D2. Policies and Policy Making
Specific Expectations
D2.1
assess the consequences of some key Canadian government policies for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit relations with the Canadian state (e.g., with reference to the “Sixties Scoop” federal policy of removing Indigenous children from their families to be fostered by or adopted into non-Indigenous families; the White Paper, 1969; policies recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; procurement policies embedded in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, 1993; land use and planning policies stemming from the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act, 2000: Implementation Plan; proposals outlined in Bill C-45, the Jobs, Growth, and Long-term Prosperity Act, 2012)
- What were some individual and collective responses to the 1969 federal White Paper calling for the assimilation of First Nations across Canada? How did First Nations groups promote their rejection of the recommendations? What were some consequences?
- Why did Indigenous groups and individuals object to the passage of the omnibus Bill C-45 in 2012? In your opinion, how did this federal policy affect First Nations, Métis, and Inuit relations with the Canadian state?
D2.2
analyse the representation of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities in contemporary Canadian policy-making institutions and processes in terms of how Indigenous participation influences policy approaches and results (e.g., with reference to the appointment of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit members of the Senate; the composition of federal and provincial parliaments and assemblies; the practices and procedures of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on First Nations Child Welfare; First Nations, Métis, and Inuit participation in land management and resource development across Canada)
- What political perspectives can you identify among participants at the 2005 First Ministers’ Meeting on Aboriginal Issues and the 2004-05 Canadian-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable? What were the objectives of the Roundtable, and what did it achieve?
- What issues need to be considered when municipalities develop policies in partnership with urban Indigenous organizations? How has your own or a nearby municipality addressed these issues?
D2.3
describe the implementation and assess the consequences of a variety of contemporary national/regional social policies designed to improve relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals and communities in Canada (e.g., with reference to social inclusion and voice; the promotion of mutual respect; reassessment of historical injustices; education about treaty history, treaty rights, and Aboriginal title)
- What was the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada? How has the Commission influenced social policy?
- What are some ways in which Canadian ministries of education are using educational policy to improve relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals? What examples can you give from your own experience? How have such policies influenced your opinions?
- What did your survey of public health centres in your community reveal about the incorporation of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit health and wellness practices into health services? How does national Canadian health policy support these practices? How might changes to national policy improve the availability and delivery of health services that use Indigenous approaches to wellness?
- How have tripartite agreements between federal and provincial governments and the Métis Nation improved social policies for Métis people? What examples can you give?
- How can new policies serve to remove barriers and improve relationships between non-Indigenous and First Nations, Métis, and Inuit individuals and communities?
