The Rights of CAP Constituents

Another way to identify the CAP constituency is in terms of its links to Aboriginal or treaty rights. From 1983 to 1992 a key focus of the NCC in constitutional discussions was the theme of "Equity of Access". The objective was, then, to break down the direct and indirect barriers of the old federal Indian Act regime and ensure that equitable access by Indian and Metis people to their rights was assured. This approach sees the current Indian Act system as an obstacle to accessing both collective and individual rights. This helps to explain the determination of many CAP affiliates to pursue litigation to eliminate the Indian Act exclusions as a basis for the implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Sparrow decision, along with the Simon and Sioui cases and a host of lower court rulings, confirm the CAP approach, as does the Department of Justice's own legal opinion on the Sparrow decision. In CAP's view, the equity approach is a fair and legitimate challenge of current government policies that impede access to Aboriginal and/or treaty rights implementation and to related claims. One consequence of this approach is the need to overhaul federal policies and programs that attempt to serve Aboriginal community needs in such areas as education, health, housing and economic development, among others. Otherwise the federal government would likely continue, as it is now, to undermine the integrity of Aboriginal and treaty rights by organizing its spending power so as to fragment Aboriginal communities on the basis of an Indian Act system of status and residence on reserve which has already been rejected by all Aboriginal people.

Treaty Rights Groups:

Title claims have been accepted to date by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (DIAND) for some of the constituency of the Council for Yukon First Nations (CYFN), the Metis Nation of the Northwest Territories (MNNWT), and most of the United Native Nations' (UNN) membership. The Labrador Metis Nation (LMN) is now finalizing a land claim submission to DIAND. In the North and B.C., DIAND's policies are completely open to the full participation of our constituency and affiliates, and the CAP's concerns are to improve the application of existing federal policies to northern CAP costituents. To the degree that the Indian Act regime does not intrude upon comprehensive claims policy, the issue of "status" or "Metis" does not arise. In the other areas, however, there are presumptions of exclusion based either on bad law or bad policy arising from the intrusion of the Indian Act which excludes groups and individuals based on status and/or residence off reserve.

Post-Confederation Treaties

Pre-Confederation Treaty Areas:

In southern Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic region, there is no process in place for implementing treaties or negotiating claims based on Aboriginal title. CAP's Atlantic affiliates, all share common Treaty and title interests with reserve-based Indians. Relations between on and off-reserve groups appear to be the strongest factor in resolving some problems, particularly where national identity is not confused with band membership or residence. Relatively progressive initiatives in Nova Scotia in the fisheries and hunting areas are occurring on matters of treaty harvesting and justice administration. In both cases the Department is taking a leading interest in relations with all Indian people, represented by on-reserve bands as well as by our off-reserve affiliates.

To Next Page National and Tribal Identities