Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:51:01.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Out of the Fires of Hell: Globalization as a Solution to Globalization—An Indigenist Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Kiera L. Ladner  and
Caroline Dick
Kiera L. Ladner
Affiliation:
Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, ladnerk@cc.umanitoba.ca
Caroline Dick
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5C2, cdick4@uwo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the 1960s, Canada's Indigenous peoples have sought to rebuild their nations as well as their economic, political, social, and cultural systems, advancing their claims domestically through political and legal avenues and pressing their agendas internationally. Yet despite the constitutional entrenchment of Aboriginal rights and the Canadian state's choice to engage in a discourse of the inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples, domestic avenues have been marked by a state of “paradigm paralysis,” with Canadian authorities holding steadfast to the colonial paradigm. As a result, courts and politicians alike have failed to question the authority of Canadian governments over First Nations or to affirm the nation-to-nation relationship that once governed the Crown's dealings with Indigenous peoples. Instead, while political avenues have resulted in the recognition of inferior forms of self-government by “superior” Canadian governments, the constitutionally protected rights of Aboriginal peoples have been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a most limiting way, undermining claims to Aboriginal sovereignty, constraining the cultural autonomy of Aboriginal peoples, and precluding the creation of modern Aboriginal economies. This being the case, the question that arises is, Do global avenues offer greater promise for Indigenous peoples and their aspirations? By examining Indigenous peoples' engagement with trade liberalization mechanisms and intellectual property rights, the authors conclude that while, the international arena and multilateral trade organizations certainly are not predicated on protecting Indigenous peoples or their interests, they can be used to advance the political, social, cultural, and economic aspirations of Indigenous peoples.

Résumé

Depuis les années 1960, les peuples autochtones du Canada essaient de reconstruire leurs nations ainsi que leurs systèmes économiques, politiques, sociaux et culturels. Ceux-ci défendent leurs revendications sur le plan domestique, à l'aide de démarches politiques et légales, tout en faisant valoir leurs demandes à l'échelle internationale. Malgré l'empiètement des droits constitutionnels des Autochtones et le choix du Canada de s'engager dans un discours sur les droits inhérents des peuples autochtones, les voies domestiques sont marquées, néanmoins, par une « paralysie des paradigmes » et les autorités canadiennes s'accrochent fermement au paradigme colonial. Par conséquent, les cours ainsi que les politiciens ont été incapables de remettre en cause l'autorité du gouvernement du Canada sur les questions touchant les Premières nations ou encore d'entériner la relation de nation à nation qui gouvernait autrefois les négociations de la couronne avec les peuples autochtones. Tandis que les démarches politiques ont abouti à la reconnaissance de formes inférieures d'autonomie gouvernementale par des gouvernements canadiens « supérieurs », les droits constitutionnels protégés des peuples autochtones ont été interprétés par la Cour suprême du Canada de la manière la plus limitée, ébranlant, par le fait même, les revendications autochtones sur la question de la souveraineté, limitant l'autonomie culturelle des peuples autochtones et empêchant la création d'économies autochtones modernes. Ainsi, on peut se poser la question suivante : les démarches globales représentent-elles de meilleurs espoirs pour les peuples autochtones et leurs aspirations? En examinant l'engagement des peuples autochtones dans des domaines touchant les mécanismes de libéralisation des échanges et les droits sur la propriété intellectuelle, les auteurs concluent que, même si l'aréna internationale et les organisations d'échange multilatéral ne cherchent certainement pas à protéger les autochtones ou leurs intérêts, ceux-ci peuvent toutefois être utilisés afin de faire avancer les aspirations politiques, sociales, culturelles et économiques des peuples autochtones.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 23 , Issue 1-2 , April 2008 , pp. 63 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Globalization was well under way in Africa and Asia prior to 1492; our use of the term “episode 1” is limited to the North American context.

2 Neu, Dean and Therrien, Richard, Accounting for Genocide: Canada's Bureaucratic Assault on Aboriginal People (Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing/Zed Books, 2003), 13Google Scholar.

3 See Ladner, Kiera L., “Rethinking Aboriginal Governance,” in Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century, ed. Brodie, M. Janine and Trimble, Linda (Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003), 45–47Google Scholar.

4 Youngblood Henderson, James (Sákéj), “First Nations Legal Inheritances in Canada: The Mikmaq Model,” Manitoba Law Journal 23 (1995), 6Google Scholar.

5 For example, if a nation agreed to trade only with the British, then their sovereignty was limited, as they could not trade elsewhere.

6 Coates, Ken, The Marshall Decision and Native Rights (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000), 28–39Google Scholar.

7 Milloy, John S., “The Early Indian Acts: Developmental Strategy and Constitutional Change,” in As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows: A Reader in Canadian Native Studies, ed. Getty, Ian A.L. and Lussier, Antoine S. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1983), 56Google Scholar.

8 Tobias, John L., “Protection, Civilization, Assimilation: An Outline History of Canada's Indian Policy,” in Sweet Promises: A Reader on Indian-White Relations in Canada, ed. Miller, J.R. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 127Google Scholar.

9 Ladner, , “Rethinking,” 47–51Google Scholar.

10 Parenteau, Bill, “Care, Control and Supervision: Native People in the Canadian Salmon Fishery, 1867–1900,” Canadian Historical Review 79 (1998), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Neu, and Therrien, , Accounting for Genocide, 124, 160Google Scholar.

12 Carter, Sarah, Lost Harvests: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), 192–236Google Scholar.

13 For instance, in 1923, asserting status as a separate nation and continued sovereignty (as affirmed in the treaties), Deskahth, a Cayuga (Confederacy) chief, sought entry to the League of Nations for the Haudenosaunee.

14 Cardinal, Harold, The Unjust Society: The Tragedy of Canada's Indians (Edmonton: Hurtig, 1969)Google Scholar.

15 Ladner, , “Rethinking,” 51–55Google Scholar.

16 Ladner, Kiera L., “Visions of Neocolonialism: Renewing the Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples,” Canadian Journal of Native Studies 21 (2001), 105Google Scholar; Ladner, , “Rethinking,” 52–55Google Scholar.

17 James, (Sákéj) Henderson, Youngblood, “Postcolonial Ledger Drawing,” in Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, ed. Battiste, Marie (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000), 161Google Scholar.

18 Ladner, , “Visions,” 110–11, 124–27Google Scholar.

19 Ladner, , “Rethinking,” 54–55Google Scholar.

20 Kiera L. Ladner and Michael Orsini have argued that this paradigm paralysis can be explained and understood using the tools of new institutionalism, and particularly of path dependency and policy legacies. See Ladner, Kiera L. and Orsini, Michael, “The Persistence of Paradigm Paralysis: The First Nations Governance Act as the Continuation of Colonial Policy,” in Canada: The State of the Federation 2003: Re-Configuring Aboriginal–State Relations, ed. Murphy, Michael (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2005), 185Google Scholar.

21 R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 160 at 179 (S.C.C.).

22 Ibid. at 171.

23 Section 35(1) states that “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11Google Scholar.

24 Sparrow at 171.

25 Ibid. at 172.

26 Ibid. at 182–84.

27 Ibid. at 177.

28 See, e.g., Asch, Michael and Macklem, Patrick, “Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Sovereignty: An Essay on R. v. Sparrow,” Alberta Law Review 29 (1991), 498Google Scholar.

29 [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 177 (S.C.C.).

30 See R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672, where Aboriginal claims to barter and exchange fish for money or other goods were disqualified from rights status because such exchanges were found to have been incidental and occasional prior to contact.

31 Van der Peet at para. 27.

32 Ibid. at para. 30.

33 Ibid. at para. 61.

34 Ibid. at para. 44.

35 Ibid. at para. 46.

36 Ibid. at para. 45.

37 The timeline adopted by the Court to establish the constitutional rights of Métis under s. 35(1) departs from the pre-contact test established in Van der Peet to reflect the fact that Métis cultures post-date contact with Europeans. In cases involving Métis rights, the Court uses a “pre-control” test that focuses on the period after a particular Métis community arose and before it came under the effective control of European laws and customs. Unfortunately, this departure from the Van der Peet timeline has not affected the application of the pre-contact principle in cases involving the rights of First Nations. See R. v. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207 at para. 18.

38 Ibid. at para. 73.

39 Ibid. at para. 55.

40 Ibid at para. 56.

41 Ibid. at para. 59.

42 Ibid. at para. 71.

43 Ibid. at para. 55.

44 Ibid. at para. 56.

45 Ibid. at para. 86.

46 Ibid. at para. 89.

47 [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 164 (S.C.C.).

48 Ibid. at para. 24.

49 Ibid. at para. 27.

50 Ibid. at para. 28.

51 Ibid. at para. 28.

52 [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911.

53 Ibid. at para. 16.

54 Ibid. at para. 60. It is interesting to note that the government was arguing that loosening its control over the border and trade was contrary to Canadian sovereignty and, thus, not allowable, while at the same time willingly loosening its control over the border and trade by attempting to make it both more integrated and less restricted so as to “seal a trade agreement” and “renew trading relationships” with the United States and Mexico (among others). Nonetheless, the Mitchell decision does leave open the possibility that cross-border trade activities found to be integral to a distinctive Aboriginal society could form the basis of a s. 35(1) Aboriginal right.

55 [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686 [Sappier].

56 Ibid. at para. 20.

57 Ibid. at para. 21.

58 Ibid. at para. 22.

59 Ibid. at para. 24.

60 Ibid. at para. 24.

61 Ibid. at para. 24.

62 Ibid. at para. 48.

63 Ibid. at para. 20.

64 Ibid. at para. 41.

65 Ibid. at para. 40.

66 Van der Peet at para. 56.

67 Sappier at para. 37. See also R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139.

68 Sappier, ibid. at para. 41.

69 Ibid. at para. 25.

70 In the trade clause the British agree to set up trading posts, or “truckhouses,” where the Mi'kmaq may trade their goods. The Mi'kmaq agree, in turn, to trade only at those posts, precluding trade with their former French allies. See R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456.

71 Ibid. at para. 58.

72 Ibid. at para. 59.

73 Ibid. at para. 60.

74 Ibid. at para. 61.

75 Ibid. at para. 59.

76 R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533 at para. 41.

77 R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220 at para. 19.

78 Ibid. at para. 16.

79 See Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511 [Haida Nation]; Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550 [Taku River]; Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 [Mikisew Cree].

80 Mikisew Cree at para. 55.

81 Haida Nation at para. 35.

82 Ibid. at para. 24; Taku River at para. 25.

83 Haida Nation at para. 39.

84 Ibid. at para. 30.

85 Ibid. at para. 48.

86 Ibid. at para. 47.

87 Ibid. at para. 77.

88 See Haida Nation, where the British Columbia government's transfer of tree-farming licences to a corporate entity was set aside because the Crown failed to fulfil its duty to consult the Haida people, who claimed title over the lands in question. See also the recent decision of Ontario's Court of Appeal stating that where injunctions are sought by corporate parties to protect their economic interests and carry on “contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that … the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations.” Frontenac Ventures v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008 ONCA 534 (O.C.A.) at para. 48.

89 See Mikisew Cree, where ministerial approval of the federal government's plan to build a winter road by “taking up” land pursuant to Treaty 8 was set aside because the Crown failed to meet its duty to consult the Aboriginal community whose reserve the road would skirt.

90 Gastle argues that the duty to consult and accommodate applies to government initiatives concerning international trade. Accordingly, where the government fails to discharge its duty to consult and accommodate, the violating provisions of the trade agreement will be invalid as a matter of domestic law, though Canada's legal obligations under the trade agreement likely will continue. Nonetheless, the failure of the government to fulfil its duty to consult will be a “contributing factor” in finding that a provision of a trade agreement is not a justifiable infringement on an Aboriginal or treaty right. The range of domestic remedies available to the Aboriginal peoples whose constitutional rights have been violated remains to be seen. Where an international trade agreement is found to violate, unjustifiably, an Aboriginal or treaty right, Gastle argues, damages are a possible remedy, though the degree to which the principle of the honour of the Crown will support an action for damages is uncertain. Raising the honour of the Crown before international tribunals, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), may also prove fruitful. As demonstrated by the softwood lumber dispute discussed below, the WTO regime allowed the Interior Alliance of British Columbia First Nations both to draw attention to the Canadian government's failure to respect Aboriginal tenure and to bring about financial consequences as a result of that failure. See Charles M. Gastle, “Shadows of a Talking Circle: Aboriginal Advocacy Before International Institutions and Tribunals (2 December 2002), The Estey Centre for Law and Economics, in International Trade, http://www.esteycentre.ca/>, 12–14, 61, 65.

91 Van der Peet at para. 73.

92 Murphy, Michael, “Culture and the Courts: A New Direction in Canadian Jurisprudence on Aboriginal Rights?” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34 (2001), 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Barsh, Russel Lawrence and Youngblood Henderson, James [Sákéj], “The Supreme Court's Van der Peet Trilogy: Naive Imperialism and Ropes of Sand,” McGill Law Journal 42 (1997), 1005 n. 44Google Scholar.

94 Macklem, Patrick, Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Murphy, “Culture and the Courts.”

95 Macklem, ibid., 75.

96 Barsh, and Henderson, , “The Supreme Court's Van der Peet Trilogy,” 1002Google Scholar.

97 Borrows, John, Recovering Canada: The Resurgence of Indigenous Law (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 60Google Scholar; Murphy, , “Culture and the Courts,” 126Google Scholar.

98 Borrows, ibid., 60.

99 Slattery, Brian, “Making Sense of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights,” Canadian Bar Review 79 (2000), 196Google Scholar.

100 Barsh, and Henderson, , “The Supreme Court's Van der Peet Trilogy,” 995–96Google Scholar.

101 Lipset, Seymour Martin, Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada (New York: Routledge, 1990)Google Scholar; Bell, David and Tepperman, Lorne, The Roots of Disunity (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1979)Google Scholar.

102 See Ladner and Orsini, “The Persistence of Paradigm Paralysis.”

103 Neu, and Therrien, , Accounting for Genocide, 168Google Scholar.

104 Coulter, Robert T., “The Present and Future Status of American Indian Nations,” in Critical Issues in Native North America, vol. 2, ed. Churchill, Ward (Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 1991), 7Google Scholar.

105 Russell, Peter H., Recognizing Indigenous Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 138Google Scholar.

106 Ibid. at 138.

107 ILO Convention 169 was the first international instrument to recognize a right to the collective ownership of land. Nonetheless, it has been the subject of significant criticism. See Stewart-Harawira, Makere, The New Imperial Order: Indigenous Responses to Globalization (London: Zed Books, 2005), 130–32Google Scholar.

108 Ibid., 133.

109 Canada opposed the General Assembly's declaration, which is not legally binding under international law in any event.

110 Phillips, Valerie J., “Identifying National and International Vacuums Potentially Impacting NAFTA and Indigenous Peoples,” Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 2 (2001), 249Google Scholar.

111 Ibid., 250. Note that the authors understand “traditional” in a manner inconsistent with the Canadian courts, as they do not perceive “traditions” to be frozen in time.

112 Ibid., 249.

113 Ibid., 250–51.

114 Unpublished discussant comments presented at the Aboriginal Policy Roundtable: Indigenous Heritage Rights and APEC, Native Law Centre, University of Saskatchewan, April 4–6, 1997.

115 Ibid.

116 Barsh, Russel Lawrence and Tano, Mervyn L., “Roundtable Summary: Indigenous Peoples and Multilateral Trade Regimes: Navigating New Opportunities for Advocacy,” New York University School of Law, May 17–19, 2002Google Scholar, http://www.iiirm.org/Events/Conferences%20and%20Roundtables/nyu_trade/nyu_trade.htm.

117 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is a WTO agreement providing a common set of international rules to govern the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights among WTO members.

118 Stewart-Harawira, , The New Imperial Order, 215Google Scholar. For a discussion of the limitations of domestic and international IPR conventions see Gastle, , “Shadows of a Talking Circle,” 39–49Google Scholar.

119 Blackduck, Alison, “Pauktuutit to Continue Work on Amauti Protection,” Nunatsiaq News, June 1, 2001, http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut010630/nvt10601_15.htmlGoogle Scholar; Centre for Research and Traditional Knowledge, The Amauti and Intellectual Property (2002), http://www.thecentrefortraditionalknowledge.org/case14.htmlGoogle Scholar. See also Bird, Phillip, Intellectual Property Rights and the Inuit Amauti: A Case Study (July 2002), http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/ngo/wssd_amauti.pdfGoogle Scholar.

120 Battiste, Marie and Youngblood Henderson, James (Sákéj), Protecting Indigenous Voice and Vision (Saskatoon: Purich, 2000), 261Google Scholar.

121 Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, “Preliminary Systematic Analysis of National Experiences with the Legal Protection of Expressions of Folklore” (December 2002), http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_4/wipo_grtkf_ic_4_3.pdf.

122 Gastle, Charles M., “Are Trade Agreements a Forum for Aboriginal Rights?” The Lawyers Weekly, June 26, 2002, http://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/headlines.cfm?refID=7487Google Scholar.

123 Gastle, , “Shadows of a Talking Circle,” 65Google Scholar.

124 Davis, Megan, “International Trade Law and Indigenous Peoples: New Directions in Human Rights Advocacy,” Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 9, 2 (2005), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/2005/20.htmlGoogle Scholar.

125 Davis, Megan, “New Developments in International Advocacy: Amicus Curiae and the World Trade Organization,” Indigenous Law Bulletin 24, 5 (2003), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2003/28.htmlGoogle Scholar.

126 Phillips, “Identifying National and International Vacuums.”

127 Scheffler, Lenor, “Papers, Presentations and Proceedings of the Conference,” Conference on the Impact of NAFTA on Aboriginal Business in North America, Saskatoon, SK, May 28–29, 2001, http://www.esteycentre.ca/Nafta.docGoogle Scholar.

128 “NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy,” Public Citizen, September 2001, http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF186.PDFGoogle Scholar.

129 Barsh and Tano, “Roundtable Summary.”

130 Ibid.