reserve lands, moneys or other assets; illegal lease or disposition of First Nation reserve lands; failure to provide adequate compensation for First Nation reserve lands taken or damaged by it or its agencies; or its employees or agents engaging in fraud in connection with the acquisition, leasing or disposition of First Nation lands Canada established a policy to deal with Specific Claims which purports to provide First Nations with a reasonable and fair alternative to litigating their claims and which further provides guidelines for the assessment and negotiation of those claims. The underlying objective of the policy is to provide justice for First Nations and to dramatically improve and accelerate the Specific Claims process. We have a number of Specific Claims, three (3) of which have been partially accepted for negotiation. The Blood Tribe Council agreed to negotiate these claims. It has become readily apparent that Canada does not wish to negotiate our claims and would prefer to either stall discussions so that we will take our claims to a Specific Claims Tribunal or simply place an offer on the table for our acceptance or rejection within a ninety (90) day period. This approach does not amount to good faith negotiations and is not in keeping with the Policy. We have also become aware recently of serious fundamental problems within Canada s Specific Claims Branch (which is a branch within the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Public information indicates that Specific Claims Branch management is arbitrarily holding up specific claim settlements for months over matters that have little impact on the actual claim. It is clear that Canada has no intention of dealing with us in an honourable manner in respect to our Specific Claims. It is our view that Canada s breaches in this regard continue. 4. CONCERNS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA S CONSULTATION POLICY Alberta is also obligated to consult with First Nations whenever it contemplates any action that may adversely impact on Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Alberta also has a consultation policy and like Canada s policy, it fails to meet the legal duty to consult. As with Canada, we have voiced our concerns with the Policy on several occasions. Alberta has refused to acknowledge our concerns and simply points to its Policy as meeting its duty to consult. The practical impact of Alberta s failure to discharge its duty to consult is that our constitutionally protected Aboriginal 3

5 and Treaty rights in relation to land and natural resources are being adversely impacted. Our only apparent but impractical recourse is litigation. 5. CONCLUSION Our relationship with Canada is rooted in Treaty 7. We have honoured our Treaty promises. We have reminded Canada, since the time of Treaty, of the historic nation-to-nation relationship it has with us. We have also reminded Canada of its Treaty promises which it has not yet honoured. We will continue to remind Canada of these things, whether through the active pursuant of our claims, or through our submissions on proposed legislation and policies, or through this submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We appreciate this opportunity to present our concerns and issues and sincerely hope that it will lead to positive changes. 4

6 1. THE BLOOD TRIBE/KAINAI (a) Historical and Cultural Context The Blood Tribe/Kainai is a member of the Blackfoot Confederacy and we are bound together with our sister Confederacy Tribes Siksika, Pikuni and Amskapi Pikuni - by a common culture, language and kinship system. At the time of European contact, Blackfoot territory was bordered on the north by the North Saskatchewan River in what is now the Province of Alberta, on the south by the Yellowstone River in what is now the State of Montana, on the west by the Continental Divide, and on the east by the Great Sand Hills in what is now the Province of Saskatchewan. Tribal principles that govern the Blood Tribe s actions are articulated in our Elders declaration: Kainayssini. The declaration is a recording of what our Elders understand to be the purpose of our existence as Kainai. Kainayssini sets out our tribal system and guiding principles for the protection and preservation of that system,and lays out a practical guide as to what must be done presently and in the future to ensure our survival. We must maintain the foundations of our existence including our land, our language, our culture, and our political, economic and social rights. The Blood Tribe/Kainai has always existed as a nation. From time immemorial, we have controlled our lands and our religious, political, economic and cultural destinies. We are the caretakers of our land and our rights, not for ourselves but for our children and generations into the future. This is a sacred trust given to us by the Creator. We have a duty to safeguard this trust against the immediate and perhaps short sighted interests of other parties, including the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta. The land is not ours to exploit, and our Aboriginal and Treaty rights are not ours to negotiate or limit. They are for future generations and must be kept intact for them. European settlement altered our life in fundamental ways including obscuring our history and denying the validity of our political and land rights. The Canadian government failed to honour Treaty 7 (also known as the Blackfoot Treaty) and instead imposed British law over every aspect of our lives which eroded our independence and undermined our inherent authority. The validity of our life systems is under constant attack. But, we are a proud and tenacious people and have survived attempts to eradicate us. Today, we are still engaged in the struggle to preserve for future generations the fundamental values, principles, and rights and freedoms that are necessary for us to remain a distinct and unique people, and it is within this context that we make this submission. (b) Contemporary Blood Tribe/Kainai The Blood Tribe/Kainai is located in southern Alberta on the Blood Reserve, the largest Indian reserve in Canada at square miles, and has a population of close to 12,000 members. Our primary industry is agriculture; other industry includes ammonite mining, house construction, oil and gas development, and small business and tourism. We operate and manage our own education system, agricultural and economic development projects, health programs and services, correctional facility and policing, among other things. We have also enacted several bylaws and codes in a number of areas, including in the areas of elections, membership, and finance. 5

7 We have incorporated the principles of Kainayssini in all contemporary Blood Tribe legislation, policies and agreements. In particular, the Blood Tribe s membership code, election bylaw and financial administration code all reference Kainayssini. 2. RELATIONSHIP WITH CANADA RESTORING THE TREATY RELATIONSHIP The Blood Tribe s historical relationship with the Government of Canada ( Canada ) is rooted in Treaty 7, also known as the Blackfoot Treaty, which was entered into between the Blood Tribe and the British Crown, on a nation-to-nation basis, on September 22, Essentially, Canada assumed Treaty responsibilities and obligations upon confederation. We understand the Treaty to be a peace agreement and an agreement to share the surface of our lands with the newcomers. In return, the Crown (Canada) promised to take care of our people. This promise was forever: for as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, the grass grows and the mountains stand.the underlying promise made by the Crown (Canada) was to assist the Blood people with the transition to a new way of life. Accordingly, the Treaty is a solemn and binding agreement that exists in perpetuity. By Treaty 7, we agreed to keep the peace and share our lands with the Crown except for specifically reserved areas which are kept for our exclusive use. The Treaty created a unique relationship between our people and Canada, modifying only one aspect of our rights: the right to exclusive use of our land. Therefore, we retain the same legal and political status we had when we entered into Treaty 7. Specifically, we retain the right to be self-governing and our leadership continues to be the governing body of the Blood people. Treaty 7 also created certain obligations on the part of Canada. In particular, Canada is required to act with honour in all of its dealings with the Blood Tribe; no appearance of sharp dealing will be sanctioned. From this duty to act with honour flows the duty to consult whenever any legislation has the potential to adversely affect our Aboriginal and Treaty rights; such rights being constitutionally entrenched in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, The Treaty relationship also gives rise to a fiduciary relationship between the Blood Tribe and Canada, with the Blood Tribe as beneficiary and Canada as fiduciary. As such, Canada is vested with a general fiduciary obligation that consists of protection and non-interference. The duty of protection entails protection for our members, lands and resources; while the duty of non-interference allows for the development and implementation of governing structures which are best suited to the Blood people, taking into account our unique culture and values. Thus, it is the Treaty relationship that informs all dealings between the Blood Tribe and Canada and such dealings, in keeping with their original nature, are required to be on a nation-to-nation basis. However, there is a continuing disregard by Canada of the nation-to-nation relationship which is unacceptable to the Blood Tribe. It is not likely that Canada would consider treating any of its non-first Nation treaty partners in the same manner that it has treated its First Nation treaty partners, including the Blood Tribe. Canada would not impose legislation on them which affects their rights and their people, then, after the fact, ask them for their thoughts. That would be unacceptable in that arena. It is equally, if not more, unacceptable here because it is the Treaties with First Nations that allowed for the creation and settlement of Canada. We have voiced our concerns to Canada regarding its continuing disregard for Treaty 7 and the Treaty relationship it has with us. We have done this through meetings and written and oral submissions on various matters that are tied directly to the Treaty and the Treaty relationship. 6

8 In spite of voicing our concerns, no positive change is forthcoming on the part of Canada and in fact, its recent and current actions lead us to conclude that it is taking steps to eradicate our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights. 3. SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE TREATY RELATIONSHIP WITH CANADA (a) Consultation and Federal Legislation and Legislative Initiatives First Nations Aboriginal and Treaty rights are constitutionally protected in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, Aboriginal rights are essentially those rights we hold as a result of our prior occupation of our lands. Treaty rights are those rights we hold as a result of our entering into Treaty with the Crown. The constitutional protection afforded to Aboriginal and Treaty rights requires that Canada meaningfully consult with First Nations whenever it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal or Treaty right and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it. i The scope of the duty to consult may require that Canada accommodate the affected right and such accommodation may include not proceeding with its course of action or altering its course of action so as to minimize any adverse impacts on such rights. Canada has not only failed to discharge its legal duty to consult (by consistently engaging in actions which clearly adversely impact our Aboriginal and Treaty rights); it has breached its duty. Such action is no more evident than in its most recent barrage of legislation or proposed legislation that covers, among others, the following areas: Bylaw-making procedures (for local government purposes) Drinking water on First Nations reserves Education and schools Elections Estates and wills Family homes and matrimonial property on First Nations reserves Financial accountability of First Nations officials and First Nations Fisheries Housing Indian reserve land designation procedures Self-government Water and waterbodies (primarily related to environmental protection) All of this legislation or proposed legislation has the potential to impact or has already impacted on our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Yet, we were not consulted. We made our concerns known on each of these pieces of legislation or proposed legislation by way of written submissions and at times, oral submissions. Our submissions did not constitute consultation however as the obligation to take positive steps to engage in meaningful consultation lies with Canada. Because Canada breached its duty, and the Blood Tribe leadership is obligated to take the steps necessary to protect our rights for our children and our future generations, we insisted on making our concerns known to Canada. Our concerns were not considered and Canada proceeded with its legislation. We fully expect that Canada will continue to proceed with other proposed legislation that will adversely impact on our rights once Parliament resumes sitting this month. 7

9 Canada has a consultation policy, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult, which purports to set out how it will consult with First Nations and accommodate their rights where accommodation is required. We note that this policy falls short of the legal requirements of the duty to consult as has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is our view that this policy is aimed at protecting Canada s interests rather than ensuring Canada s legal obligation to First Nations is properly discharged. (b) Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA) 1930 In 1930, the federal government arbitrarily transferred the natural resources of First Nations situated in Alberta to the Alberta government, including the Blood Tribe/Kainai. The Blood Tribe/Kainai is of the position that the NRTA did not transfer its full interests in the non-reserve lands and resources of its traditional territory. Further, if Canada did in fact transfer those interests to Alberta, in doing so Canada breached its fiduciary and trust obligations to the First Nation and failed to fulfill its obligations to protect the aboriginal title and rights of the First Nation in the lands and resources of its traditional territory. We proposed talks with Canada and Alberta to resolve this long standing issue which has far reaching implications. Most recently we have offered to discuss resource sharing agreements with the both the federal and provincial governments. (c) Education and Health Care The Blood Tribe views education and health care as Treaty rights which arise from the Crown s general promise to assist us with the transition to a new way of life and to take care of our people in exchange for our promise to keep the peace and share the surface of our lands with the newcomers. We understand these promises to be forever: for as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, the grass grows and the mountains stand. ii We have kept our promises since we gave them. Canada has not honoured its promises. Specifically, the Crown promised to provide education and health care for Blood Tribe members: iii Most prominent and repeated were promises of money, unrestricted hunting, education, and medical assistance.... An interesting nuance in the position of the Bloods was that they were anxious to sign because they thought the way of life of the Whites could benefit their people. Recognizing that their former way of life was no longer viable, they looked to alternatives... They were promised many things to improve their way of life, since their original livelihood was taken from them. iv... They promised to take care of us for all time. v... The Bloods were promised education, health care, and economic development. vi Thus, the Blood Tribe views education and health care as Treaty rights which are to last in perpetuity. In respect to education, this is a life-long process among the Blood people which does not end at a certain age or upon completion of a certain level of schooling. This right includes, among 8

10 other things, provision of adequate federal funding to ensure education at all levels: kindergarten, elementary, secondary and post-secondary. The written text of Treaty 7 provides in respect to education: Further, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salary of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to Her Government of Canada may seem advisable, when said Indians are settled on their Reserves and shall desire teachers. vii Subsequent to the Treaty, Canada has provided some fundingfor the education of Blood Tribe membersliving on reserve at the kindergarten, elementary and secondary education levels and for the post-secondary education of Blood Tribe members living on or off reserve, by way of a financial transfer agreement. This funding has never been adequate. Canada has made it very clear that it intends to enact new federal legislation by the fall of 2014, the First Nations Education Act, which will deal with kindergarten, elementary and secondary education on First Nations reserves. It will impose systems and delivery standards similar to provincial requirements and will essentially legislate funding requirements which are currently dealt with through individual funding agreements with First Nations. The primary motivation for the proposed Act is to save Canada money. As we have a Treaty right to education, it is not for Canada to arbitrarily and unilaterally impose legislation on us that will adversely affect our constitutionally protected right. We have no issue with high quality education for our members; that is not the issue. In fact, we are very proud to have controlled and operated our own education system on the Blood Reserve for many years. That system has always adhered to provincial curriculum requirements while ensuring that such education is provided within our own cultural context. Our issue is that Canada is once again deciding what is best for our people in respect to education all for the sake of saving itself money. Given that education is a Treaty right, any action Canada contemplates in this area triggers the legal duty to consult. We have not been consulted nor do we expect that the current Government of Canada will consult with us. While Canada purports to be consulting with First Nations on the proposed Act, we are of the view that its actions in this regard do not discharge its legal duty to consult. (d) Specific Claims Specific Claims generally refers to claims by First Nations against Canada that relate to: its failure to fulfill a legal obligation arising from a Treaty (such as the provision of lands or other assets); its breach of a statutory obligation relating to First Nations or First Nation reserve lands; its breach of a legal obligation arising from its administration of First Nation reserve lands, moneys or other assets; its illegal lease or disposition of First Nation reserve lands; its failure to provide adequate compensation for First Nation reserve lands taken or damaged by it or its agencies; or fraud by its employees or agents in connection with the acquisition, leasing or disposition of First Nation lands viii 9

11 Canada established a policy to deal with Specific Claims in 1982, which was amended in the 1990 s and further amended in Canada s Specific Claims Policy purports to provide First Nations with a reasonable and fair alternative to litigating their claims against Canada and which further provides guidelines for the assessment of claims and the negotiation process. ix The Policy s underlying objective is to provide justice for First Nation claimants and to dramatically improve and accelerate the Specific Claims process. Pursuant to changes in 2007, federal legislation was enacted, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, which allows First Nations to file claims with the Tribunal (established pursuant to the Act) that are not accepted for negotiation or are not resolved through negotiation within a certain time frame. x Essentially, the underlying principles of the Policy are that an outstanding lawful obligation must be confirmed, valid claims will be compensated in accordance with legal principles, and any settlement reached must represent final resolution. We have a number of Specific Claims which we submitted in accordance with the Specific Claims Policy. After an inordinate number of years after submission, three (3) of our claims have been partially accepted for negotiation. The Blood Tribe Council agreed to negotiate these claims. It has become readily apparent that Canada does not wish to negotiate our claims and would prefer to either stall discussions so that we will take our claims to the Tribunal or to simply place an offer on the table for our acceptance or rejection within a ninety (90) day period. Prior to placing an offer on the table, Canada has so much as indicated that it is not prepared to negotiate and is not prepared to work with us in conducting loss of use studies so that we are in a position to determine the value of our losses arising from the claims. In the absence of that information, we are simply not in a position to determine whether any offer is reasonable or not. As a result, the Blood Tribe Council will not be in a position to recommend to its voting membership (which is in excess of 6,000 members) that it accept the offer. Consequently, we will either have to conduct our own loss of use studies in a very short timeframe at our own cost and make a quick determination whether Canada s offer is reasonable, or we will have to take our claim to the Tribunal or proceed with litigation. Both of these options present their own concerns including further delay in having our claims settled and the additional costs we will incur. Both of these are unnecessary in our view if Canada would simply negotiate with us in good faith, as it is required to do, so that we can arrive at a fair and proper settlement. It has recently come to our attention that there are serious fundamental problems within Canada s Specific Claims branch (which is a branch within the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Public information indicates that Specific Claims Branch officials feel bullied and intimidated by their superiors and accuse management of arbitrarily holding up specific claim settlements for months over matters that have little impact on the actual claim. xi It is clear to us that in spite of Canada s Specific Claims Policy, it has no intention of dealing with us in an honourable manner in respect to our Specific Claims. It is our view that Canada s breaches in this regard continue. 4. CONCERNS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA S CONSULTATION POLICY The legal duty to consult applies to all Crown action and therefore the Government of Alberta, as the provincial Crown, is also obligated to consult with First Nations whenever it contemplates 10

12 any action that may adversely impact on Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Alberta has a consultation policy, Alberta s Policy on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management, 2013 (formerly the First Nations Consultation Policy on Land Management and Resource Development). This policy, like Canada s policy, is substantially and substantively short in respect to meeting the legal duty to consult. On several occasions we have voiced our concerns through written submissions. While Alberta is of the view that it has consulted with us on its policy, we do not share that view. Consultation is to be meaningful with a view to substantially addressing potential adverse impacts. Alberta s process is simply meaningless irrespective of our concerns, and those voiced by many other Alberta First Nations it continues to take the position that its policy meets the legal standard for the duty to consult. It does not meet that standard. The practical result is two-fold: (1) our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights in relation to land and natural resources are being adversely impacted and our only apparent but impractical recourse is litigation; and (2) any Alberta government department who complies with the policy (or industry to whom Alberta passes off its duty on many occasions) may not be complying with the legal duty to consult. 5. CONCLUSION The leadership of the Blood Tribe is entrusted with a sacred duty to safeguard the rights of its members, not only for its current membership but for future generations. As such, we have taken active steps to meet this responsibility by ensuring that our voice is heard on matters that affect our ways of life, our rights and our people. We have prepared submissions on proposed legislation and policies where those may adversely affect our Aboriginal and Treaty rights. In all of our submissions we are clear that they do not constitute consultation and we have reminded both Canada and Alberta that they are obligated to engage in meaningful consultation with us. They have both refused to do so. We have actively taken steps to protect our Aboriginal and Treaty rights, particularly in the face of Canada s continued actions to infringe and regulate those rights to the point where we will be unable to exercise them. We have honoured the Treaty promises we made. We have consistently reminded Canada of the historic nation-to-nation relationship it has with us. We have also reminded Canada of its Treaty promises, obligations and responsibilities which it has not yet honoured. We will continue to remind Canada of these things, whether through the active pursuant of our claims, or through our submissions on proposed legislation and policies, or through this submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is our sincere hope that Canada, and Alberta, will hear our voice and we will have meaningful discussions on the issues that concern us and hopefully, such discussions will lead to resolution of our claims while also protecting and honouring our rights and interests. 11

13 Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Blood Tribe/Kainai Chief Charles Weasel Head i Case law has determined that provincial governments also have a duty to consult and we address our concerns with the Government of Alberta in a subsequent section in our submission ii Blood Tribe/Kainaiwa Big Claim, Written Submission to the Indian Claims Commission, June 15, 2005, p. 37, evidence of Louise Crop Eared Wolf, Andy Black Water, Rosie Red Crow, Mary Louise Oka, Rosie Day Rider, Pete Standing Alone, and Frank Weasel Head iii Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council et al, The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7 (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen s University Press, 1996), pp iv Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council, supra, p. 120, statement of Fred Gladstone v Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council, supra, p. 121, statement of Annie Bare Shin Bone vi Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council, supra, p. 121, statement of Louise Crop Eared Wolf vii Treaty 7, between Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and the Blackfeet, Blood, Peigan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians, September 22, 1877 viii see Specific Claims Tribunal Act, SC 2008, c. 22, ss. 14(1) ix see Canada. Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The Specific Claims Policy and Process Guide (Online). Available: [October 9, 2013] x supra xi Barrera, Jorge. Poisonous atmosphere inside Aboriginal Affairs branch delaying settlement of treaty-related claims: letter. APTN National News 30 Sept Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Web. 9 Oct