indigenous-municipal legal and governance relationships

Indigenous-Municipal Legal and Governance Relationships

IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance No. 55 • 2021

Doug AndersonAlexandra Flynn

IMFG Papers on Mun ic ipa l F inance and Governance


ByDoug AndersonAlexandra Flynn

Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy University of Toronto 1 Devonshire Place Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3K7 e-mail contact: [email protected] http://www.munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg

Series editors: Tomas Hachard and Philippa Campsie © Copyright held by authors ISBN 978-0-7727-2542-4 ISSN 1927-1921

About IMFG

The Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance (IMFG) is an academic research hub and non-partisan think tank based in the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

IMFG focuses on the fiscal health and governance challenges facing large cities and city-regions. Its objective is to spark and inform public debate, and to engage the academic and policy communities around important issues of municipal finance and governance. The Institute conducts original research on issues facing cities in Canada and around the world; promotes high-level discussion among Canada’s government, academic, corporate, and community leaders through conferences and roundtables; and supports graduate and post-graduate students to build Canada’s cadre of municipal finance and governance experts. It is the only institute in Canada that focuses solely on municipal finance issues in large cities and city-regions.

IMFG is funded by the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipality of York, the Regional Municipality of Halton, Avana Capital Corporation, and Maytree.

Authors

Doug Anderson (Bungee Métis) is the Creative and Strategic Director at Invert Media. He has consulted on Indigenous education and community development across Canada. Since 2001, he has devoted much of his energy to the translation of Indigenous perspectives into diverse education systems, media, and environmental policy and practice, and has been consulted widely in all these areas. Doug enjoys the challenge of designing and building new platforms for reflecting Indigenous knowledge. He is committed to helping preserve these forms of knowledge within Indigenous communities, and to ethically presenting them as crucial models for thinking and problem solving in the 21st century and beyond. He has many years of front-line experience in designing and delivering courses for people of all ages and levels of learning, from kindergarten to the postgraduate level. Since 2013, Doug has played a vital role in urban Indigenous land-based learning and cultural resurgence across Toronto. He is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education, York University.

Dr. Alexandra Flynn is an Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Allard School of Law and a Fellow at the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance. Her teaching and research focus on municipal law and governance, and administrative law. Her current SSHRC-funded project concerns the legal relationships between Indigenous communities and municipal governments. She is also completing a book titled Micro Legal Spaces: The Laws of Neighbourhoods and Communities, which examines overlapping geographies and governance of city spaces, including the formal and informal bodies that represent residents. She has a long history of volunteer work in the areas of homelessness and access to justice.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the incredible work and wisdom of so many Indigenous community members, and for the many talks and walks, and the opportunity to sit in ceremony. Many thanks to colleagues and friends who have provided helpful feedback on our work, including Signa Daum Shanks, Patricia Wood, Estair Van Wagner, Tomas Hachard, Philippa Campsie, and Enid Slack, and for the thoughtful editing. We are especially grateful to those using their wisdom and knowledge from time immemorial to heal our urban communities.

– 1 –

Abstract

This paper describes evolving Canadian municipal relationships with Indigenous Peoples and explores how such relationships may benefit from becoming more deeply reciprocal. The ways in which municipal governments conduct relationships with Indigenous Peoples can include meaningful consultation with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples on matters that affect them; having Indigenous representation on governing bodies; and entering into protocols and agreements with First Nations on lands bordering municipal boundaries and with Indigenous Peoples living in cities. In this paper we focus mainly on Canada’s largest cities. Although close to half of all Indigenous Peoples live in urban areas, cities have fewer legal obligations under Canadian law in respect of Indigenous Peoples than any other order of government. Like all Canadian orders of government, municipal authorities remain largely unaware of distinct Indigenous laws and perspectives. Canada’s Constitution Act limits municipalities to the exercise of authorities granted by provinces. Canadian law views provincial and federal governments as the Crown, while considerable uncertainty remains about the role of municipalities in Indigenous-Crown relationships. We consider whether and how municipal governments are making meaningful changes to modify their governance models and forge reciprocal, respectful relationships with Indigenous Peoples and communities, in relation to distinct Indigenous ways of framing human responsibilities and rights.

Keywords: Indigenous-municipal relations, Canada, municipal governance, duty to consult

JEL codes: H77, H79



– 2 –

1. Introduction: A challenge and an opportunity

Across Canada, Indigenous lands overlap municipal boundaries.1 By “Indigenous lands,” we mean the many kinds of interests that First Nations have in regard to lands and resources. These include reserves, as defined by the Indian Act, urban reserves, treaty lands, and traditional territories, each of which has its own legal framework. Over half of all Indigenous Peoples have lived in cities for generations and are not necessarily affiliated with adjacent First Nations, or with peoples indigenous to the territories on which the cities have been built. The fact that Indigenous lands and local governments overlap raises critical questions about Indigenous-municipal relationships, especially in relation to governance, in numerous crucial areas, including governance, political representation, land use planning, economic development, and social service provision.

Indigenous nations have been located in what are now Canadian cities from time immemorial. These spaces served as bases for economic, political, and social activities. Colonial powers came much later, claiming rights to land and resources for European countries (Freeman 2010). Systematic campaigns by colonial powers pushed Indigenous nations from urban centres, eradicating their access to land and rights in the eyes of Canadian authorities (Laurier 1911). Over time, European powers further displaced Indigenous Peoples through disease, violence, and other means (Freeman 2010). This displacement from Canadian cities is often omitted from municipal websites or origin stories.

While the Constitution Act and case law sets out the responsibilities of governments to Indigenous Peoples, it sheds little light on the relationships between Indigenous communities and municipalities. Municipalities often claim that they do not know what obligations they owe to First Nations (Dorries 2012). This is especially true in relation to the obligation called “the duty to consult,” the responsibility of the Crown in relation to First Nations and Indigenous Peoples (Haida Nation v British Columbia [Minister of Forests] 2004).

The courts have defined the Crown to mean federal and provincial governments. Since municipalities are creatures of statute, some representatives of local governments claim that they do not owe a duty to consult to First Nations and Indigenous Peoples (Association of Municipalities of Ontario 2019). At the same time, municipal governments are introducing changes to their governance models as a result of Indigenous advocacy, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and international efforts such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Doug Anderson, Alexandra Flynn


1. This paper adopts the following terminology: “Indigenous Peoples” include First Nations, “bands” as defined by the Indian Act, Inuit, Métis, and other Indigenous Peoples affected by municipal planning decisions. “First Nations” refers to Indigenous governments. “Aboriginal” refers to Indigenous Peoples and their rights as identified under Canadian law.

– 3 –

Indigenous rights intersect with municipal interests in three main ways. First, there are treaty relationships and Indigenous claims within and adjacent to cities (Dorries 2012). Treaties are agreements entered into by First Nations and colonial governments and, later, the federal government, regarding the use of land and resources. For example, a treaty may recognize Indigenous rights to hunt, fish, and trap. Treaties, which are constitutionally protected, often overlap with municipal boundaries, which means that local governments must be aware of and adhere to the treaty rights that apply.

Second, some First Nations have reserves within or adjacent to municipalities. Reserves are Indigenous lands and First Nations have the right to make all decisions regarding who may enter or use reserves. Municipalities do not have the right to make decisions regarding reserve lands.

Third, cities are home to Indigenous Peoples. According to 2016 Census data, 51.8 percent of Indigenous Peoples live in urban areas in Canada, representing an increase of 59.7 percent from 2006 (Statistics Canada 2017). Of these urban Indigenous Peoples, 30 percent are second- or third-generation city residents (Andersen 2013). Municipal governance therefore deeply impacts Indigenous Peoples and communities, for example, through the location or preservation of cemeteries and land use planning decisions (Hoehn and Stevens 2018), and decisions related to housing and social services (Tomiak 2011).

This paper calls attention to an urgent need to review Indigenous-municipal relationships across Canada. By “Indigenous-municipal relations,” we mean the ways in which municipal governments conduct relationships with Indigenous Peoples, including ensuring consultation with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples on matters that affect them, Indigenous representation on governing bodies, and entering into protocols and agreements with First Nations and with Indigenous Peoples residing within cities.

We will briefly describe the constitutional role of Canadian municipalities, exploring the legal nudges made by the Supreme Court of Canada to recognize the democratic importance of local governments through the development of principles such as subsidiarity and cooperative federalism within the constraints of section 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1982. We outline how municipal authority intersects with Indigenous Peoples and communities, focusing on the duty to consult, and other frameworks such as UNDRIP.

Building on these Canadian realities, we explore the early promise of more recent developments in Indigenous-municipal relationships, focusing on Canada’s largest cities, with a case study of Toronto. We conclude with some of the continuing challenges and opportunities.

Urban Indigenous identity is complex, with vast differences in population, representation, and experiences across cities (Heritz 2010). The audience for this paper may not have an understanding of Indigenous Peoples or Indigenous laws, and may not have considered their rights under Canadian law. Readers may also



– 4 –

not know that Indigenous laws exist and have been affirmed by the courts. Our aim is to examine how municipalities are rethinking their approaches to governance in light of Indigenous laws and rights. At the end of the paper, we provide suggested readings for those interested in developing their knowledge of Indigenous cultures and Indigenous-settler relationships.

2. Introduction to the lands and authors

2.1 The landLand acknowledgments are increasingly common in governments, universities, and other organizations. They are meant to identify the physical spaces where people are located, but also recognize Indigenous displacement (Hewitt 2019). It is important to note where we are, as authors (Hewitt 2019).

This paper was partly written on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), and səlil̓wətaʔɬ (Tsleil Waututh) Coast Salish peoples, known in Canadian law as Vancouver. It was also written in Toronto, lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Treaty 13 Nations, the Wendat and Petun Nations, and other Indigenous communities. It is said by many to be subject to the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, a treaty agreement between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes (Freeman 2010).

In addition to the peoples who have resided in these spaces since time immemorial, Indigenous Peoples from diverse nations have long lived in what are now known as Vancouver and Toronto, as well as other cities across Canada.

2.2 The authorsWe acknowledge, as well, that every paper is written from a particular lens. We wish to introduce ourselves, so that you can understand the perspectives we bring to writing this paper.

DougAhnii. Ottawa Ndobinjibaa. Bungee Métis endau. Neenda nokee Owiichiwe.2 I am introducing myself as best I can in Anishinaabemowin, which is an original language of the place I call home, Toronto. It is a language that has until fairly recently been a part of my own heritage, although this link was extinguished about the same time that my extended family left their longstanding territory in central Manitoba in the mid-20th century.

While I am classified as “Métis” by the government of Canada, my eldest uncle told me that this was not really our term for ourselves, and that our people and their manner of speaking were commonly known as Bungee in their time, which refers

2. Anishinaabemowin to English translation: “Hello, I am from Ottawa. I am Bungee Métis (Scottish Métis from Manitoba). My work is to be a helper and adviser to the leaders.”


– 5 –

to the people of mixed Anishinaabe (Saulteaux, or Plains Ojibwe) and Scottish/Orkney ancestry, along with a mixture of other peoples (including northern Plains and James Bay Cree, reflecting our peoples’ strong relationship with the Hudson’s Bay Company).

My mother’s family is mostly English from B.C. My father’s generation was the last to speak a “Creole” language unique to the “English half-breeds” over the course of several centuries during the peak of the fur trade (Brown 1993). In the early 1960s, my father and his brother and sister all migrated to the Ottawa area from Manitoba, seeking work. Before that, my grandparents had left the shores of Lake Manitoba (Kinosota, Reedy Creek, Alonsa) when my father was young, also looking for work, although the family would return to these territories when they could.

My oldest uncle moved to a rural area south of Ottawa. My father and aunt moved nearby and eight of us cousins grew up nearby. My generation continued to scatter across the country seeking work, and I came to Toronto as a youth for that reason. So I have been born, raised, and lived my whole life far from the territories of my own nation. But as with my father and uncle, the need to maintain a connection with land and water has stayed with me from a young age, and I have also lived my life in close relationship with Indigenous Peoples of this territory as well as other Indigenous Peoples here who, like me, are part of a traumatized diaspora.

All my life I have lived and acted in the realm where diverse Indigenous and Canadian peoples struggle to co-exist and share the places where we live. Finding through experience that Canada is generally unable (so far) to respect, act in meaningful relation to, or even understand Indigenous perspectives, I have increasingly been compelled to find ways to support the assertion of Indigenous principles, responsibilities, and rights in relation to Canadian society.

I am not an Indigenous leader, but rather a kind of “civil servant,” in the sense that I look to those I consider leaders (the various resurgent Indigenous cultural authorities in the Great Lakes region on both sides of the Canada–U.S. border), and try to follow their direction, although this role is not formal and I cannot speak on anyone’s behalf but my own.

For this reason, I introduce myself here as Owiichiwe, which could be translated roughly as helper, rather than Ogima, which implies a leader. My career has mainly related to the field of urban education for many decades now, and I am currently a PhD Candidate in the Faculty of Education at York University.

AlexandraMy heritage is mixed European, although I have no connection to the lands and spaces across the ocean of my long-ago blood ancestors. Indeed, most of my biological father’s history remains unknown to me. Instead, I have deep roots in the cultural and institutional bedrock of this settler nation, and my ancestors and


– 6 –

I have participated in and benefited from the long colonial history that saw the displacement of Indigenous Peoples and their governments.

My maternal grandparents came to Canada from the United States, living on and claiming Treaty 6 lands as farmers, and working as teachers and grain elevator workers, moving regularly across Saskatchewan seeking new work. After raising five children, my grandparents adopted a little boy during the Sixties Scoop who was torn from his Indigenous heritage.

I was raised by my mother, a social worker, who worked mainly in northern towns and cities, including Iqaluit, Nunavut, and Churchill, Manitoba. My childhood memories include time spent on the land – camping, riding skidoos, and participating in ceremony. I was and am fortunate to have learned from Indigenous knowledge-keepers, Elders, and from those whose communities I lived in. Until recently, I did not appreciate the extent to which I benefited from these teachings while giving back very little in return.

In my adult years, I have lived in big cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and New York. I began my career working as a lawyer representing First Nations on land management and contract matters, with band councils as clients. Now, as a scholar, I study the laws that bind and enable cities, and the governance models that local governments create.

I believe that there is no talking about municipalities without a thorough acknowledgement of the Indigenous Peoples and communities who were here long before Europeans and other settlers arrived, and who continue to exercise Indigenous laws. This paper is intended to contribute to an understanding of the legal role of cities in relation to Indigenous communities by moving beyond Canadian law structures to ask the question: as Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, how can we live together, with respect and reciprocity, and how can laws (Indigenous and Canadian) help achieve this goal?

3. A municipal duty to consult and accommodate?

Many different governments are involved in decision-making that affects Indigenous Peoples and First Nations. Anishinaabe legal scholar John Borrows writes that federal and provincial governments impose and apply laws that muddy their individual obligations to First Nations (Borrows 2017). This situation has particular applicability in relation to urban Indigenous Peoples. As Joanne Heritz (2017) points out, all levels of government in Canada are reluctant to accept responsibility in relation to urban Indigenous matters.

Under Canadian laws, municipal powers are within the province’s exclusive jurisdiction (R v Greenbaum 1993; 114957 Canada Ltée [Spraytech, Société d’arrosage] v Hudson [Town] 2001). Provinces set out municipal authority in legislation, often a general act that applies to all municipalities, but also other legislation, such as planning acts. Many larger cities, such as Montréal, Toronto, and Vancouver have been granted more expansive powers, including more options for raising revenue


– 7 –

and greater oversight in such matters as social services and housing, issues that matter greatly to urban Indigenous Peoples.

Since municipalities are creatures of the province and not named in the Constitution as governments, it is important to understand their legal obligations to Indigenous Peoples (Makuch, Craik, and Leisk 2004). One area of uncertainty is the duty to consult.

3.1 The duty to consult and accommodateAboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations are recognized and affirmed under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. These rights have been given meaning through the courts (Haida Nation v British Columbia [Minister of Forests] 2004). Canadian courts have been an important forum for asserting and advancing Indigenous rights in relation to federal and provincial governments, including how and when governments must engage First Nations (Haida Nation v British Columbia [Minister of Forests] 2004; R. v Marshall 1999). The courts have stated that the goal of the duty to consult and accommodate is to achieve “reconciliation” (Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2017). The term has not been given a definable legal meaning (R v Van der Peet 1996).

The federal government long refused to engage in discussions with Indigenous communities over treaty violations and Indigenous claims (Delgamuukw v British Columbia 1997). As a result of cases brought by First Nations, the courts have decided that federal and provincial governments have a “duty to consult,” which arises when the Crown has knowledge of an Aboriginal right or title and is considering action that might adversely affect it.

In the Supreme Court case that sets out the Crown’s duty to consult, Haida Nation v British Columbia, the Haida Nation sued the B.C. government over transferring a logging licence from one company to another without consulting with the First Nation. The court in this case said that in a situation in which there is no physical change to the land, notification of the change of licence holder and providing an opportunity for dialogue would have been considered sufficient consultation. If the government action was to begin logging land, there would be a physical change to the landscape and more in-depth consultation would likely be required. The court stated that each situation requiring consultation will be different.

The duty to consult arises when a government considers an action that may affect First Nations, including matters such as land development or the extraction of resources. In court cases to date, the Crown means federal and provincial governments (Keewatin v Ontario [Natural Resources] 2013).

Consultation at its most basic level has been defined by the courts as “talking together for mutual understanding.” It consists of dialogue between government bodies and First Nations communities regarding government action with the intention of substantially addressing any First Nations concerns. There is no duty to agree, but consultation must be done in good faith.


– 8 –

The Crown cannot give away the duty to consult, but it can delegate procedural aspects of consultation, such as informing First Nations, to companies and other third parties (Haida Nation v British Columbia [Minister of Forests] 2004; Clyde River [Hamlet] v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. 2017; Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2017).

3.2 Is there a municipal duty to consult?There are no Supreme Court cases that extend the duty to consult to municipalities. However, case law and provincial legislation suggest that municipalities should have a duty to consult. Municipal decisions that could affect Indigenous Peoples include those concerning reserves or the traditional territory of Indigenous Peoples, or treaty rights. For example, a proposed bike lane in the City of Toronto affected a Huron-Wendat burial site in 2010, ultimately requiring remediation efforts to ensure that Indigenous rights were protected.

The following map from the Greenbelt Foundation (2021) sets out the treaties and reserves alongside municipal boundaries in Southern Ontario, showcasing the extent to which these Indigenous and municipal lands overlap (visit https://bit.ly/IMFG55-map to view map in more detail).


– 9 –

The leading appeal court decision, Neskonlith Indian Band v Salmon Arm (City) 2012, states that municipalities have no independent constitutional duty to consult First Nations whose treaty and other interests may be affected by municipal decision-making (Imai and Stacey 2014). In this case, the Neskonlith were unsuccessful in challenging a decision made by the City of Salmon Arm, which allowed a permit for development to be issued in a flood plain area located right beside their reserve. Even though Salmon Arm took steps to consult and accommodate the Neskonlith, the court held that the municipality did not owe a duty to consult, based in part on the basis that small municipalities do not have the capacity to properly to do so (Neskonlith Indian Band v Salmon Arm [City] 2014). A handful of other lower-court decisions have come to the same conclusion (Morgan v Sun Peaks Resort Corporation 2013; Squamish Nation v British Columbia [Community, Sport and Cultural Development] 2014; Cardinal v Windmill Green Fund LPV 2016).

While the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to consider the issue directly, a number of legal academics have analyzed whether or not municipalities ought to, or do in fact, have that duty to consult. Kaitlin Ritchie (2013) suggests that municipalities taking on that duty would water down the nation-to-nation relationship, thereby undermining the treaty and other relationships established between the Crown and Indigenous nations. In contrast, Felix Hoehn and Michael Stevens (2018) argue that, given the evolution of municipal autonomy, and given the fact that third parties have been put into positions where they are, in effect, acting as an arm of the Crown, municipalities do in fact hold the duty to consult and accommodate.

Angela D’Elia Decembrini and Shin Imai (2019) note that, practically speaking, local governments already consult with Indigenous Peoples impacted by planning and development decisions and, if they do not, provinces must step in. Nevertheless, “the municipality cannot proceed with a project until the duty to consult has been fulfilled” (Decembrini and Imai 2019, p. 945). Some scholars have argued that if a similar case as Neskonlith came to the courts now, based on other decisions, the duty to consult would be extended to municipalities (Hoehn and Stevens 2018).

3.3 Provincial direction to municipalitiesAs Decembrini and Imai (2019) point out, and as we know from court decisions, provinces have a duty to consult. Through legislation, provinces delegate responsibility and power to municipalities in areas such as planning, social services, and housing. But within the legislation that sets out municipal responsibility, provinces have mixed approaches to how local governments are meant to consult with First Nations and Indigenous communities (Viswanathan et al. 2013; Dorries 2017).

Some provinces provide more straightforward direction for municipalities. For example, a Saskatchewan policy (2010) reads:

Municipalities are established by provincial legislation and exercise powers delegated by the Provincial Government. Municipalities may have a duty


– 10 –

to consult whenever they independently exercise their legal authority in a way that might adversely impact the exercise of Treaty and Aboriginal rights and/or traditional uses on unoccupied Crown land or other lands to which First Nations and Métis have a right of access.

Unlike Ontario, assistance and policy guidance is available to local governments in Saskatchewan in exercising this duty (Association of Municipalities of Ontario 2019).

In Ontario, the Province sets out the specific rules that define the obligations of municipalities, the purposes of guiding planning documents, such as official plans, and the requirements for public consultation (Planning Act 1990). The website of the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2018) states that “municipalities have a duty to consult in some circumstances,” but provides little information to local governments on the scope of the duty, the roles of municipal, regional and provincial bodies, and how local governments should engage with Indigenous communities.

In 2020, the Province of Ontario released an updated version of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that addresses land use planning policies and decision-making abilities (Ontario 2020). The PPS is a policy akin to a recommendation or guideline, but having considerable weight in local planning policies as well as particular decisions.

Section 4.3 of the PPS states that it “shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.” In addition, PPS section 1.2.2 states, “Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and coordinate on land use planning matters.” Section 2.6.5 more specifically addresses heritage: “Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.”

There is, however, little guidance, nor a regulatory scheme to guide implementation. Since the PPS includes only vague generalities about planning with First Nations, it is not surprising that the Province has provided limited guidance or training and few resources to instruct municipal planners on how to respectfully engage Indigenous governments and peoples. Moreover, the PPS does not explicitly state that municipalities have a duty to consult and accommodate.

In 2019, a provincial advocacy body called the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) released a report stating that municipalities do not have a legal duty to consult and procedural requirements are imprecise (Association of Municipalities of Ontario 2019). Some municipalities in Ontario have decided that they do have a duty to consult (Town of Midland 2016). Indigenous communities and First Nations are caught in the cat-and-mouse game of who must exercise this duty.


– 11 –

4. Beyond a municipal duty to consult: RCAP, TRC, and UNDRIP

More than half of all Indigenous Peoples live in cities. Since the lifting of Canadian legal and administrative bans on Indigenous cultural and political expression in the 1950s and 1960s, urban Indigenous Peoples have increasingly integrated important cultural principles and practices into urban services and community life. Indeed, bringing these principles and practices into services addressing the needs of the most oppressed members of the community is arguably following principles of Indigenous law, since it serves a restoration of balance, not just in terms of equity but also of perspective. Significantly, ceremonies outlawed until the 1950s have been taking place for decades in urban centres, serving those affected by poverty, homelessness, addiction, carceral systems, and other fallout from Canadian policies. These ceremonies are not always done with the knowledge or agreement of the municipal government, nor are governments necessarily aware of Indigenous ceremonies.

The duty to consult concerns lands and resources that affect a specific First Nation. However, many other decisions affect Indigenous Peoples who live in a municipality, including housing and social services. In addition to the duty to consult, other recommendations for Indigenous relationships with municipal governments have been proposed. This section details three: the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

4.1 Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) acknowledged the large number of Indigenous social services agencies in municipalities and the need for Indigenous representation in local decision-making. The RCAP stated definitively that all levels of government have constitutional responsibility to uphold Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada, including those living in urban centres (Heritz 2016; RCAP 1996, p. 85).

RCAP proposed two models of urban Indigenous governance. In the first, “reform of urban government and public authorities,” RCAP advocated that municipalities ensure Indigenous representation on decision-making bodies, establish Aboriginal Affairs Committees, and co-manage urban initiatives (RCAP 1996, p. 439). The courts in 2013 recognized that Indigenous Peoples living off-reserve are “self-organized, self-determining, and distinct communities” (Belanger 2013, p. 68). As we will describe in the next section, many municipalities have Indigenous affairs committees composed of Indigenous representatives, all unique in their composition (Heritz 2016).

A “community of interest” model proposed greater Indigenous political autonomy through the voluntary association of a diversity of urban Indigenous organizations. In many cities across Canada, urban Indigenous agencies cooperate and coordinate to deliver better services. RCAP reported that municipal agencies rely on Indigenous agencies focused on social services and housing to deliver services to


– 12 –

Indigenous Peoples; however, these agencies are often underfunded (Heritz 2010). In some cities, Indigenous-led organizations have statutory mandates in some areas, such as child welfare and education (Belanger 2013). These entities are delivering services and are not formal governments, although courts have recognized their importance in representing the interests of urban Indigenous Peoples (Belanger 2013).

For example, the Toronto Aboriginal Research Project commissioned by the Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council has developed a “community of interest” model of self-government representative of Indigenous social service agencies, their Boards of Directors, and their membership (Heritz 2018). Friendship centres also bring together, represent, and advocate on behalf of Indigenous Peoples living in urban areas (Andersen 2013). Organizations are important in providing much-needed services to and representation of Indigenous Peoples living in municipalities, but most operate under Canadian paradigms that bear little resemblance to Indigenous governance models.

4.2 Truth and Reconciliation CommissionThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was a commission “like no other in Canada” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report 2015, p. iii). It was created as a result of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which settled the class actions brought against the federal government for the abuse of Indigenous children forcibly sent from their families to residential schools. The TRC spoke to more than 6,000 witnesses to answer the question, “Now that we know about residential schools and their legacy, what do we do about it?” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report 2015, p. iv). The TRC Calls to Action include specific requests of municipal governments, including the following:

We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.

We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to provide education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.

As we will see in the following section, some municipal governments have implemented these Calls to Action, including an endorsement of UNDRIP.

4.3 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007. UNDRIP sets out the individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples around the world, not just


– 13 –

Canada. It provides guidance on how states can develop cooperative relationships with Indigenous Peoples in areas such as culture, health, education, and community, based on the principles of equality, partnership, good faith, and mutual respect.

UNDRIP, which was created by Indigenous Peoples, makes room for a broader set of land and other interests of Indigenous Peoples (Coyle 2016). UNDRIP is meaningful in the municipal context because it acknowledges Indigenous laws and practices, and recognizes Indigenous land interests beyond those in Canada’s Indian Act. At the moment, the duty to consult applies only to First Nations with land rights such as reserves.

Many of UNDRIP’s provisions relate to municipal actions. In regard to engagement, for example, Article 5 states, “Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.” Article 18 provides that Indigenous Peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves and based on their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions. Article 19 requires that states consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous Peoples through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

In regard to social services, housing, and health – all matters in which municipalities play an important role – Article 21 of UNDRIP reads, “States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions.” Article 23 adds that Indigenous Peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing, determining, and administering health, housing, and other economic and social programs that affect them, ideally through their own institutions.

In respect of planning and the use of lands, Article 25 sets out that Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationships with traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used lands, territories, and waters. Articles 26 and 27 state that Indigenous laws should apply to their land rights and that Indigenous Peoples must be involved in processes that relate to land that is “traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used.”

Importantly, the references to lands, territories, and resources are not limited to the lands set aside as “reserves” by Canada under the Indian Act. As former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya states,

The idea that consultation is only required on lands recognized as Indigenous lands under domestic law is misplaced, since commensurate with the right to self-determination and democratic principles, and


– 14 –

because of the typically vulnerable conditions of Indigenous Peoples, the duty to consult with them arises whenever their particular interests are at stake, even when those interests do not correspond to a recognized right to land or other legal entitlement (Ananya 2009).

UNDRIP is not legally binding like a treaty or a covenant, and is not signed or ratified by states. Declarations are instead a political commitment from the states that vote in favour of adopting them. In 2016, Canada became a supporter of UNDRIP. Of all of the federal and provincial governments in Canada, British Columbia is the only one that has implemented UNDRIP (Gunn 2019), although at the time of going to press, the Government of Canada is in the process of considering a bill to implement UNDRIP as well (House of Commons 2020).

British Columbia has committed to reviewing its laws to ensure consistency with UNDRIP, but at present it is unclear how UNDRIP will frame laws and relationships with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples, including the obligations of municipalities (Bill 41 2019). Meanwhile, long before federal and provincial governments endorsed UNDRIP, some municipalities – including Toronto and, in 2021, Vancouver – endorsed the Declaration.

5. Municipal-Indigenous relationships

Municipalities across Canada have introduced governance changes in the past 10 years. These initiatives include:

1. introducing Indigenous affairs offices at a senior level within the municipal bureaucracy;

2. introducing Indigenous advisory councils to offer advice on city policy and initiatives;

3. assessments of whether training on Indigenous cultural competency is available and mandatory;

4. endorsement of the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission;

5. adoption or endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Table 1 identifies which large municipalities have introduced these initiatives.

It is difficult to know the extent to which the policies introduced by municipalities correspond to RCAP’s two models (reform of urban government and public authorities, and community of interest). Equity approaches, which at one level are necessary and beneficial, may not meaningfully incorporate the changes to governance imagined by RCAP, TRC, or UNDRIP.

Adopting UNDRIP could suggest a commitment to a model of Indigenous-municipal relationships that gives greater power and representation to Indigenous Peoples. However, adopting UNDRIP without meaningful action towards its implementation can strain relations with Indigenous partners. Some municipalities


– 15 –

have acknowledged UNDRIP and the need to implement it, and steps may have been proposed, but they have done nothing further to solidify that support and officially adopt it.

Particular attention should be paid to Article 19 of UNDRIP which reads:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

This provision effectively means that consultation must take place with Indigenous groups, and that consent must be given to proceed with any government action that will infringe on Indigenous interests. The provision raises many questions for Indigenous Peoples as to what constitutes a “representative” institution, but at minimum a municipality must be clear that it is committing to a different kind of governance relationship with Indigenous Peoples.

Table 1: Municipal initiatives in relation to Indigenous-Municipal relationships

CityIndigenous

Affairs

Office

Indigenous Advisory

Committee(s)

Staff training

Support for adoption of

UNDRIP

Addressing TRC Calls to

Action

Vancouver Yes Yes Available Yes Yes

Calgary Yes Yes Available Yes Yes

Edmonton Yes Yes Available Unclear Yes

Saskatoon Yes Yes Mandatory No Yes

Regina No Yes Unclear No Yes

Winnipeg Yes Yes Available Yes Yes

Toronto Yes Yes Mandatory Yes Yes

Ottawa No Yes Unclear No Yes

Montreal Yes Yes Available Yes Yes

Halifax No Yes In progress No Yes


– 16 –

Snapshots of Indigenous-municipal initiatives

Vancouver

Declaration that City of Vancouver is on unceded territory

City adopted UNDRIP and the TRC Calls to Action in 2021

Created the position of Aboriginal Relations Manager in the City Manager’s office

Social policy focus on giving grants to groups that further Indigenous relations, such as increasing access to traditional health and wellness supports for Elders

Consultation with local First Nations to develop long-term stewardship strategies for major city parks

Indigenous style guide developed for Indigenous naming conventions

Cultural competency training available for all staff and mandatory for members of the Vancouver Police Board

Colonial audit initiated by Vancouver Park Board, an analysis of the Vancouver Park Board’s colonial roots

Reconciliation Planner consults with Indigenous leaders to ensure Indigenous history, values, and memory practices are reflected in park policies and programs, including planning new and existing parks

Edmonton

Elders Circle established in 2005 through Native Counselling Services of Alberta to provide advice and guidance for the Edmonton Urban Aboriginal Dialogue

Passed an Urban Aboriginal Accord focused on building good relations

Provided guidance to ensure proper cultural and spiritual protocols were followed and provided insights into urban Aboriginal cultures for Edmonton

Endorsed UNDRIP, TRC Calls to Action, and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry

Indigenous Art Park developed in partnership with Métis Nation of Alberta and Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations to display permanent Indigenous art installations

City of Edmonton committed to training each of its 10,000+ employees by 2018 on history of residential schools and their impact on Indigenous Peoples and to open dialogue on reconciliation in the workplace

Indigenous Engagement City Plan undertaken in 2019

Passed a bylaw to give Indigenous names to city wards in 2020

Introduction of an Indigenous Procurement Advisory Committee in 2021


– 17 –

Saskatoon

Indigenous technical advisory group created in 2019 – members are First

Nations and Métis people with specialized knowledge; purpose of the

group is to create dialogue between city and First Nations on decisions that

may impact Indigenous groups

The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee includes representatives

from First Nations and Métis communities to address TRC calls to action

that fall under the committee’s mandate of inclusion and fighting racism

Elders engaged to name North Commuter Parkway Bridge

Kitaskinaw – study undertaken to find out the breadth of services available

to Indigenous Peoples; a group of Elders was used in a focus group

Saskatoon Police Services Indigenous Relations Consultant and the Chief’s

Advisory Committee, including Indigenous and Métis Elders, advises the

police service

Introduced mandatory Aboriginal awareness training

Developed Indigenous communications guide in 2017 to teach staff about

Indigenous culture and languages

Winnipeg

Dedicated Indigenous relations division within the City of Winnipeg

Mayor has an Indigenous advisory council

Winnipeg Indigenous Accord, adopted in 2017, uses UNDRIP as the

framework for reconciliation

The Accord includes a role for Indigenous Elders to spread traditional

teachings, a guide to shared commitment to reconciliation and TRC;

recently included in its commitment and reporting process the Missing and

Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice

Diversity training mandatory for all city staff

Welcoming Winnipeg: Recognizing our Indigenous History is a framework

for making decisions regarding requests to create new, add to, remove,

or rename historical markers and placenames, and resolve the absence of

Indigenous perspectives


– 18 –

Halifax

Indigenous relations are under the purview of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion

Committee for partnership with Mi’kmaq First Nation – 10 members, of which five are Indigenous

Urban Indigenous Community Engagement Adviser connects Elders with public libraries for traditional blessings

Context of UNDRIP for Nova Scotia still being developed

City committed to TRC recommendations in 2015

Urban Indigenous Engagement Officer working to implement cultural awareness training for city staff

Task Force formed on the Commemoration of Edward Cornwallis and the Recognition and Commemoration of Indigenous History

6. Indigenous-municipal relationships in Toronto

Toronto has a broad and diverse range of Indigenous Peoples (Toronto City Council 2009). In 2010, the City affirmed recognition and respect for the unique status and cultural diversity of the Aboriginal communities of Toronto, including recognition of their inherent rights under the Constitution (Toronto City Council 2010).

In 2014, Toronto City Council endorsed the 94 Calls to Action from the TRC Report and requested that staff develop concrete actions to fully implement the Calls to Action that explicitly recognize the role of municipal governments (Toronto City Manager 2016). These measures included the adoption of cultural competency training for the Toronto civil service, a 10-year capital project to incorporate Indigenous placemaking in Toronto parks, and a roadmap and report card regarding the implementation of plaques to commemorate Indigenous places.

In addition, City Council approved a public campaign to educate residents about the Year of Truth and Reconciliation Proclamation (Toronto City Council 2014). Toronto, like a number of other municipalities in Canada, has created an Indigenous Affairs Office to oversee place-based relationship-building with Indigenous communities. It remains to be seen how or whether this may proceed on the basis of higher laws and principles, although there are early signs of promise, albeit on the margins (Anderson and Flynn 2020). The Indigenous Affairs Office will help guide the municipal government in its relationships with Indigenous Peoples, including urban Indigenous communities, neighbouring First Nations, the Métis Nation of Ontario, and Indigenous organizations (Toronto City Council 2017b).

Importantly, the City of Toronto adopted UNDRIP in 2016 (Toronto City Manager 2016). UNDRIP is widely seen by Indigenous activists, scholars, and lawyers as a best practice in considering Indigenous-settler relationships (Craft


– 19 –

2018). Toronto’s actions are noteworthy for two reasons. First, while the City of Toronto has not specifically set how UNDRIP applies to specific city processes in relation to planning and other matters, the adoption of UNDRIP remains an important step in signalling the City’s desire to build respectful reciprocal relationships with Indigenous communities. Second, following the release of the TRC report, the City of Toronto acknowledged Article 11 of UNDRIP. Article 11 states:

1. Indigenous Peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect, and develop the past, present, and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies, and visual and performing arts and literature;

2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with Indigenous Peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

Importantly, the City noted “staff’s legal duty to consult,” particularly in relation to environmental assessments and heritage (Toronto City Manager 2016, p. 4).

In Toronto, city officials have acknowledged that relationship-building is in its earliest stages, but have, in these initial stages, sat in ceremony as an important element in making the needed changes (Anderson and Flynn 2020).

7. Conclusion: Deepening Indigenous-municipal relationships

In our view, municipalities must acknowledge their obligations to Indigenous Peoples. Campaigns for greater legal protection for local governments must reconcile the impact of proposed protections for municipalities on Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The duty to consult is necessary to remind municipalities of their requirement to engage with Indigenous communities, but ultimately it is an incomplete framework to guide the work that needs to be done between Indigenous Peoples and local governments. Conversations regarding the obligations of municipal governments should not exclusively be framed in terms of whether or not they have a duty to consult. We urge municipalities to make a deeper commitment to reciprocal, respectful relationships, beyond simply a duty to consult and accommodate, in their municipal-Indigenous legal relationships.

7.1 The duty to consult is an inadequate frameworkThe duty to consult is an inadequate tool in urging governments to model a nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown. Fundamentally, the duty to consult is particularly ill-suited to municipalities, given the Indigenous populations that live in and near municipalities.

Cities as we know them today are rooted in Western notions of property law and governance (Nejad et al. 2019). Indigenous boundaries do not coincide with municipal ones and particular localities may have political, spiritual, and economic meaning to multiple Indigenous communities (Prusak, Walker, and Innes 2016). There also may or may not be treaty relationships and Indigenous claims within and adjacent to cities (Alcantara and Nelles 2016).

About half of all Indigenous Peoples live in cities across Canada and a broad and diverse range of Indigenous Peoples may or may not have connections with the nearby First Nations (RCAP 1996). Moreover, First Nations have treaty and land interests such as reserves, urban reserves, and fee simple title at the urban scale, both within and adjacent to municipalities (Norris, Clatworthy, and Peters 2013). In some cities, Indigenous-led organizations have statutory mandates in areas such as in child welfare and education. There is no uniform reality for Indigenous-municipal relationships across Canada, because each legal space is unique.

The insistence on mapping the strength of a claim along a spectrum of weak to strong and then overlaying the strength of the duty owed makes little sense in the context of a municipality (nor from many – if not all – Indigenous perspectives). For a strong claim to apply under the duty to consult, ongoing use or occupation by Indigenous Peoples must be established, which ignores situations in which First Nations were forcibly removed decades or centuries ago and municipal planning processes were introduced that led to private ownership, creation of parks, and other initiatives.

The duty to consult also assumes a singular “First Nation” that can make decisions on behalf of a particular group of people (Belanger 2013). The duty may not consider urban Indigenous populations as self-organized, self-determining bodies that have political communities distinct from on-reserve Indigenous governments. While such urban bodies cannot erode treaty rights in any way, we consider them an important factor. In short, the duty to consult and accommodate does not account for urban Indigenous reality.

7.2 Movement towards reciprocal and respectful relationships?Wael Hallaq (2018) has introduced the notion of “structural genocide” to explain the structural issues that circumvent meaningful engagement with Indigenous political, legal, and epistemological frameworks, and that provide the framework for the modern, homogenizing eradication of human and broader ecological diversity.

While Canadian leaders have acknowledged “cultural genocide,” they have fallen short in acknowledging the many attempts to eradicate Indigenous Peoples, remove any claims to lands, and acknowledge their laws. Structural genocide moves the conversation beyond “solutions” to “problems” that are part of the inherent legal and political structure.

Hallaq (2018) asserts that the whole modern western project is structurally genocidal to its very core. Municipalities are a part of this structural genocide.


– 20 –


– 21 –

However, municipalities also have the potential to reimagine systems of government. They are closer to peoples’ control and situated in proximity to Indigenous lands, enabling people to engage with one another.

The fact that municipalities and Indigenous communities are examining how they can deepen their relationships beyond the duty to consult does not sidestep the role of provinces, which can constitutionally obligate or, at a minimum, encourage local governments to move towards respectful, reciprocal relationships.

For example, the Province of British Columbia has initiated a full review of planning processes across the province to ensure collaboration with Indigenous governments in ways that are informed by UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and that involve local governments (British Columbia 2020). The goal is “to ensure consistency and co-ordination between local government and provincial-First Nations–led land use planning” (British Columbia 2020).

The Government of British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), which represents local governments in the province, signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2018 that commits to “sincere and honest engagement” and notes that local governments are “key partners in achieving true, lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples” (British Columbia and Business Council of British Columbia 2018). Further to this objective, UBCM provides support to local governments, First Nations, and Indigenous communities seeking sustained relationship-building, including workshops for local governments to respond to the Calls to Action delivered by the TRC Report in 2015.

Unfortunately, few governmental resources elsewhere are aimed at the development of relationships between Indigenous and municipal communities. This includes funding for joint economic development planning and the inclusion of staff and advisory boards at the municipal level to develop and track relationship-building. The foundational knowledge required to build such relationships must be fostered within local government frameworks and are needed to prevent continued colonization (Koch and Barry 2016).

Given the absence of government support, non-profit organizations across Canada are working to facilitate and support relationship-building between municipalities and Indigenous communities. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in partnership with the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers, runs the Community Economic Development Initiative as well as the Community Infrastructure Partnership Project. Through multi-year partnerships, both programs enable the establishment and maintenance of formalized relationships among Indigenous communities, municipalities, and relevant stakeholders.

In southern Ontario, a charitable organization called the Shared Path Consultation Initiative launched the Indigenous-Municipal Engagement Program, a pilot program to provide similar opportunities for formalized relationship-building.


– 22 –

The Shared Path’s work also focuses on creating opportunities for Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities to gather to examine and deliberate about current policies for land use and relationships, as well as the changing legal landscape of consultation. These efforts move beyond the duty to consult and accommodate to a framework of relationship-building.

Finally, while Canadian governmental funding and resources, as well as the non-profit relationship-building initiatives described above are important for (and arguably incumbent on) Canada as well as Indigenous Peoples, this alone will not ensure the full development of Indigenous-municipal relationships. The active presence of Indigenous Peoples freely practising their cultures and responsibilities under their own Indigenous frameworks in urban centres, without interference under municipal bylaws or other forms of Canadian legislation, also needs to evolve in complex urban contexts. This re-emergence of Indigenous practices requires not so much resources as it requires that municipal officials stand aside and respect urban Indigenous cultural practices in urban sites as long as no harm is done (Anderson and Flynn 2020).

Finally, “relationship” implies mutually beneficial relationships that recognize and endorse Indigenous rights, not merely a one-sided model that benefits local governments. We believe that relationships with Indigenous Peoples will make localities better. Municipalities, as the Canadian political entities often closest to Indigenous Peoples, as neighbours and (ideally) friends sharing diverse community contexts, are perhaps best positioned to exemplify and deepen what it means to uphold the honour of the Crown, in ways that would be harder for more remote Canadian provincial and federal governments to realize.

8. Works cited

114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40.

Alcantara, C., and Nelles, J. (2016). A Quiet Evolution: The Emergence of Indigenous-Local Intergovernmental Partnerships in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Anaya, J. (2009). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People. Geneva: United Nations.

Andersen, C. (2013). Urban Aboriginality as a distinctive identity, in twelve parts. In Evelyn Peters and Christopher Anderson (eds.), Indigenous in the City: Contemporary Identities and Cultural Innovation. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Anderson, D. and Flynn, A. (2020). Rethinking “duty”: The City of Toronto, a stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-municipal relationships. Alberta Law Review 58(1), 107.

Association of Municipalities of Ontario. (2019). Municipal Governments and the Crown’s ‘Duty to Consult.’ Discussion paper, April 10. www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Reports/2019/AMO-Discussion-Paper-Municipal-Governments-and-the.aspx

http://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Reports/2019/AMO-Discussion-Paper-Municipal-Governments-and-the.aspx

http://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Reports/2019/AMO-Discussion-Paper-Municipal-Governments-and-the.aspx


– 23 –

Belanger, Y. D. (2013). Breaching reserve boundaries: Canada v Misquadis and the legal creation of the urban Aboriginal community. In E. J. Peters and C. Anderson (eds.), Indigenous in the City: Contemporary Identities and Cultural Innovation (pp. 69–87). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 4th Session, 41st Parliament, British Columbia (2019). Retrieved from https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/41st-parliament/4th-session/bills/first-reading/gov41-1

Borrows, J. (2017). Canada’s colonial constitution. In J. Borrows and M. Coyle (eds.), The Right Relationship: Reimagining the Implementation of Historical Treaties (pp. 17–38). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

British Columbia. (2020). Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, February 19. Modernizing Land Use Planning in British Columbia: Working with Communities. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/land-water-use/crown-land/land-use-plans-and-objectives/factsheets/mlup_working_with_communities_factsheet_mar2020.pdf

British Columbia and Business Council of British Columbia. (2018). Memorandum of Understanding. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/action/bcbc_mou_final.pdf

Brown, J. S. H. (1993). Métis, halfbreeds, and other real people: Challenging cultures and categories. The History Teacher 27(1), 19–26.

Cardinal v Windmill Green Fund LPV, 2016 ONSC 3456.

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41.

Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40.

Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.

Coyle, M. (2016). From consultation to consent: Squaring the circle? University of New Brunswick Law Journal 67, 235–68.

Craft, A., et al. (2018). UNDRIP Implementation: More Reflections on the Braiding of International, Domestic and Indigenous Laws. Centre for International Governance Innovation Special Report. Retrieved from https://www.cigionline.org/publications/undrip-implementation-more-reflections-braiding-international-domestic-and-indigenous

Decembrini, A. D., and Imai, S. (2019). Supreme Court of Canada cases strengthen argument for municipal obligation to discharge duty to consult: Time to put Neskonlith to rest. Alberta Law Review 56(3), 935–49.

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, 153 D.L.R. (4th) 193.

Dorries, H. (2012). Rejecting the “False Choice”: Foregrounding Indigenous Sovereignty in Planning Theory and Practice. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.

https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/41st-parliament/4th-session/bills/first-reading/gov41-1

https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/41st-parliament/4th-session/bills/first-reading/gov41-1

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/land-water-use/crown-land/land-use-plans-and-objectives/factsheets/mlup_working_with_communities_factsheet_mar2020.pdf




https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/action/bcbc_mou_final.pdf

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/action/bcbc_mou_final.pdf

https://www.cigionline.org/publications/undrip-implementation-more-reflections-braiding-international-domestic-and-indigenous




– 24 –

Dorries, H. (2017). Planning as property: Uncovering the hidden racial logic of a municipal nuisance by-law. Journal of Law and Social Policy 27, 72–93.

Freeman, V. J. (2010). ‘Toronto Has No History!’ Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism and Historical Memory in Canada’s Largest City. Unpublished dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Greenbelt Foundation. (2021). Near-Urban Nature Project: Maps. Retrieved from https://www.greenbelt.ca/near_urban_nature_project_maps

Gunn, B. (2019). Remedies for violations of Indigenous Peoples’ human rights. University of Toronto Law Journal 69 (Suppl. 1), S150–S170.

Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73.

Hallaq, W. B. (2018). Restating Orientalism: A Critique of Modern Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.

Heritz, J. (2010). Urban Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Beyond statistics. Montreal: CPSA Conference. Retrieved from https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Heritz.pdf

Heritz, J. (2016). Municipal-Aboriginal advisory committees in four Canadian cities: 1999–2014. Canadian Public Administration 59, 134–152.

Heritz, J. (2017). The multiplying nodes of Indigenous self-government and public administration. Canadian Public Administration 60(2), 289–292.

Heritz, J. (2018). From self-determination to service delivery: Assessing Indigenous inclusion in municipal governance in Canada. Canadian Public Administration 61(4), 596–615.

Hewitt, J. G. (2019). Land acknowledgment, scripting and Julius Caesar. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 88, 27–43.

Hoehn, F., and Stevens, M. (2018). Local governments and the Crown’s duty to consult. Alberta Law Review 55(4), 971–1008.

House of Commons, Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2020).

Imai, S., and Stacey, A. (2014). Municipalities and the duty to consult Aboriginal peoples: A case comment on Neskonlith Indian Band v Salmon Arm (City). UBC Law Review 47(1), 293–312.

Keewatin v Ontario (Natural Resources), 2013 ONCA 158.

Koch, M., and Barry, J. (2016). Treaty principles are planning principles: Learning from the experiences of Manitoban planning practitioners. Plan Canada 56(4), 22–24.

Laurier, W. (1911). Indian Act Amendment. Canada, Parliament, House of Commons Debate, 101. 11th Parliament, 3rd Session.

Makuch, S., Craik, N., and Leisk, S. (2004). Canadian Municipal and Planning Law. Toronto: Thomson Carswell.

Morgan v Sun Peaks Resort Corporation, 2013 BCSC 1668.

https://www.greenbelt.ca/near_urban_nature_project_maps

https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Heritz.pdf


– 25 –

Nejad S., Walker, R., McDougall, B., Belanger, Y., and Newhouse, D. (2019). ‘This is an Indigenous city; why don’t we see it?’ Indigenous urbanism and spatial production in Winnipeg. The Canadian Geographer 63(3), 413–424.

Neskonlith Indian Band v Salmon Arm (City), 2012 BCCA 379.

Norris, M. J., Clatworthy, S., and Peters, E. (2013). The urbanization of Aboriginal populations in Canada: A half century in review. In E. Peters and C. Anderson (eds.), Indigenous in the City: Contemporary Identities and Cultural Innovation (pp. 29–45). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Ontario. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. Order in Council No. 229/2020. Retrieved from https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2018). Municipal-Aboriginal Relationships: Case Studies. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page6054.aspx

Planning Act, Ontario, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.

Prusak, Y. S., Walker, R., and Innes, R. (2016). Toward Indigenous planning? First Nation community planning in Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of Planning Education and Research 36(4), 440–450.

R v Greenbaum, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674, 100 D.L.R. (4th) 183.

R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456

R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507, 137 D.L.R. (4th) 289.

Ritchie, K. (2013). Issues associated with the implementation of the duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples: Threatening the goals of reconciliation and meaningful consultation. UBC Law Review 46(2), 397–438.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1996). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 2: Restructuring the Relationship. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Retrieved from http://data2.archives.ca/e/e448/e011188230-02.pdf

Statistics Canada. (2017). Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Key Results from the 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 11-001-X Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

Squamish Nation v British Columbia (Community, Sport and Cultural Development), 2014 BCSC 991.

Tomiak, J. (2011). Indigeneity and the city: Representations, resistance, and the right to the city. In A. Bourke, T.Dafnos, and M. Kip (eds.), Lumpencity: Discourses of Marginality | Marginalizing Discourses (pp. 163–92). Ottawa: Red Quill Books.

Toronto City Council. (2009). Development of an Urban Aboriginal Strategy for Toronto, August 5. Retrieved from http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2009.EX33.5

Toronto City Council. (2010). Draft City of Toronto Statement of Commitment to Aboriginal Communities in Toronto: Building Strong Relationships, Achieving Equitable

https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf

https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page6054.aspx

http://data2.archives.ca/e/e448/e011188230-02.pdf

http://data2.archives.ca/e/e448/e011188230-02.pdf

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2009.EX33.5



– 26 –

Outcomes, May 27. Retrieved from http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2010.AA11.1

Toronto City Council. (2014). Aboriginal Year of Truth and Reconciliation and Establishment of Aboriginal Office, March 19. Retrieved from http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.EX39.10

Toronto City Council. (2017a). Implementing Indigenous Cultural Competency Training in the Toronto Public Service, May 24. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-103955.pdf

Toronto City Council. (2017b). Proposed Aboriginal Office for the City of Toronto, July 4. Retrieved from http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.EX26.25

Toronto City Manager. (2016). Fulfilling Calls to Action from Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, April 1. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-91816.pdf

Town of Midland (Ontario). (2016). “First Nations, Indigenous and Aboriginal Consultation: Town of Midland Official Plan Review Interim Report.” www.midland.ca/Shared%20Documents/OPR%20-%20FIRST%20NATIONS%20Consultation%20Report%2016-12-16%20FINAL.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). What We Have Learned: Principles of Truth and Reconciliation. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/trc/IR4-6-2015-eng.pdf

Viswanathan, L., McLeod, F., King, C., Macbeth, J., and Alexiuk, E. (2013). Are we there yet? Making inroads to decolonize planning knowledge and practices in southern Ontario. Plan Canada 53(2), 20–23.

9. Suggested reading

UNDRIP text

United Nations. (2011). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

Reports

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 6. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. http://www.trc.ca

Craft, A., Gunn, B. L., Knockwood, C., Christie, G., Askew, H., Henderson, J., Borrows, J., Nichols, J., Wilkins, K., Chartrand, L., Fitzgerald, O. E., Hamilton, R. C., Beaton, R., Morales, S., and Lightfoot, S. R. (2018). UNDRIP Implementation: More Reflections on the Braiding of International, Domestic and Indigenous Laws. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/undrip-implementation-more-reflections-braiding-international-domestic-and-indigenous/

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2010.AA11.1

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2010.AA11.1



https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-103955.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-103955.pdf



https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-91816.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-91816.pdf

http://www.midland.ca/Shared%20Documents/OPR%20-%20FIRST%20NATIONS%20Consultation%20Report%2016-12-16%20FINAL.pdf



http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/trc/IR4-6-2015-eng.pdf

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/trc/IR4-6-2015-eng.pdf

https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

http://www.trc.ca

https://www.cigionline.org/publications/undrip-implementation-more-reflections-braiding-international-domestic-and-indigenous/




– 27 –

Helpful websites

Shared Path Consultation Initiative. https://sharedpath.ca

Indigenous Law Research Unit, University of Victoria. https://ilru.ca

https://sharedpath.ca

https://ilru.ca/


– 28 –

IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance

1. Are There Trends in Local Finance? A Cautionary Note on Comparative Studies and Normative Models of Local Government Finance, by Richard M. Bird, 2011. ISBN 978-0-7727-0864-9

2. The Property Tax – in Theory and Practice, by Enid Slack, 2011. ISBN 978-0-7727-0866-3

3. Financing Large Cities and Metropolitan Areas, by Enid Slack, 2011. ISBN 978-0-7727-0868-7

4. Coping with Change: The Need to Restructure Urban Governance and Finance in India, by M. Govinda Rao and Richard M. Bird, 2011. ISBN 978-0-7727-0870-0

5. Revenue Diversification in Large U.S. Cities, by Howard Chernick, Adam Langley, and Andrew Reschovsky, 2011. ISBN 978-0-7727-0870-4

6. Subnational Taxation in Large Emerging Countries: BRIC Plus One, by Richard M. Bird, 2012. ISBN 978-0-7727- 0874-8

7. You Get What You Pay For: How Nordic Cities are Financed, by Jorgen Lotz, 2012. ISBN 978-0-7727-0876-2

8. Property Tax Reform in Vietnam: A Work in Progress, by Hong-Loan Trinh and William J. McCluskey, 2012. ISBN 978-0-7727-0878-6

9. IMFG Graduate Student Papers. Development Charges across Canada: An Underutilized Growth Management Tool? by Mia Baumeister; Preparing for the Costs of Extreme Weather in Canadian Cities: Issues, Tools, Ideas, by Cayley Burgess, 2012. ISBN 978-0-7727-0880-9

10. The Reform of Business Property Tax in Ontario: An Evaluation, by Michael Smart, 2012. ISBN 978-0-7727-0882-3

11. Hungary: An Unfinished Decentralization? by Izabella Barati-Stec, 2012. ISBN 978-0-7727-0884-7

12. Economies of Scale in Fire and Police Services, by Adam Found, 2012. ISBN 978-0-7727-0886-1

13. Trading Density for Benefits: Toronto and Vancouver Compared, by Aaron A. Moore, 2013. ISBN 978-0-7727-0901-1

14. Merging Municipalities: Is Bigger Better? by Enid Slack and Richard M. Bird, 2013. ISBN 978-0-7727-0903-5


– 29 –

15. Public Finance and the Politics of Scale in Montréal: Will the Proposed Reforms Save the Megacity? by Jean-Philippe Meloche and François Vaillancourt, 2013. ISBN 978-0-7727-0915-8

16. Decentralization and Infrastructure in Developing Countries: Reconciling Principles and Practice, by Roy Bahl and Richard M. Bird, 2013. ISBN 978-0-7727-0919-6

17. Provincial-Municipal Relations in Ontario: Approaching an Inflection Point, by André Côté and Michael Fenn, 2014. ISBN 978-0-7727-0923-3

18. A Better Local Business Tax: The BVT, by Richard M. Bird, 2014. ISBN 978-0-7727-0921-9

19. Cooperation and Capacity: Inter-Municipal Agreements in Canada, by Zachary Spicer, 2015. ISBN 978-0-7727-0934-9

20. Can GTA Municipalities Raise Property Taxes? An Analysis of Tax Competition and Revenue Hills, by Almos Tassonyi, Richard Bird, and Enid Slack, 2015. ISBN 978-0-7727-0938-7

21. How to Reform the Property Tax: Lessons from around the World, by Enid Slack and Richard M. Bird, 2015. ISBN 978-0-7727-0943-1

22. A Good Crisis: Canadian Municipal Credit Conditions After the Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy, by Kyle Hanniman, 2015. ISBN 978-0-7727-0945-5

23. Municipal Employee Pension Plans in Canada: An Overview, by Bob Baldwin, 2015. ISBN 978-0-7727-0949-3

24. Cities, Data, and Digital Innovation, by Mark Kleinman, 2016. ISBN 978-0-7727-0951-6

25. Can Tax Increment Financing Support Transportation Infrastructure Investment? by Murtaza Haider and Liam Donaldson, 2016. ISBN 978-0-7727-0953-0

26. Good Governance at the Local Level: Meaning and Measurement, by Zack Taylor, 2016. ISBN 978-0-7727-0956-1

27. More Tax Sources for Canada’s Largest Cities: Why, What, and How? by Harry Kitchen and Enid Slack, 2016. ISBN 978-0-7727-0959-2

28. Did the Land Transfer Tax Reduce Housing Sales in Toronto? by Murtaza Haider, Amar Anwar, and Cynthia Holmes, 2016. ISBN 978-0-7727-0961-5


– 30 –

29. Financing the Golden Age: Municipal Finance in Toronto 1950-1975, by Richard White, 2016. ISBN 978-0-7727-0971-4

30. Climate Change, Floods, and Municipal Risk Sharing, by Daniel Henstra and Jason Thistlethwaite, 2017. ISBN 978-0-7727-0973-8

31. The Evolving Role of City Managers and Chief Administrative Officers, by Michael Fenn and David Siegel, 2017. ISBN 978-0-7727-0977-6

32. (Re)creating Boundary Lines: Assessing Toronto’s Ward Boundary Review Process, by Alexandra Flynn, 2017. ISBN 978-0-7727-0979-0

33. Land Value Capture and Social Benefits: Toronto and São Paulo Compared, by Abigail Friendly, 2017. ISBN 978-0-7727-0981-3

34. Financing Urban Infrastructure in Canada: Who Should Pay? by Enid Slack and Almos T. Tassonyi, 2017. ISBN 978-0-7727-0989-9

35. Paying for Water in Ontario’s Cities: Past, Present, and Future, by Harry Kitchen, 2017. ISBN 978-0-7727-0991-2

36. Re-imagining Community Councils in Canadian Local Government, by Alexandra Flynn and Zachary Spicer, 2017. ISBN 978-0-7727-0987-5

37. Climate Finance for Canadian Cities: Is Debt Financing a Viable Alternative? by Gustavo Carvalho, 2018. ISBN 978-0-7727-0994-3

38. The Public Finance Challenges of Fracking for Local Governments in the United States, by Austin Zwick, 2018. ISBN 978-0-7727-0996-7

39. Returning to the Golden Rule of Balanced Budgets: The Institutional and Political Economy of Restricting Public Deficits and Debt, by Bernard Dafflon, 2018. ISBN 978-0-7727-0998-1

40. The Platform Economy and Regulatory Disruption: Estimating the Impact on Municipal Revenue in Toronto, by Zachary Spicer, 2018. ISBN 978-0-7727-1005-5

41. Development Charges in Ontario: Is Growth Paying for Growth? by Adam Found, 2019. ISBN 978-0-7727-1009-3

42. Does Local Government Autonomy Promote Fiscal Sustainability? Lessons from Illinois’s Home-Rule Municipalities, by Matthew Walshe, 2019. ISBN 978-0-7727-1011-6


– 31 –

43. Mind the Funding Gap: Transit Financing in Los Angeles County and Metro Vancouver, by Matthew Lesch, 2019. ISBN 978-0-7727-1016-1

44. The Practice of Municipal Cooperation: Australian Perspectives and Comparisons with Canada, by Graham Sansom, 2019. ISBN 978-0-7727-5502-5

45. Filling the Gaps: The Role of Business Improvement Areas and Neighbourhood Associations in the City of Toronto, by Alexandra Flynn, 2019. ISBN 978-0-7727-1020-8

46. The Fallacy of the “Creatures of the Provinces” Doctrine: Recognizing and Protecting Municipalities’ Constitutional Status, by Kristin R. Good, 2019. ISBN 978-0-7727-1023-9

47. Power and Purpose: Canadian Municipal Law in Transition, by Zack Taylor and Alec Dobson, 2020. ISBN 978-0-7727-1029-1

48. Collaborative Regional Governance: Lessons from Greater Manchester, by Alan Harding, 2020. ISBN 978-0-7727-2526-4

49. Theme and Variations: Metropolitan Governance in Canada, by Zack Taylor, 2020. ISBN 978-0-7727-2496-0

50. Policy in Place: Revisiting Canada’s Tri-Level Agreements, by Neil Bradford, 2020. ISBN 978-0-7727-2523-3

51. Cities in National Constitutions: Northern Stagnation, Southern Innovation, by Ran Hirschl, 2020. ISBN 978-0-7727-2517-2

52. Municipal Financing Opportunities in Canada: How Do Cities Use Their Fiscal Space? by Jean-Philippe Meloche and François Vaillancourt, 2021. ISBN 978-0-7727-2532-5

53. Developing Air and Land Control at Toronto’s Airport: Local, Regional, and National Conflict and Cooperation, 1937–72, by Nick Lombardo, 2021 ISBN 978-0-7727-2536-3

54. Addressing the Fairness of Municipal User Fee Policy, by Almos Tassonyi and Harry Kitchen, 2021 ISBN 978-0-7727-2540-0


IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance No. 55 • 2021


ISBN 978-0-7727-2542-4ISSN 1927-1921