Jody Wilson Raybould Speeches

Address by the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, PC, QC, MP to the
BC Leaders Gathering (Premier, BC Cabinet, and Chiefs of BC)
Notes for an address by

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, PC, QC, MP
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
BC Leaders Gathering
(Premier, BC Cabinet, and Chiefs of BC)
Vancouver, B.C.
November 29, 2018
Check against delivery
Gilakas'la. Good morning.
I would like to acknowledge the Coast Salish Nation – Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish
– on whose ancestral lands we are gathering.
It is good to be back in British Columbia, and at home in Vancouver. And I am particularly happy
to be here amongst friends, colleagues, and family. Elders, Chiefs, and leaders; First Nations
Leadership Council; Premier Horgan and Cabinet Ministers; thank you for inviting me to speak
at the 5th BC Annual Cabinet and First Nations Leaders' Gathering.
I have had the honour of attending four of these gatherings – two as the Regional Chief of
British Columbia, and two as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. It is so
encouraging to see that these gatherings are evolving as a venue for real work to be done, and
applaud all of you for your continued leadership in finding new ways to work together to
advance reconciliation here in BC.
When I spoke at the first gathering, in 2014, on behalf of the Chiefs, I advanced our "Four
Principles". The Four Principles were developed by consensus of the Chiefs of British Columbia
as we came together in 2014 – both those groups involved in the BC treaty-making process and
those seeking recognition of rights outside of that process. The Principles stated the requisites
for true Nation-to-Nation and Government-to-Government relationships consistent with the
recognition of rights, Indigenous self-determination, the inherent right of self-government, and
the necessary roles for Indigenous laws and jurisdictions. If you remember, that meeting was in
the shadow of the Tsilhqot'in decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and there was a clear
sense that momentum towards change was building.
Later, when I was here speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada –the underlying
message was the same – and I stressed how forming relations based on the recognition and
implementation of rights is now the shared work of all of us, including non-Indigenous
governments needing to make legislative, policy, and practice changes. I again spoke of the
"Four Principles"– this time as a Minister of the Crown.
I also spoke about how Indigenous peoples must lead the way, and the hard questions that –
you – we – as Indigenous peoples must answer. And I want to reiterate those sentiments today.
Indigenous self-determination requires that we – Indigenous peoples – do the work of re-
building our Nations and our governments – work that no one can do, prescribe or dictate for
us. For proper Nation-to-Nation and government-to-government relations to emerge, we must
revitalize our Indigenous laws, governments, and jurisdictions, and be organized as proper title
and rights holders.
Today, my underlying message is the same, but my remarks will be a little different. I think it is
timely to share with you some reflections that are in my mind and heart about what we have
seen transpire in recent months. To 'take stock', so to speak, about where we are at in this vital
work, and where we may go next.
Taking Stock
"The time is always right to do what is right". These words by Martin Luther King Jr. evoke a
truth that Indigenous peoples in this country know all too well. The work that needs to be done
is urgent – and it has been urgent for generations. There have always been excuses for delay
and inaction. We know them well. We often hear – "It is hard", "it is complicated", "we don't
understand".
But the reality is that we know what must be done. We have the solutions. Indigenous peoples
have articulated what needs to happen for decades. Studies and reports have laid out paths
forward, including comprehensively in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the
Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We have hundreds of court cases
about section 35 of the Constitution, and a global consensus around the standards for survival,
dignity, and well-being of Indigenous peoples in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
The common theme in the solutions provided is the necessity to shift from the denial of rights
to their recognition and implementation, including Indigenous self-determination and the
inherent right of self-government. The inhumane conditions and suffering that Indigenous
peoples have and continue to experience are rooted in legislation, policies, and practices which
did not treat Indigenous people as fully equal, autonomous human beings with dignity, rights,
and respect. The imposition of the Indian Act on the lives of Indigenous peoples; the breaking
up of our governments and Nations; the lack of implementation of treaties; failing to embrace
the standards in section 35 of the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples – these forms of denial are the foundation of our current challenges.
We will never comprehensively solve the massive rates of our children in care, the ravages of
the drug epidemic in our communities, the tragedy of youth suicide, and other major challenges
we confront everyday unless and until the authority, capacity, and responsibility of Indigenous
Nations and their governments to determine their futures and care for their peoples is affirmed
and implemented.
I have described the work that the Government of Canada is undertaking with respect to
Indigenous issues as moving on two interdependent tracks. Track one is closing the gap issues –
ensuring potable water, access to quality education, addressing issues of children and family
and the unacceptable rate of kids in care. The second track is the foundation and
transformational piece – of rights recognition. This track is making the transformative changes
to laws, policies, and practices, and doing the work of Nation and government re-building – by
replacing denial with recognition as the foundation of our relations.
Both tracks are needed – interrelated – and the first will never be fully realized – the gaps
closed – until and unless the second is made real. Thinking that good intentions, tinkering
around the edges of the Indian Act, or that making increased financial investments – however
significant and unprecedented – will in themselves close the gaps, is naive. Transformative
change and new directions are required.
Maybe think of it through the analogy of a tree. As we all know, if the roots of a tree are dead,
the tree will not grow – even if we water it. And while the trunk may stand for years, at some
point it falls over and begins rotting. For too long our main strategy has been to pour water on
dead roots, hoping that the tree will grow. Of course, it does not.
What we need to do together, Crown governments and Indigenous peoples – and this work is
long overdue – is dig up the dead roots and plant something new and then properly water and
fertilize it. Entrenching the recognition of rights in federal and provincial laws, policies, and
practices – if done properly – that recognize the legitimate polities of Indigenous peoples, is the
soil for the new healthy roots of strong and rebuilt – post-colonial Indigenous nations and in
which our collective and shared future will grow. A new tree.
But I think we all know this. Yet, regrettably, it still has not happened in any comprehensive
way. We need to continue to ask ourselves, "Why?" And to challenge ourselves to confront that
which stands in the way. And wherever the obstacles are coming from – be it from within
government or outside.
The answer to overcoming the obstacles is having the necessary collective political will to reset
the relationship based on the recognition and implementation of rights.
For three years – within government and publicly – I have been explicit in outlining what I see
as minimum elements of new relations based on the recognition of rights – a rights recognition
framework – elements that are what Indigenous peoples have advocated for over generations.
These include:
• Harmony between the laws of Canada and UNDRIP;
• The replacement of the Comprehensive Claims Policy and Inherent Right of Self-
Government Policy, and Consultation and Accommodation approaches with policies
based on true recognition;
• Legislated, binding, standards on all public officials to ensure they act in all matters with
Indigenous peoples based on recognition of title and rights;
• Legislative, binding, obligations on the Crown to take action in partnership with
Indigenous nations to implement models of self-government that are self-determined
by Indigenous peoples;
• Accountable, independent, oversight of the conduct of government respecting
Indigenous rights – as well as new methods of dispute resolution that include
applications of Indigenous laws and processes;
• New institutions – that are independent of government, and designed in partnership
with communities – that support the work of rebuilding their nations and governments;
and,
• Development of proper processes and structures between Canada and Indigenous
governments for decision-making, including in order to obtain free, prior, and informed
consent.
Making these shifts internally within government and in partnership with Indigenous leadership
will allow us to meet the goals of: (1) moving from denial to recognition; (2) replacing conflict
with co-operation; (3) removing the barriers to self-determination and the inherent right of
self-government and (4) creating the conditions for the cultural, social and economic well being
of children, family and communities. In short, it will support Nations to lead the work of
transitioning from their current realities imposed by colonial structures to futures that reflect
the priorities and visions of their peoples. The Nation rebuilding I talked of earlier. The tree.
Where re-built Indigenous Nations and governments are increasingly caring for their own
people under their own laws – self-governing. And when Indigenous Nations are leading the
way through their own institutions – Crown governments will need to respond and engage with
the rebuilt Nations. To follow the lead.
To this end proper legislative and policy changes as well as new models of negotiations and
agreements, developed in consultation and co-operation with Indigenous peoples must be
about the federal government getting its house in order and supporting Nation rebuilding – and
not in any way about regulating, limiting, or constraining the ability of Indigenous peoples to
exercise their rights, self-determine and rebuild. Public officials must be bound to recognition
standards, and the legal control exercised by other governments over the lives of Indigenous
peoples pulled back.
Here in BC, governments and Indigenous leaders have been dancing around legislative change
to effect recognition for over a decade and there is great opportunity for leadership –
notwithstanding what other governments may or may not be doing. All of this is to say – we do
have some experience and lessons learned from going down the legislative path here in BC. And
we have learned from it.
Yet, even with friendly governments and with progressive Indigenous leadership – change is
always challenging. As the late Chief Joe Mathias reminded us – during the constitutional talks
on self-government in the 1980s – he said to "behold the turtle... he moves forward when he
sticks his neck out." The question remains today are we prepared to stick our necks out? I say,
let us stick our necks out. I am.
We must be audacious. We must do what what is right. And not look for a compromise
between what is right and what is not – and thinking it will propel us forward. Ultimately, we
are speaking about shifts that are going to require multiple forms of action over many years.
The turtle may move slowly – but moves in a purposeful direction.
Not wanting to stick out your neck, is directly related to overcoming our fears – which hold us
back. In some respects, those fears are not surprising. While early patterns of relations
between the Crown and Indigenous peoples reflected a Nation-to-Nation relationships based
on recognition, for far too long that has been ignored and lost, and many have become
accustomed to the status quo. So true Nation-to-Nation relationships have become an
unknown change for many of us. And like everything in life, the unknown – and change – brings
with it an element of fear.
Within government, when discussing matters of Indigenous rights, one still often finds a
seemingly disproportionate focus on "risk" – speculation that the sky may fall – and an
emphasis on the most severe, yet very remote, potential outcomes. These fears are reinforced
by some voices in the public sphere that are opposed to aspects of the critical work of
reconciliation. Thankfully the influence of these voices are diminishing but they still exist and
remain a threat to progress.
But fear also holds Indigenous Nations back. Of course, many Nations across this Province, and
across the country are advancing important change. They are rebuilding their governments,
moving out of Indian Act structures and mindsets, and revitalizing and expressing anew their
legal orders on the land. But this work needs to massively expand and accelerate. The fact is
recognition based relationships cannot be grounded in structures and requirements imposed or
propped up by the Indian Act – they need to be by and with Indigenous Nations that have self-
determined their representative institutions, and are exercising their self-government.
Sometimes fear holds some back from moving out from under the Indian Act.
As well, there are some Indigenous voices on the margins that will – purportedly in the name of
upholding Indigenous rights – critically oppose almost any effort to change, often relying on
inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation that spreads fear, confusion and mistrust. These
voices, paradoxically, sometimes end up reinforcing the same outcome – inaction – that those
who oppose rights recognition for Indigenous peoples and reconciliation pursue.
As a former Regional Chief, I understand this. Among this group of Indigenous voices one
sometimes sees a tendency to what I would label as fundamentalism – which in any context is
problematic. This includes the idea that there is not a place for Indigenous peoples within a
changed, rebuilt Canada. This group ultimately rejects both section 35 of the Constitution Act
and the far-reaching judicial decisions regarding Indigenous title and rights and UNDRIP – this
because both include – in varying ways – articulation of the relationship between Indigenous
peoples and rights and the State and confirm the ongoing existence of the state – Canada. The
rights recognition and nation rebuilding we are advancing – is within a strong, changed, and
united Canada reflecting our system of multi-level government, cooperative federalism, and
legal pluralism, including Indigenous jurisdictions and legal orders.
So let me say this to all that want real change – courage is the opposite of fear. We need to be
ever more courageous. We need the courage to realize that when making real change, not
every future detail can be known – to understand that change has to be transformative, while
recognizing that we need to build on our success – to act in ways that take risks, because we
know the status quo is not what anyone needs or wants – to not wait for others to lead –
generations of children and grandchildren have waited to long – we must lead the change
ourselves.
Moving forward on track two and developing an appropriate rights recognition framework, is
not just about the right process supported by the right substance. It is also about meaningful
action along the way. Rather than delaying important lines of action while waiting for the
necessary legislation to be developed, we should all be pushing forward. Let me give an
example of action I am taking in accordance with my authority as the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada.
From the day I was elected I have spoken about the need to move the issues of rights
recognition and reconciliation out of the courts. The goals of reconciliation and adversarial
court processes are opposed. This is why, some 18 months ago, I issued internal direction to
my litigators to operationalize the ten principles the Government of Canada adopted in July
of 2017 in the context of Indigenous litigation.
It is my intention to make this directive public before Christmas this year. This will reflect a
principled approach and something I believe is important for transparency and accountability in
the era of reconciliation.
That said, with respect to the directive, and as we all know, direction to litigators can only do so
much. If we have arrived to that litigious place then something has already gone wrong in the
work we must do together. And ultimately, litigation direction and practices amongst all parties
must change – not just the Crowns. But the directive is helping – I believe continue to help – in
a range of ways, such as by changing specific aspects of the approach to litigation, simplifying
and streamlining, reducing its adversarial nature, making pleadings less offensive, and over
time will continue to change the culture that has been built up where litigation is often the
norm instead of the exception.
I hope to see multiple initiatives like this directive in the upcoming months that build
momentum and trust as a reset takes place in how to get to proper recognition and
implementation of rights legislation and policy.
Conclusion
And on that note. Where do we go from here?
Forward, of course. We move forward without repeating mistakes. Even if recent.
We know what needs to be done, we know how to do it properly, we have governments and
Indigenous peoples aligned like at no time in history before, and we have a pressing urgency for
transformative change that no one can deny. We need to act. There are no plausible or
legitimate excuses for not making the shifts that are needed, to relations based on the
recognition and implementation of rights. The remaining obstacles must be overcome.
I truly hope that the pace of real change begins to match the urgency of the ills we must
address – on all tracks. I hope that regardless of whatever negotiation process you are in – the
BC treaty process, recognition and self-determination tables, reconciliation negotiations – you
innovate and accelerate to tangible outcomes in months not years.
I would encourage that the kernels of innovation we see – including the Sechelt Foundation
Agreement we heard about this morning – are further advanced and made accessible so that
Nations across the Province and country can make real progress in a timely way. I also
encourage that in the many meetings Provincial Ministers and Indigenous leaders will be having
over the next few days, that everyone asks themselves how the discussion they are having and
the paths they pursue together advance the broader work of Indigenous self-determination and
Nation and government re-building, and the shift to relations based on the recognition and
implementation of Indigenous rights.
Everything I have said this morning ultimately boils down to this – generations will look back
and judge us on the actions we take right now – when we had the chance – when the stars
aligned. When the stage was set for the long-awaited and fought-for change, did we fulfil our
role and get it done? Did we stick our necks out? Or did we succumb to old patterns of rhetoric
without action? Of division over unified effort? Of partisanship over principle? Of compromise
over doing what was right?
I want the story of this moment to be about how we all seized the moment, and as a testament
to the sacrifice of generations before us, and for the well-being of the generations to come, we
got it done.
So I wish you well in your deliberations over the next few days, and hope that you emerge with
outcomes that move all of us forward.
Gilakas'la.
Date modified: 2018-12-01

A Time for Change: Modernizing the Canadian Criminal Justice
System and Renewing Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous
Peoples
From: Department of Justice Canada
Speech

To the
The Campagnolo Lecture Series
Comox, B.C.
September 27, 2018
Gilakas’la. Good evening.
It is good to be back on the Island and here in Comox. I went to high school here – Highland Sr.
Secondary. I am so pleased to see old friends and family in the audience – including my mother
Sandy Wilson.
But before I begin, I must, of course, acknowledge that we are gathering on the ancestral lands
of the K’òmoks people. I come from the the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk and Laich-Kwil-Tach
peoples, from northern Vancouver Island and the mainland. Part of the Kwakwaka’wakw, the
Kwakala speaking peoples. I am from the eagle clan. My father is Hemas Kla-Lee-Lee-Kla – Bill
Wilson – and my grandmother was Pugladee – Ethel Pearson. I am registered with the Indian
Act band know as the We Wai Kai Nation – which has lands reserved for it in Campbell River
and on Quadra Island. My husband, Tim, who is also here tonight, try to get back to our home
at Cape Mudge as much as we can.
So thank you for the introduction and thank you to the CV Community Justice Centre for
inviting me to speak tonight. Thank you, as well, to North Island College for their support for
this event and for all of you that are here.
And most importantly, I do want to acknowledge Iona Campagnolo after whom this lecture is
named. I am so very thrilled that you could make it. It is wonderful to see you. Iona, you are a
woman who broke so many political barriers and dedicated your career to this country and
specifically, to British Columbia.
Let me say from the outset certainly a lot has happened in the three years since I was given the
great privilege to have been elected the Member of Parliament for Vancouver-Granville and
then honoured to have been asked by Prime Minister Trudeau to be Minister of Justice and the
Attorney General of Canada – an appointment I think that speaks volumes about how far we
have come as a country, but also about how far we still have to go.
As I have said elsewhere, I view the appointment not so much a reflection on myself but rather
a symbol of change. That in a nation, not so long ago, where an Indigenous person could not
vote, let alone run for office or practice as a lawyer, is now the principal lawyer in charge of
administering the law and advising its government.
For me, it has become even clearer over the last few years just how significant this is when you
realize the challenges that still remain – both externally and internally within government – in
changing a system that, when it comes to Indigenous peoples, is still fundamentally based on
colonial institutions and operating through out-dated laws and policies.
So part of what I want to reflect on tonight is how after three years as a Minister of the Crown I
still have to contend – both personally and professionally – with a colonial legacy that remains
pervasive despite best intentions and which is exacerbated by the trials and tribulations of
partisan politics.
That said, progress is being made and I am deeply optimistic and confident there is light at the
end of the tunnel as we move forward as a country with the work of supporting Indigenous
Nation rebuilding within a strong, diverse and vibrant Canada. But significant issues still
remain, and I want to share some thoughts on how we overcome them.
For me, it is all about finding balance in society and this annual lecture series on Restorative
Justice provides a space for bold ideas and reflections on how we achieve this. Judge Ross
Green when he gave this lecture defined restorative justice as to; “restore harmony between
the offender, the victim and the community, after a transgression.” When former Chief Justice,
the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin was here she spoke of restorative justice as a way to
heal communities – and reminded us of the history of restorative justice as being one of the
first and most human forms of justice.
For me, my understanding, support, and work to advance restorative justice is framed by my
background. In my culture, and one that many of us in this room share, there is great
importance placed on reflecting on the experiences one has had, the lessons those carry, and
passing those on so that they may be of assistance to others. One of those that was passed on
to me – and which helps guide all I do – is about the role of balance in life and existence. In our
culture, all things are in their greatest state of well-being when there is balance: whether it be
balance between humans and the natural world, between groups of peoples, within a family or
community, or in how we live and organize our own lives. Balance is viewed as the proper state
of things where conditions of harmony and justice flourish, while imbalance is what gives rise to
conflict, contention, and harm.
Such a holistic approach to keeping balance in society helps to ensure that all people can
achieve their goals and meet their full potential and contribute to community regardless of
circumstance or fate.
In the Indigenous political and legal system in which I was raised, it is in the Big-House where
balance was maintained. It is in the Big House where our laws are made, disputes settled and
important decisions taken. In this system there are no political parties – rather, there is a belief
in consensus. The issues are debated and while everyone may not agree with every aspect of a
decision to be taken, consensus, and if necessary compromise, is sought in order to achieve the
balance in society. This helps to ensure that decisions are durable – legitimate – and survive
the test of time. Maybe this was because we all lived together in small villages and people did
not simply leave – but – I like to think it is because we value everyone’s opinion and everyone’s
voice counts. Not just the few.
These legal traditions are quite different then the ones that I was formally trained at law school,
and in supporting the expansion of restorative justice programs within the broader justice
system, we are finding ways that the plural and diverse legal traditions in Canada can play their
role in building peace, safety, and harmony in society, and play their role in addressing serious
challenges like the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in our criminal justice system.
With those initial thoughts in mind, let me take some time first to reflect on some of the on-
going challenges to reconciliation and the empowerment of Indigenous peoples. Next I will
turn more specifically to restorative justice with some comments on the incremental steps that
are now being taken in support of the more ambitious objective of reconciliation.
Reconciliation and Empowerment of Indigenous Peoples
Simply stated, there is a need for “reconciliation” because we have a history of such imbalance
in the relationship with Indigenous peoples in this country. Rather than a history of distinct
peoples, Nations, and governments – Europeans and Indigenous peoples – coming together to
form a balanced and proper relationship with one another – the predominant reality has been
the imposition of laws and policies that denied the basic rights and freedoms of Indigenous
peoples. This broke up the Indigenous Nations, governments, and systems of laws, land-
holding, community and family. While some treaties were entered into in the past that
promised a balanced relationship, these typically have not been honoured or upheld. More
broadly denial of Indigenous rights, including treaty rights, has been the norm.
Today, we see the effects of this imbalance all around us in the poverty, disempowerment, and
marginalization of Indigenous peoples, including massive rates of suicide, a crisis of Indigenous
children in care, and, of course, overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice
system. All of these are symptoms of our history of an imbalanced relationship – of imposition
and colonialism, rather than true partnership and co-operation.
In seeking balance we can find solutions through reconciliation based on the recognition of
Indigenous rights and thereby strengthening our system of cooperative federalism. We now
understand how the socio-economic conditions and challenges faced by Indigenous peoples are
completely intertwined and interconnected with issues of Indigenous rights. Our colonial
history has been one of disempowerment, imposition, and control by government over the lives
of Indigenous peoples – spiritually, physically, culturally, socially, politically and legally – with
the result being patterns of powerlessness, poverty, and hopelessness. Transforming these
social conditions requires supporting the work of Indigenous peoples to determine their own
futures, re-build their Nations and governments, exercise control and jurisdiction and be
responsible for the well-being of their peoples -- to uphold and protect their rights and
freedoms.
There have been, of course, some important milestones, which promised to overcome this
history of imbalance. Perhaps most important was the adoption of section 35 of the
Constitution in 1982 which “recognized and affirmed” the title, rights, and treaties of
Indigenous peoples. As we know, this was at the same time as we adopted the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. But if we honestly look back, we see that the promise of section 35 has
largely not been fulfilled because of choices that were made that maintain the imbalance.
For example, consider for a moment the rights all of us hold under the Charter – freedom of
speech, religion, association and so on. We do not question the existence of these
rights. While we will continue to have disagreements about the scope, extent, or expression of
certain rights, Government does not say to individual Canadians that they must “prove” that
they have a right to “free speech” before taking action to uphold and implement those
rights. Rather, after 1982, active steps have been taken – and continue to be taken every day –
to ensure those rights are protected. This includes internal processes and requirements to
ensure new laws are tested and examined to ensure they are compliant with the Charter, to
amending old legislation which is clearly inconsistent with the Charter, to changing laws which
the courts say should be adjusted for Charter compliance.
This has not been the case with Indigenous rights in section 35 of the Constitution. Rather then
taking action to recognize, uphold, and implement these rights, successive governments
insisted that these rights had to be proven through long and expensive court proceedings. Even
then, as a result of hundreds of court decisions that have upheld Indigenous rights, very few
laws have been changed to demonstrate recognition and respect for Indigenous rights.
Indeed, we live in a country where the primary law governing the lives of the majority of
Indigenous peoples – First Nations – is still a colonial law – the Indian Act, which is over a
century old, and seeks to define who Indigenous peoples are and impose patterns of life on
them.
In other words, the imbalance remains in our midst. So while we have made progress on many
fronts… at the same time we have continued to perpetuate and maintain the denial of rights,
and ideas, systems, and laws, that prevent the conditions of harmony, justice, and equality – of
true recognition and reconciliation – to flourish.
So how do we truly overcome this imbalance – and advance true reconciliation?
Let me be candid for a few minutes.
I believe there are three things needed for true reconciliation to take root in Canada. First, we
must want and desire it to happen. Second, we must know how to accomplish it. And third, we
must have the volition and will to see it through – we must take tangible action. To say it
another way, we must have the intention, the knowledge and capacity, and the indomitable will
to transform long entrenched patterns of injustice and inequality, and replace them with new
patterns grounded in the recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights.
Not that long ago – perhaps even only a decade ago – I probably would have said we are
seriously deficient in all three of these areas. But this has changed. Because Canadians, people
like you – all across this country – in new and dynamic ways every day – are expressing the
desire to see true reconciliation manifest itself in the life of society.
We also know how to accomplish true reconciliation. Years of tireless advocacy by leaders
before us, dozens of reports and studies – including the findings of Royal Commissions including
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and hundreds of court cases – as well as the practical
experiences on the ground with examples of where there has been success –all show us the
way forward and tell us what needs to be done – and it all comes back to recognizing rights and
acting on them – including taking the concrete action to change the laws, policies and
operational practices that are offside with reconciliation as we support Indigenous peoples in
rebuilding. We do have the answers.
The question now is do we have the volition and the will to see it through – to take action. And
this is where I see ourselves today. While strides forward have been made – we are not there
yet.
We have to constantly remind ourselves that words – especially in the context of work such as
reconciliation – have meaning. “Recognition” for Indigenous peoples across this country, and
as a basis for true reconciliation, has meaning. It means that Indigenous peoples governed and
owned the lands that now make up Canada prior to the arrival of Europeans. It means that
Indigenous laws and legal orders that stewarded the lands for millennia, remain and must
continue to operate in the contemporary world. It means that the title and rights of Indigenous
peoples are inherent, and not dependent or contingent on court orders, agreements, or
government action for their existence, substance, and effect. It means that treaties entered
into historically, must be fully implemented based on their spirit and intent, oral histories as
well as texts, and consistent with the true meaning of a proper nation-to-nation and
government-to-government relationship. It means that the distinct and diverse governments,
laws, cultures, societies, and ways of life of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit are fully respected
and reflected.
For Canada, recognition means resetting our foundation to properly reconcile – to finish the
unfinished business of confederation. What is more, for many Indigenous peoples, recognition
is the lifeline that will ensure the survival and rebuilding of their cultures, languages and
governing systems within an even stronger Canada.
But words are also easy. And too often we see the tendency – especially in politics – to use
important words that have real meaning and importance, carelessly. We see them being
applied to ideas and actions that in truth do not reflect their actual meaning – even, sometimes,
their opposite. We see “recognition” applied to ideas that actually maintain “denial”. We see
“self-government” used to refer to ideas or processes that actually maintain control over
others. We see “self-determination” applied to actions that actually interfere with the work of
Nations rebuilding their governments and communities. We see “inherent” in the same breath
as the contradictory idea that rights are contingent on the courts or agreements.
When we see this being done it does not advance reconciliation. It actually undermines it. It
causes confusion, chaos, and division. It treats a challenge – a challenge that is vital for the
survival and well-being of children, women, families, and communities across this country – as a
‘game of rhetoric’. It trivializes – often out of ignorance or political expediency – a moral,
social, and economic imperative for our country.
Words, in the work of reconciliation, are also cheap without real action – action that goes to
the core of undoing the colonial laws, policies, and practices, and that is based on the real
meaning of reconciliation. We all need to understand this.
The path of justice and equality is not advanced or achieved through half-measures, good
intentions, or lofty rhetoric. And it is certainly not achieved through obfuscation or confusion
about what we mean when we speak. Hard choices, innovative actions, transformations in laws
and policies, new understandings and attitudes, new patterns of behaviour – this is what is
needed.
Reflecting this, I outlined in many speeches in recent years – what I see as minimum elements
of new relations based on the recognition of rights – building on what Indigenous peoples have
advocated over generations. These include:
• Harmony between the laws of Canada and the United Nations Declaration of the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples;
• The replacement of the federal Comprehensive Claims Policy and Inherent Right of Self-
and,
consent.
Restorative Justice
I want to now move from a high-level discussion on rights recognition and reconciliation, and
talk about criminal justice reform and restorative justice.
As most of you I am sure are aware – our current criminal justice system disproportionately
affects the most vulnerable segments of our population. For example, we know that
Indigenous peoples interact with our criminal justice system in shockingly high numbers.
The statistics are bleak.
The rate of violent victimization among Indigenous people in Canada is more than double that
of non-Indigenous people.
Indigenous adults comprised 4.1 percent of Canada’s population, but represented 27 percent of
admissions to federal custody and 30 percent in provincial and territorial custody.
In 2015-16, despite representing approximately 5 percent of Canada’s total female population,

Indigenous women made up 38 percent of the federally incarcerated female population in
Canada.
In 2016-17, Indigenous youth accounted for 46 percent of admissions to correctional services,

while representing just 8 percent of the Canadian youth population.
All these figures, and the tragic reality they help illustrate, are, of course, completely
unacceptable and must change.
As a former prosecutor, this story is all too familiar to me. A young person, often an Indigenous
man, commits a non-violent crime, comes into contact with the criminal justice system, and
never is really able to pull himself free.
He gets caught in a vicious cycle of court appearances, court orders, breaches of court orders,
and returns to custody. Soon, he is spending more time behind bars than he is out of
them. This man’s interactions with the criminal justice system have further marginalized him,
making him even more vulnerable.
This story is really a by-product of our history of imbalance, and a sign of how much is yet to be
done. The occurrence of this tragic pattern is inseparable from the historic and contemporary
impacts of colonialism and the denial of Indigenous rights that I described earlier. It is in such a
context that disempowerment, hopelessness, cycles of violence, and desperation grow. It is
also in that context that a criminal justice system has emerged with structures, patterns, and
norms that are often alienating, unresponsive, and not culturally relevant.
That is why the work of supporting the recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights,
including Indigenous self-determination and the inherent right of self-government, is so critical
to establishing a positive foundation where current and future generations of Indigenous youth,
are born and raised in conditions where their well-being and ability to thrive will continually
increase. Where they have hope, are proud to be Indigenous and consequently their
interactions with the criminal justice system should continually decrease.
The work to accomplish this includes supporting Indigenous self-governments in the work they
must do and lead in developing their own systems for the administration of justice. The overall
success or failure of rebuilding Indigenous nations in Canada, and the successful
implementation of self-government, will in large part be determined by how well Indigenous
nations can enforce and adjudicate their own laws, as well as other governments’ laws, and
how well such systems will fit within the broader legal system in Canada.
At the same time, we must also act on other paths to increase or introduce measures and
initiatives within the current justice system aimed at reducing the likelihood of an Indigenous
person being at disproportionate risk of getting caught in a continuous cycle of interactions
with the criminal justice system.
So let us imagine a Canada in which the justice system better aligns with the needs of all
Canadians. What if an offender’s first interaction with the criminal justice system did not
become the first in a series? What if it triggered mechanisms designed to address the factors
that inspired the criminal behaviour in the first place? What if we intentionally and deliberately
built off-ramps to the system so that an individual’s first interaction with the justice system
gave them avenues to pursue and to ensure that it was also their last?
Clearly, we need innovative solutions and there are solutions. One of these is to consider
greater use of restorative justice measures and other alternative measures to incarceration,
where appropriate – such as using provincially established First Nation Courts that typically deal
with sentencing after a person has pleaded guilty to criminal code offences.
These measures seek to make both the victim and the offender active participants in the
journey for justice; emphasize repairing relationships; ensure victims have a powerful voice and
this process allows them to heal, while at the same time focuses on the offender taking
important accountability for their actions; and making sure the differences between cultures
and norms are understand. Again to find balance.
Restorative Justice
In this sense, I view restorative justice as acting as a kind of “circuit-breaker” from the cycle that
so many find themselves caught in.
In Canada, restorative justice is currently used in every province and territory. It is supported
by legislation and federal, provincial and territorial government programs and policies. It is
used by communities, programs, police, courts, and corrections, as well as by organizations like
yours, the Comox Valley Community Justice Centre.
Over the years, the federal government has shown leadership in this area by enabling
Restorative Justice with legislation and policy; providing training; supporting innovative
practices; and conducting research and evaluations.
Internationally, the Government of Canada has also been a leader. I was honoured to attend
the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Vienna earlier this year, as
head of the Canadian delegation, in order to co-sponsor and speak to the most recent
resolution in support of Restorative Justice.
That all said, and while restorative justice has been part of Canada’s criminal justice system for
over 40 years, and has proven effective over that period, it is still not as widely available across
the country as it should be. We need to do more… as it works.
A 2011 Department of Justice Canada report found that Indigenous people who completed a
community-based alternative to mainstream justice, such as restorative justice,
were significantly less likely to re-offend than those who did not. I am committed to expanding
this resource so it can be more widely used and accepted across the country.
Importantly, measures such as specialized courts and restorative justice are aimed at solving
the problem that caused the behavior in the first place, as opposed to strictly placing the
primary focus on punishment. This provides offenders, where appropriate, with a way out of
the system.
While I strongly believe that offenders must be held to account for their actions, I also believe
that the system must be fair for all those who come before it.
In addition to the expansion of specific restorative justice initiatives, there is a need to also
address other factors that contribute to tragic cycles of incarceration.
As many of you will be aware earlier this year, I introduced Bill C-75, a major piece of legislation
to reform the criminal justice system and address delays – a bill which is currently before the
House.
Bill C-75 does this in a number of ways. It does so by proposing changes to how bail is granted
and to how breaches of bail conditions will be administered.
Accused who do not have access to needed supports and services, such as housing, health care,
and social services, are at a higher risk of breaching bail conditions – this can result in further
needless incarceration while awaiting trial, which further contributes to the overrepresentation
of Indigenous people and vulnerable persons in the criminal justice system.
There are also proposed changes to how juries are selected.
While Indigenous people are overrepresented as victims and offenders, they are
underrepresented on juries. We continue to work toward a jury selection system that better
represents our nation’s diversity and that enjoys the confidence of all Canadians.
We have also changed the way we appoint judges in Canada. We have instituted a more
transparent and open process for choosing federally appointed judges, with a focus on
promoting a modern bench that also better reflects Canada’s diversity.
We believe that a diverse judicial bench allows those who come before the criminal justice
system, either as victims or accused, to see themselves better represented in the system, which
helps build confidence in our institutions.
Consistent with this, I have made it a priority of mine to ensure that Indigenous people, women
and marginalized communities, are better represented on the bench. The new process has
resulted in more Indigenous people being appointed but there is always room for
improvement.
With respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, our government has also reformed how justices
are selected. A potential consideration for candidates now includes their knowledge of
Indigenous legal traditions. While there is currently no Indigenous person on the Supreme
Court, I can certainly foresee that historic day coming.
Conclusion
So in conclusion I know I have covered a lot of terrain in this talk. We find ourselves in a period
of significant change with great opportunity although not without significant challenges.
While considerable progress has been made, the work of achieving true reconciliation involves
addressing the imbalance that has plagued our country historically and continues to do so
today. The effects of this imbalance are seen in all aspects of society, with the justice system
being a core example. Restorative justice represents innovation and action that seeks to tackle
the imbalance in one area where it is most visible and impactful.
As Minister of Justice, my message has always been consistent and considered – both internally
and externally – that transformative change requires a coherent and comprehensive approach
to the true recognition of the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples. This work is incredibly
hard but must continue. We all need to be advocates in this work. I am sure you will hold all
governments and elected officials accountable to creating the space to enable the
deconstruction of our country’s colonial legacy.
Finally, we will know when reconciliation is achieved when there is balance – when Indigenous
Nations are full partners within our federation, with an improved quality of life, with practicing
and thriving cultures. It is our collective task and responsibility to ensure this day.
Gilakas’la.
Thank you very much.

Recognition, Reconciliation and Indigenous People’s
Disproportionate Interactions with the Criminal Justice System
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/speech.html

To the
Inaugural Houston Lecture
Johnson Shoyama Graduate School
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
September 13, 2018
Gilakas’la. Good evening.
Before I begin, I would like to respectfully acknowledge that we are gathering on Treaty 6
Territory and the Homeland of the Métis.
Thank you to the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School and the University of Saskatchewan for
hosting tonight. And I would also like to thank everyone in attendance for being here and
providing me with the opportunity to discuss some issues that I feel play an important role in
the work of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
I come from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk and Laich-Kwil-Tach people of northern Vancouver
Island. We are part of the Kwakwaka’wakw, also known as the Kwak’wala-speaking peoples. I
am from the eagle clan.
I worked as a prosecutor in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, before turning my focus

specifically to Indigenous rights by serving as the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
for British Columbia, where for nearly six years, I represented all First Nations in the province.
My upbringing, my education, and my professional and personal experiences, have all shaped
my worldview and strengthened my determination to see a genuine transformation in Canada’s
relationship with Indigenous peoples and to be a part of meaningful and lasting improvements
to the criminal justice system.
In doing this work, I was and am building upon the advocacy and leadership of generations of
Indigenous elders, leaders, and people who have come before me, including my father. They
devoted their lives to ensuring their way of life, their culture, their systems of governments and
laws, their connection with lands and resources, and their economic opportunities, could be
maintained and improved upon.
As a proud Indigenous woman, with the great responsibility of being Canada’s first ever
Indigenous Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I feel a moral imperative to carry on this
work and to help advance the necessary shifts that need to take place. I see my appointment to
this role not so much as a personal accomplishment, but rather, as a symbol of how far Canada
has come – but also how much further we have to go.
So tonight, I would like to use this opportunity to speak with you about two very important and
interrelated topics:
• the rebuilding of Indigenous nations and governments in Canada, and;

• how modernizing the Canadian Criminal Justice System will help address the
disproportionate number of interactions that Indigenous people experience with it.
In Canada, as many of you will be aware, the federal government has sole jurisdiction over
criminal law, although the administration of justice is a shared responsibility among federal,
provincial and territorial governments. Throughout our history, there have been serious and
lasting implications for Indigenous peoples as a result of how this arrangement, and the
administration of justice, has evolved and been operationalized.
Indeed, as all of us gathered here know, the impacts of our justice system on Indigenous people
have been front and centre in our public discourses over the past number of years – including
certainly very directly in this province. Painful and tragic realities and experiences have been
starkly revealed, long-standing concerns with the administration of justice have had a light
shone on them, and Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast have begun to understand in new
and renewed ways the histories and legacies that have led to these enduring challenges, and
the directions of change we must pursue.
So it is with many events over the past years in my mind and heart that I reflect on issues of
reconciliation and criminal justice tonight – and I look forward to engaging in some discussion
afterwards.
There remains significant unfinished work to accomplish before Indigenous peoples have access
to appropriate systems of justice, including Indigenous courts, so that they can enforce tribal
and other laws as part of our multi-level system of evolving co-operative federalism.
The work involved in rebuilding Indigenous systems of justice is part of the broader work of
Indigenous Nation rebuilding and finding ways to overcome the long and tragic history of the
colonization of Indigenous peoples in Canada, based on Indigenous self-determination.
Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, which must be rooted in real and fulsome recognition,
affirmation, and implementation of the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples – in ways that
reflect how Indigenous peoples have understood those words and terms over generations –
remains one of the most urgent and compelling issues facing Canadians today, and reforms to
the criminal justice system represent an important, even vital step, in the path towards
reconciliation.
Reconciliation and Indigenous Rights
Before turning to the criminal justice system specifically, first let me say a few comments about
the era of reconciliation that we are in. And let me tell you of my understanding of what is
involved in successfully navigating the path towards reconciliation.
At the heart of achieving reconciliation, is the belief that the nation-to-nation, government-to-
government, Inuit-Crown relationship must be based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-
operation and partnership.
So let me pause for second on this term “recognition of rights”.
Words have meaning. We live in a time where language is often appropriated and misused, co-
opted and twisted – made to stand for something it is not.
“Recognition” for Indigenous peoples across this country, and as a basis for true reconciliation,
has meaning. It means that Indigenous peoples governed and owned the lands that now make
up Canada prior to the arrival of Europeans. It means that Indigenous laws and legal orders
that stewarded the lands for millenia, remain and must continue to operate in the
contemporary world. It means that the title and rights of Indigenous peoples are inherent, and
not dependent or contingent on court orders, agreements, or government action for their
existence, substance, and effect. It means that treaties entered into historically, must be fully
implemented based on their spirit and intent, oral histories as well as texts, and consistent with
the true meaning of a proper nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationship. It
means that the distinct and diverse governments, laws, cultures, societies, and ways of life of
First Nations, Métis, and Inuit are fully respected and reflected.
For Canada, recognition means resetting our foundation to properly reconcile – to finish the
unfinished business of confederation. What is more, for many Indigenous peoples, recognition
is the lifeline that will ensure the survival and rebuilding of their cultures, languages and
governing systems within an even stronger Canada.
But words are also easy/cheap. And too often we see the tendency – especially in politics – to
use important words that have real meaning and importance, carelessly. We see them being
applied to ideas and actions that in truth do not reflect their actual meaning – even, sometimes,
their opposite. We see “recognition” applied to ideas that actually maintain “denial”. We see
“self-government” used to refer to ideas or processes that actually maintain control over
others. We see “self-determination” applied to actions that actually interfere with the work of
Nations rebuilding their governments and communities. We see “inherent” in the same breath
as the contradictory idea that rights are contingent on the courts or agreements.
When we see this being done it does not advance reconciliation. It actually undermines it. It
causes confusion, chaos, and division. It treats a challenge – a challenge that is vital for the
survival and well-being of children, women, families, and communities across this country – as a
‘game of rhetoric’. It trivializes – often out of ignorance or political expediency – a moral,
social, and economic imperative for our country.
Words, in the work of reconciliation, are also cheap without real action – action that goes to
the core of undoing the colonial laws, policies, and practices, and that is based on the real
meaning of reconciliation. We all need to understand this.
The path of justice and equality is not advanced or achieved through half-measures, good
intentions, or lofty rhetoric. And it is certainly not achieved through obfuscation or confusion
about what we mean when we speak. Hard choices, innovative actions, transformations in laws
and policies, new understandings and attitudes, new patterns of behavior – this is what is
needed.
Reflecting this, I outlined in many speeches in recent years – what I see as minimum elements
of new relations based on the recognition of rights – elements that are what Indigenous
peoples have advocated for over generations.
These include:
• Harmony between the laws of Canada and UNDRIP;

• The replacement of the Comprehensive Claims Policy and Inherent Right of Self-
and,
consent.
As Minister of Justice and one whose life-long commitment has been to the recognition of
rights, my message has always been consistent and considered – both internally and externally
– that transformative change requires a coherent and comprehensive approach to the true
recognition of the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples. This work is incredibly hard but must
continue. I will carry on with my advocacy for the necessary transformative actions that will
create the space – the foundation – for self-determination and the rebuilding of Indigenous
nations within Canada. We all need to be advocates in this work. [The fact that you are all here
today encourages me to believe you are all invested in this work as well.] I trust you will please
hold us and all governments accountable to creating the space to enable the deconstruction of
our country’s colonial legacy.
So, while I have been thrilled in recent years to see how Canadians – and governments – have
begun to talk the talk of reconciliation. I remain constantly, incessantly, vigilant in demanding
that we honour the meaning of these important words, and that words translate into real,
transformative action. We all need to remain vigilant in that regard if we actually want to see
the justice and equality in Canada that we have been striving towards.
For my part and to be very candid, I have been challenged, but I also challenge constantly. And
I will continue to do that every day I have the privilege to be the Minister of Justice and
Attorney-General of Canada.
With that in mind, my focus on reconciliation, and in supporting the work involved in rebuilding
Indigenous nations, as I said from the outset, is both personal and professional.
Indigenous Overrepresentation in Criminal Justice System
In the spirit of Nations rebuilding, I now want to turn to Indigenous people in the criminal
justice system and who are the focus of my remarks tonight.
How does making these foundational changes based on the recognition of rights – the true
meaning of the term as I described earlier – relate to Indigenous people in the criminal justice
system, and the modernization of Canada’s criminal justice system?
Today, again, as everyone in this room knows, Indigenous people are overrepresented in our
criminal justice system, as both victims and offenders.
We are far more likely, than any other Canadian, to be victims of crime and homicide, and are
far more likely to be arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated. For example, Indigenous people
suffer a homicide rate that is nearly seven times higher than that of non-Indigenous Canadians.
According to the most recent statistics, the rate of violent victimization among Indigenous
people in Canada is more than double that of non-Indigenous people.
Worse yet, Indigenous identity appears to be a risk factor for the violent victimization of
Indigenous women. The overall rate of violent victimization among Indigenous women was
double that of Indigenous men and close to triple that of non-Indigenous women.
According to Statistics Canada, Indigenous adults comprised 4.1 percent of Canada’s

population, but represented 27 percent of admissions to federal custody and 30 percent in
provincial and territorial custody. In Saskatchewan, that number is a staggering 76 percent.
In 2015-16, despite representing approximately 5 percent of Canada’s total female population,

Indigenous women made up 38 percent of the federally incarcerated female population in
Canada.
In 2016-17, in one rather staggering statistic, Indigenous women made up 85 percent of women
in custody in Saskatchewan.
In 2016-17, Indigenous youth accounted for 46 percent of admissions to correctional services,

while representing just 8 percent of the Canadian youth population.
All these figures, and the tragic reality they help illustrate, are, of course, completely
unacceptable and must change.
As a former prosecutor, this story is all too familiar to me. A young person, often an Indigenous
man, commits a non-violent crime, comes into contact with the criminal justice system, and
never is really able to pull himself free.
He gets caught in a vicious cycle of court appearances, court orders, breaches of court orders,
and returns to custody. Soon, he is spending more time behind bars than he is out of them. This
man’s interactions with the criminal justice system have further marginalized him, making him
even more vulnerable.
We need to find better ways of preventing Indigenous people from experiencing that first
contact with the criminal justice system. And for those already in the system, we need to better
support them when they leave it. This could mean more treatment for addictions or mental
health issues, or more services aimed at helping to find housing, employment, and educational
opportunities.
To be successful, we first must acknowledge and act on the understanding that the current
circumstances faced by Indigenous people in the criminal justice system, are inseparable from
the historic and contemporary impacts of colonialism and the denial of Indigenous rights.
It is in such a context that disempowerment, hopelessness, cycles of violence, and desperation

grow. It is also in that context that a criminal justice system has emerged with structures,
patterns, and norms that are often alienating, unresponsive, and not culturally relevant.
Indigenous Peoples Administration of Justice
That is why the work of supporting the recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights,
including Indigenous self-determination and the inherent right of self-government, is so critical
to establishing a foundation where current and future generations of Indigenous youth, are
born and raised in conditions that see their well-being and ability to thrive will continually
increase. Where they have hope, and where their interactions with the criminal justice system
continually decrease.
The work to accomplish this will include supporting Indigenous self-governments in developing
their own systems for the administration of justice, while also reforming the current systems of
justice that fall under the jurisdictions of federal and provincial governments.
The overall success or failure of rebuilding Indigenous nations in Canada, and the successful
implementation of self-government, will in large part be determined by how well Indigenous
nations can enforce and adjudicate their own laws, as well as other governments’ laws, and
how well such systems will fit within the broader legal system in Canada. This includes
determining when and to whom decisions can be appealed.
To facilitate this work, I believe we must bring together Indigenous Nations, leaders, experts
and stakeholders in rebuilding Indigenous systems of justice as part of the broader and ongoing
nation rebuilding work.
This is something that I am committed to doing in the next year, including for those Indigenous
governments that are already self-governing, but may not have yet been able to establish an
effective judicial system. This is a Justice endeavour that I am passionate about and one that
possibly some of you, or this institution, may also be interested in or could assist with.
It will necessarily include provincial and federal officials who, in many cases, are responsible for
enforcing and adjudicating tribal laws in the absence of a tribal court.
As we strive to reform the systems of justice and support Indigenous Nation rebuilding, we
must also increase or introduce measures and initiatives within the current justice system
aimed at reducing the likelihood of an Indigenous person being at disproportionate risk of
getting caught in a continuous cycle of interactions with the criminal justice system.
Fortunately, our government has already begun to deliver on five on-going initiatives that I am
very hopeful about.
Restorative Justice
The first initiative is expanding the use of restorative justice, which emphasizes repairing the
relationship between the victim and the offender.
Restorative justice is focused more on collaboration and inclusivity, and is often more culturally
relevant and responsive to specific communities. Victims have a powerful voice, and this
process allows them to be heard and to heal, while at the same time, holding the offender
accountable for their actions.
In this sense, I sometimes view restorative justice as acting as a kind of “circuit-breaker” from
the cycle that so many find themselves caught in.
While restorative justice has been part of Canada’s criminal justice system for over 40 years,
and has proven effective over that period, it is still not widely available across the country.
A 2011 Department of Justice Canada report found that Indigenous people who completed a
community-based alternative to mainstream justice, such as restorative justice,
were significantly less likely to re-offend than those who did not. I am committed to expanding
this resource so it can be more widely used and accepted across the country.
Indigenous Specific Sentencing Courts
A second initiative is through Indigenous specific sentencing courts in the existing provincial
justice system, which focus on community reintegration and healing.
We are also beginning to see courts established by Indigenous governments emerging in the
context of self-government, although at this point, they are not dealing with criminal matters.
Measures such as specialized courts and restorative justice are aimed at solving the problem
that caused the behaviour in the first place, as opposed to strictly placing the primary focus on
punishment. This provides offenders, where appropriate, with a way out of the system.
While I strongly believe that offenders must be held to account for their actions, I also believe
that the system must be fair for all those who come before it. The right reforms will bring us
closer to both goals simultaneously, this is not an either-or proposition.
Bail Breaches (Bill C-75)
Another initiative is one aimed at addressing the over-incarceration of Indigenous people for
administration of justice offences, such as bail breaches, which can further compound the tragic
cycle of incarceration.
Earlier this year, I introduced Bill C-75, major legislation to address delays in the criminal justice
system, which includes changes to how bail is granted and to how breaches of bail conditions
will be administered.
Accused who do not have access to needed supports and services, such as housing, health care,
and social services, are at a higher risk of breaching bail conditions – this can result in further
needless incarceration while awaiting trial, which further contributes to the overrepresentation
of Indigenous people and vulnerable persons in the criminal justice system.
Jury Selection (Bill C-75)
There are also proposed changes to how juries are selected.
While Indigenous people are overrepresented as victims and offenders, they are
underrepresented on juries. We continue to work toward a jury selection system that better
represents our nation’s diversity and that enjoys the confidence of all Canadians.
Judicial Diversity
In addition to these initiatives, our government has also introduced a more transparent and
open process for choosing federally appointed judges, with a focus on promoting a modern
bench that better reflects Canada’s diversity. I have made it a priority of mine to ensure that
Indigenous people, women and marginalized communities, are better represented on the
bench.
Judicial diversity refers to both gender diversity, which ensures that more women are
appointed to the bench, and individual diversity, which aims to capture the diversity of our
multicultural population.
We believe that a diverse judicial bench allows those who come before the criminal justice
system, either as victims or accused, to see themselves better represented in the system, which
helps build confidence in our institutions.
Judicial appointees’ diversity, in both professional and life experience, along with their ties to
the community in which they sit, are critical to ensuring judicial benches reflect, and receive the
respect of the communities they serve.
We have also reformed how justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are selected. A potential
consideration for candidates now includes their knowledge of Indigenous legal traditions. While
there is currently no Indigenous person on the Supreme Court, I can certainly foresee that
historic day coming.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I absolutely do not want to imply that our criminal justice system has been fixed,
far from it. However, we find ourselves in a period of significant change. While considerable
progress has been made, our justice system remains a living testament to many of the
discriminatory policies and practices of our past. A past which continues to negatively impact
Indigenous people and communities, as well as vulnerable populations, across Canada.
Addressing the over policing and over incarceration of Indigenous peoples in this country will
not happen over night.
By being vigilant, honouring the sacrifices of generations of Indigenous peoples who have been
fighting for justice in the face of colonialism, and re-shaping laws and policies based on the real
meaning of recognition of rights, we will effect a fundamental and positive change in the
relationship between Indigenous peoples and the criminal justice system. We all have a role to
play.
As the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am committed to ensuring that our
country’s law and policies actually do change. As a foundation, that change must be consistent
with the true meaning of recognition of rights and it must support the rebuilding of Indigenous
nations.
Gilakas’la. Thank you very much.
Date modified: 2018-09-18

Strengthening Canada’s Family Justice System: Bill C-78 and what it
means for Canadians and Legal Professionals
Speech
Notes for an address by:

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, PC, QC
MP Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
National Family Law Program

Vancouver, Canada July 10, 2018
Gilakas’la. Good afternoon. Thank you, Trudi, for that kind introduction.
My name is Puglaas and I come from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk and Laich-Kwil-Tach
people of Northern Vancouver Island. I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the
territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples and I would like to welcome
all of you to beautiful Vancouver.
Let me start off by thanking the Federation of Law Societies of Canada for hosting and
organizing this impressive 2018 National Family Law Program. These types of events are very
important because they truly help to shape our family justice system, a system that we all know
touches more Canadians than any another field of law.
It is my pleasure to be here today, and to participate in this important dialogue. In particular, I

am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about Bill C-78, our Government’s family law
bill, which I introduced in Parliament earlier this year.
As it is well known, when the Prime Minister appointed his Ministers, our mandate letters were
made public. And I am pleased to say that I have pretty much completed – or have well under
way – each task that I was given. Some of these tasks have been more publicized than others –
medical assistance in dying, the appointment process for superior court justices, cannabis
legalization, & reform to our justice system including cleaning up the Criminal Code.
Specifically with respect to family law, my mandate letter instructed me to expand Unified
Family Courts across the country – further, and while not specifically in my mandate letter, we
have forged ahead with major, necessary and long-overdue family law reforms, reforms that
have been based on extensive input, and to be up front, has also been a personal commitment of
mine. I am excited to see our bill make its way through the parliamentary process.
So, I have been looking forward to today, and the opportunity to share, with so many family
justice professionals, our vision for modernizing and improving family law practices and
outcomes. I am excited to discuss the role all of you will play in successfully realizing this
vision. I particularly look forward to listening to the panel discussion after my remarks.
As many of you know, this proposed legislation is aimed at strengthening our family justice
system. It will do so by amending three federal laws -- the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and
Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension
Diversion Act. This will be the first substantive change to our family laws in over 20 years.
I am incredibly proud of the amendments that we are bringing forward in Bill C-78. Separation
and divorce can be difficult for families, especially for children. Over two million children in
Canada live in families with separated or divorced parents.
Perhaps like many of you, I have parents who divorced when my sister and I were very young
and we all know countless others who have been affected. Fortunately for my sister and I, our
parents were very cooperative; sadly however this is not always the case. The break-up of
families is tremendously challenging – and, in my own community, the break-up of Indigenous
families and determining what happens to the children can be even more so.
Bill C-78 will have a profound and positive impact on all who are involved – either directly or
indirectly – in family law matters.
Before addressing the bill in a bit more depth, I would like to acknowledge the important and
excellent work that my provincial and territorial counterparts and their officials do in the area of
family justice…and for their leadership on these issues. As you all know, the provinces and
territories are central to an effective family justice system as the delivery of family justice
services falls within their respective jurisdictions.
Also, I was pleased that in Budget 2017 our Government committed $16 million per year, on an
ongoing basis, to support the delivery of family justice services, and to help improve Canadians’
access to family justice.
Further, as mentioned our Government has also committed, through Budget 2018, the funding to
create the necessary judicial positions to allow for the expansion of Unified Family Courts in
Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is significant and I suspect
more jurisdictions will follow suit.
Since the beginning of my mandate and as part of our overall justice reform, I have been working
hard toward this goal of expanding Unified Family Courts, and I am very pleased to see it
coming to fruition. I think we can all agree that these courts create more effective and efficient
resolution of family law matters by allowing a single superior court judge, with expertise in the
area, to hear all issues in a family law proceeding.
On broader family law reform, as mentioned, we have been listening attentively to the
conversations taking place throughout the family justice community, including the insightful
points that so many of you here today have raised. The expansion of Unified Family Courts and
Bill C-78 are very much the product of these important conversations.
I would like to now turn to Bill C-78. In doing so, I will address each of the bill’s four objectives
in turn.
First, the transformative changes proposed to the Divorce Act are squarely focused on promoting
the best interests of the child. These include changes to the best interests of the child test,
changes to terminology, and a proposed framework for relocation.
Second, I will discuss changes to address family violence.
Third, I will outline the proposed amendments to federal family laws intended to support our
Government’s efforts to reduce child poverty.
Finally, I will touch on some of the proposals aimed at increasing access to justice and creating
efficiencies.
Promoting the Best Interests of the Child

As I have said, Bill C-78 is really all about putting the child first. Something that as an
Indigenous person, and working on family law matters within Indigenous communities I know
something about.
As I mentioned earlier, although separation and divorce can be hard on all involved, it is often
hardest on children.
For all Canadians, the best interests of the child must continue to be a fundamental principle in
family law to ensure that we protect and support our most vulnerable. Accordingly, Bill C-78
reaffirms that the best interests of the child is the only consideration in relation to parenting
arrangements, and makes several changes to further emphasize this important principle of law.
The amendments introduce a non-exhaustive list of criteria regarding the best interests of the
child. As you know, nearly all provincial and territorial family law statutes include such a list. It
is long past due for the Divorce Act to include this critical component, to help courts and
lawyers, but most importantly parents and unrepresented parties, who will be able to look to
the Act for guidance.
Bill C-78 introduces a “primary consideration” to the best interests of the child test. It will
require courts to consider a child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and
well- being. The primary consideration will be the lens through which all other best interests
criteria will be evaluated.
The changes also consider a child’s linguistic, cultural and spiritual heritage and upbringing –
which includes Indigenous heritage, something that is currently absent from the Divorce Act.
One criterion I would especially like to highlight addresses the voice of the child. It would
require courts to consider a child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age
and maturity. This criterion is consistent with Canada’s obligations under the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
There are many ways for children’s views and preferences to be brought into the family justice
system, including in dispute resolution processes. I also want to emphasize that this is not about
putting children in the middle of a high-conflict situation. It is about giving children a voice.
These changes are about the best interests of the child – and that means we need to hear from
them and consider their perspectives.
Changes in Terminology (Parenting Language)
This bill also proposes several other additional changes that promote the best interests of the
child. One of the main ones is the proposed change to parenting language.
Specifically, the Divorce Act would no longer use an approach based on “custody” and “access,”
but would instead allow for “parenting orders” that would allocate “decision-making
responsibility” and “parenting time” – language which is less adversarial. These parenting orders
would be based only on the best interests of the child.
Of course, there are often others in a child’s life who play a critical role in supporting their well-
being. To address this reality, the bill makes “contact orders” available to non-spouses, such as
grandparents, in situations where they do not otherwise have access to the child. Contact orders
would likely not be needed in most cases, but would be available as an option. This would ensure
that important people in a child’s life would have a specially designated time with a child, if the
parties could not agree to schedule it during a party’s parenting time. Again, these orders would
be based solely on the best interests of the child.
As part of our goal to help families resolve disputes quickly and effectively, the Bill encourages
the use of parenting plans, which could be incorporated into a parenting order. The Department
of Justice has an online Parenting Plan Tool, to help people draft these plans. I would also
welcome your thoughts on this tool.
Parenting Time
In keeping with our commitment to promoting the best interests of the child, Bill C-78 will not
create parenting presumptions in the Divorce Act. The Bill includes a modified “maximum
parenting time” principle. There would also be a best interests criterion considering each parent’s
willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the
other parent.
However, our Government believes that the best interests test is the only test flexible enough to
allow parents and courts to tailor parenting arrangements to the specific needs of each individual
child.
Relocation
With respect to the issue of relocation and the best interests of the child, we all know this is one
of the most highly litigated issues in family law. We have heard your calls for reform.
Accordingly, we are putting forward a framework for relocation that will promote children’s best
interests and encourage dispute resolution.
The framework proposed in Bill C-78 includes clear rules on notice requirements, a list of best
interests of the child criteria for relocation cases, and burdens of proof based on existing
parenting arrangements. While these will always be difficult cases, these amendments will
provide guidance and help facilitate the resolution of disputes.
Family Violence
Turning now to the second objective of the bill – addressing family violence – an area of great
importance to me and to our Government. Whether children are direct victims of violence, or
witnesses to it, family violence is traumatic. Neurobiological research is providing us with
important insights into the life-long effects of childhood trauma. It is essential for parenting
arrangements to take family violence into account in an appropriate manner.
The Divorce Act can – and must – provide guidance to parents, courts and family justice
professionals in situations of family violence. Therefore the bill proposes a statutory definition
of family violence that is based on social science research. For instance, while recognizing that
not all family violence is the same, the bill draws courts’ attention to coercive and controlling
violence, which is known to be particularly insidious and dangerous. It explicitly includes family
violence as a factor to be considered in determining the best interests of the child, and it includes
an additional set of factors for courts when considering the impact of family violence.
Finally, it requires courts to ask about any other civil protection, child protection, or criminal
proceedings or orders that involve the parties, so as to avoid a situation where, for example,
contact or parenting time ordered by a family court conflicts with an order made by a criminal
court.
These amendments are intended, first and foremost, to help protect family members from
violence. They will assist courts in crafting safe and appropriate parenting arrangements in cases
where there has been family violence.
Reducing Poverty
The third objective of the bill is with respect to reducing poverty. In addition to the emotional,
and even physical, toll that divorce and separation can take on families, there is the financial
strain that it causes. We all know the financial cost to parents of separation: establishing two
homes, adjusting work schedules, duplicating expenses, and I could go on. I personally have
friends who have lost their homes and their savings following separation, or have had to move
from their community. This can contribute to the number of Canadians living in poverty, which
our Government is committed to addressing through a number of different mechanisms – the
centerpiece of which is the Canada Child Benefit.
Over one million Canadian children of separated or divorced parents live in a single-parent
family. And single-parent families – which as you all know are more often led by women – are
more likely to live in poverty. We know that poverty can lead to a wide range of adverse
outcomes for children. Ensuring that parents and children are receiving the financial support that
they are owed can help to reduce the risk of poverty following a separation or divorce. There are
billions of dollars in unpaid child support payments in Canada and we need to do something
about it – parents have to meet their obligations – and children must get the financial support to
which they are entitled. Accordingly, with Bill C-78, we are giving provinces, territories, and
individuals more tools to ensure that those obligations are being paid and enforced.
Proposed Amendments to Federal Enforcement Legislation

There have been calls for this type of reform for many years and we believe that this change will
have an important impact.
For example, amendments to the federal enforcement legislation (FOAEAA) will allow for the
release of income tax information to courts and provincial child support services to help
determine fair and accurate support amounts.
We are also proposing amendments to the federal garnishment legislation (GAPDA) to improve
the current processes for garnishing federal salaries and diverting federal pension benefits to
satisfy support obligations. Specifically, these changes will allow for earlier interception of
salary where possible, so that families can receive funds more quickly.
Making the Family Justice System More Accessible, Streamlining

Procedures and Encouraging Family Dispute Resolution
Finally, Bill C-78 includes measures intended to streamline processes to help make family justice
more accessible and affordable for Canadians, while encouraging family dispute resolution.
We all know there are more and more self-represented litigants in the family justice system. We
know that in some jurisdictions, as many as three quarters of family law litigants are representing
themselves in court. This bill provides additional guidance, information and tools to support
families through this process.
Bill C-78 will enable administrative services to determine initial child support amounts. It will
also allow for administrative recalculation of child support at the request of either parent, rather
than on fixed dates or at regular intervals. These changes will make the establishment and
recalculation of child support faster, less costly – and perhaps most importantly – less
adversarial.
One of the measures proposed in the bill will encourage parties to use family dispute resolution
options such as mediation and collaborative law. I do not have to tell you that these processes are
generally less expensive, can help families come to agreement faster, and allow parents to play a
more active role in crafting appropriate agreements for their families.
To ensure that parents know their options and are encouraged to use alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms, under our proposed changes, lawyers will have a duty to tell parents
about family justice services that could be of assistance and to encourage them to try family
dispute resolution where appropriate.
Courts will also have the option of referring parents to family dispute resolution where available.
However, all provisions related to family dispute resolution would allow for exceptions. If there
are, for example, concerns about significant power imbalances, dispute resolution would not
need to occur.
I know I am speaking to the converted. You recognize the critical role that family justice
professionals play in encouraging your clients to consider out-of-court options. For you, the
proposed new obligations for lawyers likely reflect your existing practice: informing your clients
about family dispute resolution and encouraging them to attend family justice services, such as
parent information sessions.
With Bill C-78 we are, in many ways, enshrining in law what many of you are already doing. We
are trying to effect a real culture shift in the family justice system. We hope that you, as leaders
in the family justice system, can help champion these efforts. Those of you who work with
clients on a day-to-day basis have an opportunity to facilitate and implement these significant
changes from the ground up. Collectively we can and will change the culture.
Conclusion
So in conclusion, we all know how difficult separation and divorce can be for families and that
children often suffer the most. That is why so much of what we are proposing under Bill C-78 is
focused on reducing conflict and helping families find timely, lasting solutions.
The changes we have brought forward reflect a number of calls for reform that you – the family
justice community – have been urging for many years. Some of you have written to my office or
have spoken with me or my officials and staff. Some of you have expressed your views through
the survey of lawyers and judges that the Department of Justice administers with the kind
support of the National Family Law Program. These survey results form part of the information
that we considered in developing these family law reforms.
If you have not already done so, please take a few minutes to fill out our survey.
Bill C-78 has only just begun its journey through Parliament. Many of you, either individually or
through professional associations, have already provided input or expressed support. Your views
are incredibly valuable: please continue to make them known.
We all have a role to play in helping families through separation and divorce. I know how
important your role is, and I value your contributions tremendously. We have already made great
strides in advancing access to family justice, but there is much more to be done.
As Canadians we are at our best and contribute most when we know we live in a caring and
compassionate society. When we come face-to-face with the law, we expect there to be fairness
and due process. This is perhaps most pronounced when it comes to our family justice system
and its profound impact on so many Canadians at some point in their lives. When families are in
crisis, our children’s futures, and therefore our country’s future, is at stake. Reform in our family
justice system is long overdue, and I am very honoured to be a position to try and do something
about it.
And with your support and continued guidance we will.
Thank you again for all that you do. Gilakas’la.

The Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework Talk
Speech

To the
Business Council of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
April 13, 2018
Gilakas'la.
Thank you for that very kind introduction.
I would like to acknowledge that we are on the territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and
Tsleil-Waututh peoples.
I want to thank the BC Business Council for hosting and organizing this event, and in particular,
Greg D’Avignon, the President. It is my pleasure to be here today to participate in this important
dialogue. I also want to acknowledge the National Chief, all the business leaders here, and a
number of other Chiefs and Indigenous leaders that I see in attendance. Welcome.
As you all know, a critical national conversation is taking place about reconciliation, the
recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights, and the place of Indigenous peoples in
decision-making and governance in Canada. On February 14 of this year, in a historic address,
the Prime Minister made a bold statement in the House of Commons confirming that all relations
with Indigenous peoples are to be based on the recognition of Indigenous rights, and that a new
Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework will be developed. And this
work has now begun with a national engagement process, being led by my colleague Minister
Bennett.
Today, we are here together as part of that conversation – and, in particular, to speak about the
importance of this work in building a better future for Indigenous peoples in a more inclusive
Canada, and for all Canadians, the Canadian economy and resource development.
I expect that there are specific issues and topics on your minds. You want to understand how the
work of reconciliation will lead to greater certainty and clarity for decision-making and
economic development. You want to understand how the recognition of rights relates to how
projects will be approved and what processes will look like. You have questions about
Indigenous consent, and whether it will make things more or less challenging.
I imagine some of you are also thinking about specific applications of these questions –
including in light of the highly publicized and challenging issues of energy development,
pipeline construction, and protection of our environment – or any other number of projects. Will
the recognition and implementation of rights result in a future where the current realities of
conflict, tension, cost, uncertainty, and litigation that we see embroiling some projects – and
which no one desires – be changed or transformed for the better?
You want to know how what we are doing today is different from what has been tried before.
It is true in the past there have been attempts to reset the relationship with Indigenous peoples –
attempts at Constitutional reform, legislative initiatives, and development of new policies - again
so… “what is different today?”
In brief, my message to you today is that what we are proposing is different – that by coming
from a rights recognition perspective, the government of Canada is finally being proactive – and
in doing so is not only transforming the status quo of how Canada operates and interacts with
Indigenous peoples but is also challenging, and supporting, Indigenous communities themselves
– in a positive way – to lead change, rebuild and find solutions, and take their rightful place
within confederation, in ways that reflect Indigenous self-determination.
And, if I can be so bold, had the approach we are taking today been the policy some 36 years
ago, we might not be where we are today – that is playing catch-up – and trying to navigate the
reactive politics that uncertainty breeds. It is precisely because rights have been denied, in the
misplaced belief that it was prudent to do so, that we are here - seeking to undue decades of
mistrust and begin, as we should have, on a solid foundation based on the recognition of rights
So let us dive in by addressing the issue of “certainty”. I think it is important to provide a

definition of “certainty” at the outset, because it is so often used in different ways, and means
different things to different people in different contexts.
Certainty, for me, means clarity and predictability about the basic elements of decision-making
regarding lands and resources: who is making the decision, how the decisions are being made and
through what process and timelines, what information and factors are relevant to the decision,
and the respective roles and responsibilities of everyone involved.
To say it another way, it is about clarity with respect to jurisdiction, law-making, and authority.
Certainty, based on this definition, is something I think everyone desires – industry, Indigenous
peoples and governments. However, currently, it does not exist enough.
Where it does exist in some form, it is typically through agreements between the Crown and
Indigenous peoples, such as modern treaties and land claims agreements. And, there have been
modern treaties – in fact over 40% of Canada’s land mass, mostly in the North, is covered by
modern treaties. But such agreements in BC have been few and far between, for reasons I will
touch on later. And, of course, there is a long history of agreements, such as historic treaties—
which could provide some certainty—not being implemented or honoured.
Another circumstance where certainty, to a degree, sometimes exists has been when leadership
has been shown by industry and Indigenous peoples working together – forging relations and
agreements about decision-making and partnership regarding proposed projects. Certainty is also
is contributed to through initiatives like the Champions Table, a joint project of BCBC and
BCAFN, where executives and Chiefs come together to develop common policy advice. But this
can only go so far. Government too must act.
But beyond specific examples like these, for the most part we often live in a context of
significant uncertainty. This is not good. And this is why we all have a stake in the ambitious
agenda our government has set for reconciliation based on recognition. An agenda that must be
non-partisan and must survive beyond the life of any one government.
So why is certainty – which we all desire – so rare and elusive?
The answer lies in long-standing patterns and assumptions regarding Indigenous rights…which –
until we understand and transform them – will continue to be detrimental to Indigenous peoples,
Canadian society and the economy as a whole.
Let me explain…In Canada today, and ever since the adoption of section 35 of
the Constitution in 1982, there has been a strong tendency to perceive and treat Indigenous rights
differently than other rights, such as Charter rights. When we think of or speak about freedom of
expression, freedom of religion, or equality… I think it is fair to say we have a deep sense that
these rights are part of what makes us uniquely Canadian. We do not question the existence of
these rights – rather we celebrate them.
Without question, we view these rights as expressing an important aspect of who we are, our
shared values, and what binds and defines us as a diverse and democratic society. While there
always will be some disagreement on the margins about the precise scope or extent of these
rights, they exists in the context of a broad consensus about what these rights definitely do mean
and require.
To say it another way, since 1982, when a Canadian says to its government, “I have a right to
free speech”…under the Charter the response of the Canadian government has not been to say,
“prove it”. Rather, governments organize themselves – their laws, policies, and operational
practices – to ensure they are upholding these rights.
Indigenous rights, on the other hand, even though they were entrenched in section 35 of
the Constitution at the same time as the Charter – I would argue – have never been treated or
thought of in the same way as Charter rights. Since 1982, when an Indigenous Nation raises a
collective right under section 35, the response of governments has been to say…“prove it”.
Despite section 35 saying that Indigenous rights are “recognized and affirmed”, successive
governments have explicitly chosen to not recognize or affirm them – and, in so doing, have
forced conflict and confusion about Indigenous rights.
I would suggest that it is this choice – denial – that is at the heart of why we do not have
certainty.
Of course, this choice did not take place in a vacuum. It has been a long-standing pattern in
Canadian history of denying Indigenous peoples and their rights. This despite the fact the British
Crown initially recognized Indigenous peoples and their rights in the Royal Proclamation of
1763.
By the time of Confederation in 1867, the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived on and
governed the lands and resources of their territories – something affirmed in the Royal
Proclamation – was not considered. This denial has manifested itself throughout Canada’s
history, including through the passage and imposition of the Indian Act, the establishment of
residential schools, efforts to eradicate Indigenous cultures and languages, the alienation of
Indigenous peoples from their homelands and territories, and the lack of implementation of
treaties, or… the failure to complete them altogether. And, of course, in the positions the Crown
has historically taken in Court.
Critically important in this approach was the clear strategy by the Crown to divide up, and
disempower, Indigenous nations and governments. The goal was to remove and limit the
capacity of Indigenous nations to make decisions about their territories as they had always
done…in order to assimilate them. This was largely accomplished through creating and imposing
an administrative reality that we are still confronting today – where, in the First Nations context,
there are hundreds of Indian Act bands, rather than dozens of linguistic and culturally structured
Nations, meaning there are hundreds of groups – rather than dozens – representing peoples with
historical and constitutionally protected rights and interests that often intersect, overlap, or
interconnect with each other.
The uncertainty that we all experience today – Indigenous peoples, Industry, governments and
the Crown – whether what we witness in relation to pipelines or any of a number of projects, has
its roots directly in this history of denial and division.
Moving forward, this has critical implications for reconciliation. It means Indigenous nations –
the proper title and rights holders – because of colonial imposition, may not be operating with
political, economic, and social structures, or the resources necessary to fully discharge their
responsibilities as caretakers of their lands, or a context for clear Indigenous governance, law-
making, and decision-making.
The entrenchment of Indigenous and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution was supposed
to break this pattern. However, the maintenance of a “prove it” approach by governments after
1982 made success in transforming relations extremely difficult.
We experience the effects of this denial every day.

It is at the root of the conflict and ever-increasing complexity about decision-making.
It plagues agreement-making and treaty implementation because often untenable positions are
advanced.
It explains why we have so much litigation, where instead of developing a shared understanding
of rights – including…crucially…the inherent right of self-government, and the jurisdiction of
Indigenous laws – and implementing those through legislation, policies, and practices, as well as
agreements with Indigenous Nations, we turned to the Courts as the central institution of Crown
– Indigenous relations.
It has delayed the critical work of Nation building and rebuilding which is necessary so
Indigenous peoples can take back control of their own affairs, make their own decisions and be,
once again, responsible for their own future. Rather than investing as much as we could have in
the institutions, processes, and capacity development needed for re-building Indigenous nations
and governments and ultimately improving the lives of Indigenous peoples, we have all spent far
too much of our limited resources and energy on conflict.
The costs of denial have been immense.
As an Indigenous woman, I know the effect of these choices directly and intimately. They have
perpetuated the impoverishment and marginalization of Indigenous peoples from Canadian
society – with massive impacts on both individual lives, and collective Indigenous well-being.
But…they have…also been negative for Canada as a whole – socially, economically, and
culturally – including in how they have influenced our investment climate, efforts at
environmental protection, and regulation of lands and resources.
So what does it take to actually build certainty?
It requires that we finally address the impediment to increased certainty by overturning its root
cause—the denial of rights. This is one thing that the recognition of rights approach that our
government has committed to will help accomplish.
Through the recognition and implementation of rights framework, the work of government will
shift from processes primarily focused on assessing whether rights exist – which inevitably is
adversarial and contentious – to seeking shared understandings about how the priorities and
rights of Indigenous peoples may be implemented and expressed within a particular process, and
its outcome. This shift – supported by legislative measures that help build trust that government
will act according to certain transparent standards in doing this – will help create opportunities
for collaboration and reduce the intensity of conflict.
This shift will also include a movement away from reliance upon and use of the courts. Not only
will there be less incentives to fight, there will also be new opportunities to avoid fighting when
conflict may arise.
For example, I will shortly be releasing a new litigation directive to my department regarding
section 35 rights. While there will be many details of the directive worth exploring in the future –
its overall orientation is most critical. It will aim to re-position Canada’s legal approach to being
problem solvers on the path of reconciliation, with the courts as a last resort to be turned to only
in increasingly rare circumstances. This means a re-focusing of lawyers and their ways of
thinking, and stronger investments in preventing and proactively resolving matters before they
reach the stage of litigation. To this end, a significant emphasis will also be placed on new
dispute resolution and accountability mechanisms that will help resolve matters outside of the
courts.
A recognition of rights approach also includes abandoning old positions that were the main
barriers to reaching broad understandings and arrangements with Indigenous peoples about how
rights will be respected and implemented collaboratively. For example, Canada is abandoning its
positions that treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements must include the
extinguishment, modification, or surrender of rights – a position that has resulted in negotiations
being interminably slow, or never beginning in the first place. The result of this shift is already
being felt as Canada is now rapidly accelerating tables with dozens of communities and Nations
based on the recognition of rights.
Perhaps most importantly, however, a shift to recognition of rights, including Indigenous self-
determination and the inherent right of self-government, means that Canada will be an active
supporter in the building and re-building of Indigenous nations and governments.
We will finally be active partners in supporting Indigenous Nations and governments as they do
the work of defining and clarifying their constitutions, laws, and decision-making processes, the
structures they will work through, and how they will govern as part of historic rights-bearing
groups, including those with historic treaties.
We will also finally be partners in building with those Indigenous governments the proper inter-
governmental arrangements that allows everyone to have clarity and certainty about the who,
how, and what of land and resource decision-making. In short, we will support Nation building
and re-building so we know who speaks for the Nation and that when the Nation does speak their
voice can be relied upon.
We have already begun to reflect this approach in Bill C-69 that deals with major project reviews
and impact assessment—where the legislation contemplates an increased role for Indigenous
peoples in decision-making with a placeholder for what is contemplated to be forthcoming in
light of the more fulsome rights recognition framework with self-governing reconstituted
nations. As this legislation goes through the Parliamentary process, and is implemented it will be
informed by the Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework as we continue to work
with Indigenous peoples, industry, and all Canadians, to ensure we implement new processes that
build regulatory certainty and predictability, recognize and respects the rights of Indigenous
peoples, as well as protecting the environment for generations to come.
To be clear then, this work of recognition is very much two-pronged. There was and is signifcant
work to do for Canada to get its house in order. There is also significant work for Indigenous
peoples to do. We are in a period of transition, and, as I said at the outset, we are challenging the
status quo.
This work involves Nations, based on their right to self-determination, re-building and re-
constituting themselves, including for First Nations re-building their own political, social, and
economic structures and moving beyond the Indian Act as they determine. This is work only
Indigenous peoples, Nations, and governments can lead and do. They must make the hard
choices of how they want to structure and govern themselves as Nations and governments today
as well as determine the laws and processes they will apply for decisions to be made.
Government must support Indigenous nations in this work—to thrive and be effective in making
decisions, and caring for the well-being of their citizens. This will mean new mechanisms and
tools that support their effectiveness, including a new fiscal relationship with the government.
I hope this has given you a clear vision of how I view “certainty” and how the Recognition and
Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework will advance certainty. By moving from denial
to recognition—by embracing this transition—we also move from uncertainty to clarity and
predictability.
This brings me to the second and related topic that I want to address briefly, that of free, prior,
and informed consent, and more generally, the role of Indigenous peoples in decision-making.
I think too often “consent” is used as a rhetorical device in the context of potential conflict, or for
political purposes…while too rarely do we actually have a discussion about how to pragmatically
operationalize and implement it. I think consent requires a bit of de-mystification, as well as
some straight talk. I have three observations to share…
First, we need to be clear that the issue of consent is not a “new” one, which has somehow arisen
because of the United Nations Declaration. Consent has been noted as a matter to be addressed in
Crown-Indigenous relations by the Courts for many years in the interpretation of section 35,
including in cases such as Delgamuukw, Haida, and Tsilhqot’in. Indeed, in Tsilhqot’in the court
in paragraph 97 recommended and encouraged shifting to “obtaining consent” as the standard for
governments and industry in relations with Indigenous peoples…regardless of whether court
declarations or findings had been issued. The rationale for doing this is that it would remove the
likelihood of conflict, legal struggles, and uncertainty about a project or decision.
More so, even though we have tended to use different language, de facto consent is something
that both governments and industry have, over the years, sometimes realized is necessarily part
of the path forward. This is one of the underlying reasons for many of the “impact and benefit
agreements” that industry has properly pursued.
Second, we have tended to think about consent through the lens of the processes we currently
used for consultation and accommodation, and that somehow consent involves doing what we
have already been doing, with additional enhancements involving whether or not consent is
achieved.
I would suggest that this is not a very helpful way of thinking about consent. Consent is not
simply an extension of existing processes of consultation and accommodation, nor is the law of
consultation – being heavily procedural in its orientation – a particularly practical or helpful way
for thinking about how to operationalize consent. We need to see consent as part and parcel of
the new relationship we seek to build with Indigenous Nations, as proper title and rights holders,
who are reconstituting and rebuilding their political, economic, and social structures.
In this context there is a better way to think about consent…grounded in the purposes and goals
of section 35 and the UN Declaration. Consent is analogous to the types of relations we typically
see, and are familiar with, between governments. In such relations, where governments must
work together, there are a range of mechanisms that are used to ensure the authority and
autonomy of both governments is respected, and decisions are made in a way that is consistent
and coherent, and does not often lead to regular or substantial disagreement.
These mechanisms are diverse, and can range from shared bodies and structures, to utilizing the
same information and standards, to agreeing on long term plans or arrangements that will give
clarity to how all decisions will be made on a certain matter or in a certain area over time.
Enacting these mechanisms is achieved through a multiplicity of tools – including legislation,
policy, and agreements.
The structures and mechanisms for achieving this consent, once established, are also consistent
over time and across types of decisions – they are known and transparent—roles and
responsibilities are defined, and they are ready to be implemented when needed. One result of
this is significant certainty.
So coming back to where I began my comments – consider for a moment if we spent even a little
time over the last 35 years since section 35 came into being building those structures – including,
and in my mind more significantly, undertaking and supporting Indigenous Nation re-building –
rather than endlessly litigating. I think we would be in a totally different place than what we are
witnessing now regarding the challenges we see in project development, economic growth, and
environmental protection.
I see our work of moving towards consent-based decision-making as building these structures
and mechanisms of consistent, collaborative decision-making with Indigenous nations.
The recognition of rights framework we are working towards in partnership with Indigenous
peoples is intended to create the legislative and policy space to do this work, and also accelerate
it so that we are not waiting another generation for this work to be substantially advanced. We
cannot wait. Through the engagement process we are hearing, amongst other things, about the
need for recognition legislation, the need for new institutions and supports for Indigenous nation-
building, new accountability and oversight mechanisms, and new forms of dispute resolution.
The proposed rights recognition framework should not prescribe or define a new way of
consulting and accommodating, or of obtaining consent, but rather should focus on establishing
legislative space and standards, as well as investments in the work of building effective relations
between the federal government and Indigenous governments including around how decisions
are made.
Third – and building on what I have already said about nation rebuilding – this understanding of
consent also clarifies that for consent to be fully operationalized as part of a relationship between
governments, significant work has to be done by Indigenous nations, in addition to the federal or
provincial governments.
In particular, Indigenous nations need to do work to reconstitute their nations and governments
consistent with the principles in domestic law around the proper rights holder, and
understandings of Indigenous peoples at international law. This is part of Indigenous peoples
ensuring that Indigenous jurisdiction and authority, including the giving of consent, is being
properly granted and exercised consistent with the right of self-determination. One implication of
this is that consent will not be operationalized in a linear or uniform manner. It will occur in a
diversity of ways, with various steps and stages being taken in different context and relationships
at different times.
So…I have said a lot –I would just leave you with this before taking some questions and
listening to your comments. There will inevitably be critics of this work. Some of it will come
from Indigenous leadership. There were those that did not support section 35 and there were
those that do not like the United Nations Declaration. But, and this is where I speak to you not as
the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, but as a former Regional Chief, a former
Councillor in my community, and a proud Indigenous person, I know that for the vast majority of
Indigenous leaders—past and present—this has been what people have been saying needs to be
done for years. These are not new ideas. They are not necessarily my ideas. So as my colleague
Minister Bennett goes out and “consults” – please keep this in mind.
This is because the changes we are pursuing through the Framework have the potential to uproot
longstanding obstacles and attitudes – from all quarters – that have held back Indigenous
peoples, and all of Canadian society, including industry.
Uncertainty, conflict, and endless litigation are the not the result of trying to do the right thing –
they are the result of trying to avoid doing the right thing for whatever political motivation.
The promise of section 35 of our Constitution is rights recognition. It is through rights

recognition that we will build patterns of effective and strong Indigenous governments who are
implementing increasingly stable and proper decision-making arrangements with the Crown as
well as industry.
The changes to legislation and policy our government will bring forward will lay the foundation
for this shift. And while the changes will not be felt overnight, in the upcoming years a new,
inclusive, level of clarity and predictability will be brought to land and resource decision-
making.
I look forward to carrying on this dialogue with business community in the coming months, and,
in particular, witnessing the innovative ways that industry and Indigenous peoples will deepen
their work together in the years to come. As the Prime Minister likes to say, better is always
possible, and as we collectively take on the challenge of truly decolonizing Canada, I am
confident we will continue to build a Canada that we all aspire to live in—a Canada that is
prosperous, just and fair for all.
Gilakas’la.
Canadian Human Rights Commission Beyond Labels Symposium
Evening Reception
Speech
To the
Beyond Labels Symposium Evening Reception
Ottawa, Ontario
September 27, 2017
Thank you, so much, Marie-Claude, for that kind introduction, and it is indeed a pleasure to be
here, however briefly, tonight to support the fantastic work of the Beyond Labels Symposium.
I’m really pleased that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs Matt DeCourcey, is here to say a few words to you as well.
But first, I want to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Algonquin people and to express
my sincere appreciation to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for not only organizing this
event, but also for your ongoing work in promoting equality of opportunity, ensuring individuals
are protected from any forms of discrimination, and for being a very strong and substantive voice
for diversity and inclusion in our great country.
As has been alluded to, this symposium comes at a time where we’re celebrating the 40th
anniversary of the Canadian Human Rights Act, but also the 150th anniversary of Canada, the
35th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Section 35 of the Constitution Act.
And I think that events like this and milestones like this give us an opportunity to reflect on
where we’ve come from, where we are right now, and where we want to go as we continue as a
country to fulfill our goals, our essential mandate of ensuring human rights for everybody and as
we move beyond labels.
So I love my notes, but I wanted to reflect maybe a little bit about my own reflections in this
incredible period of time that we’re in as a country in terms of my own journey. And I know you
benefited from hearing from some of my colleagues this morning, but I’m proud to come from
the Musgamagw, Tsawataineuk, and Laich-kwil-tach people on the west coast of British
Columbia. And I was raised by an incredible father and mother and extended family, particularly
my grandmother Pugladee, who is the matriarch of our clan.
My traditional name is Puglaas, and my grandmother and my parents taught me to be proud of
who I am, to always remember where I came from, and to understand and recognize the rights
that I have in this country and to never forget it.
And my grandmother said, “If you work hard, Jody, if you have a plan, you can accomplish
anything you want to accomplish,” and I believed her. And I still believe her, and it’s those
teachings that have carried me throughout my life.
And I come from an Indigenous community that is very communitarian, and every single person
in our community has a role to play. And if people are prevented from playing their role in the
community, the community suffers.
So again, I bring this to my work as a proud Member of Parliament for the riding of Vancouver-
Granville and certainly as the first Indigenous Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada. I’m incredibly proud to be an Indigenous person in this country, but I’m equally proud
to be a Canadian.
And as I reflected on the milestones that we are at right now, I think that we have an opportunity
as a country looking to the next 150 years to again reflect on where we’ve come from, where we
are right now, and where we want to go and how we define ourselves as Canadians. I believe that
we need to ensure that we recognize the diversity amongst us, but know what fundamentally
unites us in terms of equality and inclusion, in terms of compassion and the values that we all
share in terms of wanting to move forward and take advantage of opportunities.
I am honoured to be in this position, to be able to be the champion of the Charter, to be able to

ensure that the space that we have in this country ensures equality and inclusion. As Minister of
Justice and as a member of the government, an example of where we can do more and we are
doing more, I was incredibly proud – brought me to tears – when Bill C-16 passed Parliament
last session. Thank you.
This is an opportunity that we were able to capitalize on, and capitalize on the incredible work
that advocates and the trans community have been pushing for for years and years and years, and
no longer is it acceptable to have discrimination in any form in our country.
And as the Minister, my reflections on where we’re at right now is I believe that we as
Canadians are most comfortable and confident when we live in a caring and compassionate
society under a legal and political system that will protect us regardless of our sex, regardless of
our race, our national or ethnic origin, the colour of our skin, our faith, our age, our mental and
physical abilities or our sexual orientation. It is my commitment to all of you amazing human
rights activists that are gathered here to have these discussions that you have a champion in the
Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada and the champion as a proud Canadian
from a small fishing community off the west coast of British Columbia.
And I want to just acknowledge the important work that the Canadian Human Rights
Commission does. I’m grateful for the ongoing role that you play in bringing people together, in
raising awareness and guiding people in finding and ensuring ways to equal opportunity for
everyone. This symposium is a perfect example. Everybody in this room is a champion of human
rights and anything that you do to ensure equality and inclusion in this country is important to
ensure that we all collectively live up to what my grandmother told me, “Anything is possible if
you work hard and you have a plan.” And every single person in this country has a role to play
and we’re all going to be ensured that we commit to making everybody be able to achieve their
dreams.
Thank you so much for all the work that you do. It really means a lot, and it propels me in my
role. Gilakas’la. Thank you very much.
Assembly of First Nations 38th Annual General Assembly
Speech

To the
Assembly of First Nations
38th Annual General Assembly
Regina, Saskatchewan
July 25, 2017
Gilakas’la. Thank you for that introduction.
First of all I wanted to acknowledge the elders, matriarchs, veterans, chiefs, youth, and my
colleague ministers, ladies and gentlemen. It is indeed a pleasure to be here to speak to you on
Treaty 4 territory and to be in the city of Regina.
So, today, I want to talk about rights recognition and the incredibly important transition that we
now find ourselves in. And I’m going to speak to you both as a minister of the Crown and as a
Kwakwaka'wakw citizen.
But before I do, as the National Chief did, I wanted to acknowledge the deep concern that we all
have for the communities in British Columbia that are impacted by the wildfires. Our thoughts
and certainly prayers are with the 48,000 registered evacuees. I understand that as of this
morning 26,000 of those evacuees have been able to return home. I recognize the 20 First
Nations communities and the 850 first responders that are continuing to battle the fires, and we
very much hope to see an end to the state of emergency as soon as possible.
So, as many of you know, over the years I have attended the AFN AGA in various capacities:
with my father as his daughter, as a treaty commissioner, as an elected councillor of my Indian
Act band, as the Regional Chief of British Columbia, and in the last couple of years as the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I’ve been witness to the debates, the
decisions and the strategies of leaders coming together to chart a path forward. And there is no
question that through the collective voice of Indigenous leaders, tremendous strength has been
mobilized to withstand and push back the waves of colonization and assimilation.
Something that was instilled in me from a very young age and that has been confirmed over my
many years of work is this: colonialism cannot be stemmed and ultimately overcome without
recognition and implementation of the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples.
Of course you all know this. Recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights has been the
focus of 60 years of fighting in the courts. It has been the focus of community mobilization on
the ground, the negotiation of treaties, in governance and nation rebuilding. A quarter of a
century spent to negotiate and finalize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples was to confirm and entrench the minimum standards of recognized
Indigenous human rights, individual and collective. It has been the work of our generation and
the sacrifice of generations before us to maintain our diverse cultures and ways of life in the face
of massive obstacles.
Indeed, the lack of recognition of rights and the patterns of relations based on denial has
contributed to the unacceptable social and economic indicators for Indigenous peoples: the boil-
water advisories, inadequate housing, poor education and health outcomes, murdered and
missing Indigenous women and girls and suicide.
And while the day-to-day realities in Indigenous communities must continue to be addressed
directly, we all know that there must also be systemic change.
Of course, if proper relations had occurred at the time of Canada’s founding, the first 150 years
of Canada’s history would have been markedly different. So, the challenge now, knowing the
past and learning from it, is to make sure that today, for the next 150 years and beyond, we give
life to a new and transformed era of Indigenous-Crown relations.
Undertaking this work requires confronting the reality of the history of Canada, something the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission is helping Canada to do. It means confronting the
foundations that were not built when Canada was created. It will ultimately require undoing
the Indian Act and other legislation that has remnants of colonialism, and creating laws and
policies that recognize Indigenous governments, laws and lands.
We also need strong proponents for change to be courageous and to take bold steps. We all need
to do this.
This is why in February our Prime Minister formed a working group of federal ministers to
review laws, policies and operational practices to ensure that the Government of Canada is
fulfilling its constitutional obligations and implementing its international human rights
commitments, including the United Nations Declaration.
I was very pleased to have been asked to chair this working group. Never before has a federal
government created a body of ministers with this unique flexibility and scope of action on a
whole-of-government basis.
It was also why, on July 14th, as the National Chief noted, our government released 10 Principles
respecting Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. The goal of the Principles is pretty
straightforward: to trigger a definitive departure from the denial of rights, disempowerment and
assimilation. The Principles are to be the necessary starting point for a recognition-based
approach to changing federal laws, policies and operational practices through engagement with
each of you.
The review of laws and policies and the Principles are a doorway to finally doing what so many
of you have advocated for years: to move from denial to recognition of rights-based relations.
The Principles are rooted in Section 35 and the United Nations Declaration, and are informed by
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the report of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. At the core of the 10 Principles is the recognition of
Indigenous peoples, governments, laws, and their relationship to the lands and resources. They
affirm the right of self-determination, the inherent right of self-government, and Indigenous
governments as distinct orders of government. They are explicit in rejecting certain longstanding
federal positions such as a focus on extinguishment, surrender, or denial of rights, and are clear
that all relationships must be based on recognition and implementation of rights. They also speak
to the need for a new fiscal relationship that actually supports Indigenous governments to
exercise their right to self-determination.
They are a start, as the Government needed to tell itself internally how to act. In this sense, the
Principles, Chiefs, are not really directed at you, but rather at federal officials and the
bureaucracy to begin shifting decades of old patterns of internal behaviour to a new reality. They
will evolve over time as need be.
And so, for all of you who have spoken up about the significance of the Principles and the work
to be done now, thank you. This is important, as it shows we are collectively on the right track in
transforming our country, and this cannot be done by one person, five people or ten people. This
has to be done by all of us.
And while the working group is still in its early stages – the Principles being relatively hot off
the press – we’ve already held a number of meetings of the working group since February, and
my colleagues and I are excited to get on with the work.
So far, our work has focussed on developing clarity and an understanding of what is going on
across government – a taking stock of what Canada is currently engaged in regarding laws and
policies. And over the past few weeks, we have moved into the next phase of this work and have
begun substantively meeting with many groups, organizations, and Indigenous peoples.
And I want to be clear there is a standing invitation to all nations across the country to share
perspectives and ideas on priority federal laws, policies and operational practices that the review
should address. This includes seeking perspectives on which laws and policies should be
addressed early in the process and why, as well as perspectives on how the United Nations
Declaration and the Principles may be understood, used, or operationalized through the review.
Of course, change comes through actions, not words. We – Canada and Indigenous nations – all
have a lot of work to do, and it will be very challenging. I have no illusions of how difficult it
will be for the federal system. Likewise, I know how hard it will be for Indigenous nations.
Living on reserve for many years, I know how challenging it is for Indigenous communities to
do the work of reconstituting and rebuilding their nations and governments. Over generations of
colonialism, many patterns, practices and restrictions have been developed or imposed that have
divided our families, communities and peoples, interfered with our systems of governance and
laws and created deep social challenges.
The Indian Act has continued to enable these divisions and harms, and moving into a new post-
colonial era, it will be incumbent upon all of us to demonstrate the best of our leadership, values,
wisdom, expertise and teaching as we overcome its legacy.
So, as this work unfolds, consider your vision for the future of Crown-Indigenous relations.
There will be many questions that you as leaders will be confronted with and have to answer, and
some for which we will have to act together.
For example, as Indigenous peoples bonded by language, culture and traditional territories with
rights to self-determination and self-government, how will you organize yourself for
implementing relationships with the Crown based on recognition of Indigenous governments,
laws and rights?
Who are the rights-holding people being recognized, and what will you establish as your political
and governing institutions? If not the colonial-imposed institutions for administration of Indians
living on reserves under the Indian Act, then what?
In considering our government’s commitment to a distinction-based approach on recognition,

how will your nation and/or Indigenous governments be organized? What is your territory? Is it
shared with another nation, and to what extent?
How will you work to engage your elders, educators, business leaders, youth, legal experts,
community organizers and members around key issues of nation reconstitution, government
rebuilding and new forms of partnership with the Crown based on the recognition of rights?
Are your citizens ready for change? What steps must be taken to prepare your citizens for
looking at new ways of organizing beyond the Indian Act?
Do you have the necessary capacity and tools for change to exercise your right to self-
determination?
Where you have existing intergovernmental arrangements with the Crown – for example, a Peace
and Friendship Treaty, a historic treaty, a modern treaty or a reconciliation agreement – how do
these relate to rights recognition, the implementation of the United Nations Declaration, and
what is understood as the evolving nation-to-nation relationship based on rights recognition?
Consider also that our government and Indigenous peoples will also be called upon to be
ambassadors for this change more broadly as the national conversation inevitably continues and
increases across Canada on advancing reconciliation based on recognition. How will we do that
work together?
In the period of non-recognition, for the most part these questions did not have to be fully
answered unless perhaps you were required to do so in court. Well, they need to be answered
now. And, of course, they cannot simply be answered by Canada. They need to be answered by
you and by all of us.
While we know many of the questions, we do not have all of the answers at this point, and we do
not know exactly how this critical work will unfold; but this cannot stop us, and it cannot be an
excuse for inaction.
Hard choices and creativity will need to be seen across government and within Indigenous
communities.
And so, just before I close, let me say a few words about where we head from here, at least from
my perspective – the critical path, as it were, that we might follow.
There are six observations that I would share about what I think comes next.
First, there is no doubt the path forward is one of working in partnership. Certainly, there is
distinct work for the federal government to do and distinct work for Indigenous nations to do, as
well as vast amounts of work that we have to do together.
Second, we need, in very short order, a new policy framework that will break through the
limitations and delays that have been barriers to reaching understandings on how to address title
and rights, historic treaty implementation, and the implementation of the inherent right of self-
government. This relates to both the substance of policy, which must be based on recognition,
and how we are working together effectively and efficiently to move to deep patterns of
cooperation and partnership and away from conflict.
Third, we also need to engage in partnership on what legislative work needs to be done. Of
course, some important work is already under way around language, environmental assessment,
children and families, and other areas. But from my perspective, legislative mechanisms will be
needed to support Indigenous self-government and movement away from the Indian Act, and
obviously more will be needed. We should be considering together a legislative framework,
options and ideas around the recognition of rights and the implementation of the United Nations
Declaration.
Fourth, in the almost two years that I’ve been the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, I
have taken steps to change the way Canada participates in litigation with Indigenous peoples.
This has included stopping some of the standard defences Canada has used in the past and trying
to limit the scope of what must be addressed in court by making certain admissions, but I know
there’s much more work that needs to be done, because indeed the goal is to move from the
current reality – where in many respects, conflict, often litigation, is the norm – to a future reality
where conflict and litigation are the exceptions. And as a step in this important work, I have
instructed my officials to use the 10 Principles to develop some new, innovative and specific
guidance for Canada’s conduct in litigation.
Fifth, together, we must continue to build the growing awareness and understanding of the
Canadian public about the Indigenous experience in Canada’s history, and a vision of the future
based on recognition that sees Indigenous peoples as true and full partners in Confederation.
This, too, needs our common leadership.
Finally, sixth, building the future based on recognition also needs to involve the provinces and
territories. Amongst the provinces and territories, while there are some good examples of
establishing positive steps forward with Indigenous peoples on many fronts, challenges, of
course, remain. There is much work to be done, and the future will require all governments –
federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous – to work together in increasingly more cooperative
ways.
I hope this vision for the immediate path forward is as compelling to you as it certainly is to me.
And finally, in closing, I would expect some of you to be sceptical. Some of you may not believe
that this is actually happening. To those of you who would think this way, I can tell you under
the leadership of our Prime Minister and from the perspective in my seat, it is happening, but I
also know that the potential of this moment will only be realized if you help advance it, fight for
it, and are deeply involved and driving the change.
There will be some that do not support this work, for whatever reason. Some might support the
status quo. This is a reality that we need to face, but not let it stand in the way of the recognition
of rights. The United Nations Declaration will be implemented. Section 35 is a full box of rights,
as the Principles reiterate, and the only path for a prosperous future for all is one grounded in
recognition and not denial.
On that note, I’m aware that there are some who say that they do not recognize Canada as a state,
so how can our rights be recognized by it? To that, I’ll say as a proud Kwakwaka'wakw woman
and also as a proud Canadian, to these people I say this: while I understand your position, please
do not underestimate the power of Section 35 and the United Nations Declaration. Yes, Section
35 and the Declaration are about Indigenous rights being implemented within a nation state, but
the Canada of today is a country that deeply respects diversity. Simply put, there are many ways
to be Canadians respecting different legal traditions. I believe it is within a strong and caring
Canada that we as Indigenous peoples can build a future where our traditions, cultures, identities
and ways of life thrive, and that the state has a role to play in supporting this objective, including
through changing laws and policies and working in partnership based on recognition of rights.
Exciting and extremely challenging work is upon us, but it is the work that we were placed here
to do by our families, our communities and those that came before us, and when we rise to this
challenge and work to turn the page of our country’s history, Canada will be the stronger for it.
The stage is now set, and as the National Chief says, the stage is now set for the best story ever
written.

Realizing a Nation-to-Nation Relationship with the Indigenous Peoples
of Canada
Speech

To the
Cambridge Lectures
Walnut Tree Court
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, United Kingdom
July 3, 2017
Gilakas’la. Thank you for the very generous introduction. Thank you to Justice Sharpe and the
Canadian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for inviting me to present as part of the 2017
Cambridge Lectures. I want to acknowledge all of the dignitaries, students, scholars, and
members of the public that are here today. I am very pleased to bring greetings on behalf of the
Right Honourable Justin Trudeau.
I am happy to be here in Cambridge, having been asked to share some thoughts about how we
realize the nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples in Canada. I am also delighted
to be here with my husband Tim, who is back at his alma mater. Although he did not go to
Queens he tells me he did come here, as he was a member of the Cambridge Tiddlywinks
Society, which, back then, was run out of this college.
Tim and I only arrived in the UK this morning. This was because, as I am sure everyone is
aware, Saturday was Canada’s 150th birthday and there were many, many celebrations – a
number of which I had the great pleasure of attending in Vancouver where I am a Member of
Parliament. Canada truly has so very much to be proud of, and I, like all of my fellow Canadians
in this room, share in that pride. We are one of – if not the most – diverse, peaceful, democratic,
respectful, and cohesive nations on earth. That is a remarkable achievement and generations of
people have made sacrifices to make today’s Canada possible.
It is a reflection of how remarkable Canada is that a Kwakwaka’wakw girl from the west coast of
British Columbia – born only 11 years after Indigenous peoples were granted the right to vote
federally in 1960 – is now serving as the 51st Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada.
However, and to speak openly, not all Canadians have been celebrating Canada 150. There are
voices that question the celebration. The experience of Indigenous peoples has not always been
characterized by the same positive values and realities that the world rightfully associates with
Canada.
To tell the story of Canada truthfully – as we must – in addition to all of our achievements, we
have to acknowledge a darker chapter in our history…that being the impact of colonization as
well as the resilience of generations of Indigenous peoples seeking justice to ensure the survival
of their cultures, languages and way of life.
It is this aspect of Canada – the reality of colonization and the work of rebuilding – that is at the
core of realizing new nation-to-nation, government-to-government, Inuit-to-Crown relationships
– something to which our government is fully committed.
As we look back to when the fathers of Confederation came together in 1864 in Charlottetown
and then again a year later in Quebec to lay out the foundation for Canada, Indigenous peoples
were not present – they were left out – this despite the early treaty-making and the many political
and military alliances made with Indigenous peoples including those made under the auspices of
the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The fact that Indigenous peoples were left out has had far-
reaching implications for Confederation in the tumultuous intervening years as reflected in the
current state of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations.
Today, in looking to re-establish the nation-to-nation relationship, what we are doing – simply
stated – is correcting this mistake.
Well before Confederation some Indigenous Nations indicated their assent to treaty by
presenting wampum to officials of the Crown. Although not a part of my culture, wampum, as
some of you may be aware, is made of seashells from the Atlantic that are woven into belts –
particular patterns that symbolize events, alliances and people.
For example, the 1613 Two-Row Wampum Belt of the five Iroquois Nations of the
Haudenosaunee has two rows of purple beads set on a white background. The rows represent the
courses of two vessels – a Haudenosaunee canoe and a European ship – travelling parallel
together, each one containing their respective nation’s laws and customs but never crossing. The
belt symbolizes that neither group will force their laws, traditions, customs or language on each
other, but will coexist peacefully.
Fast forward to today and considerable water has flowed down the symbolic river of the two-row
wampum belt since it was originally presented.
When the original framers of our Constitution met, they were, of course, not completely silent
with regard to Indigenous peoples. Section 91(24) gives the federal government exclusive
jurisdiction for “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.” This was, I feel, to ensure that
Indigenous peoples would be dealt with as a national matter in balancing the provincial quest for
expansion and development with the interests of the first peoples. More treaties were
contemplated.
Unfortunately, after Confederation the policy of government soon became one of assimilation
not partnership – in short, denial.
This denial was reflected in government policy and laws, and was evident in the positions argued
by government lawyers in court. It became normalized not to consider the rights and realities of
Indigenous peoples, in order to try and force them into the rest of society through residential
schools, and other acts such as banning aspects of culture and ceremony.
The most insidious of tools used to propagate this policy was the Indian Act, which in large part
still governs the relationship today. Rather than being citizens or members of a Nation or Tribe
of Indians based on a treaty relationship as symbolized by the wampum belt, under the Indian
Act, Indians were defined and made wards of the state – with the government as trustee.
Through the Indian Act the some 60 to 80 Nations or Tribes were divided into 633 small federal
administrative enclaves called “bands” on some 3,000 reserves.
Across Canada, while there may be differences in the specific Indigenous histories (whether
speaking about First Nations, Métis and Inuit) – a critical fact is shared – what should have been
done legally, politically, and socially to make proper arrangements between governments and
peoples – or honour and implement agreements that were reached – did not take place.
So, looking forward, how do we deconstruct our colonial reality and get back to the relationship
as symbolically represented by the Wampum belt? How do we, as a government, support the
rebuilding of Indigenous nations as part of Canada?
First, it means confronting the reality of our history – something which the Report of the 2015
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established to address the legacy of “residential schools,”
is helping us to do.
Moreover, beyond the necessary truth telling and healing, it means working to transform patterns
of relations today and into the future through new types of agreements, mechanisms and
constructive arrangements with Indigenous peoples. It will ultimately require undoing the Indian
Act and other legislation that have remnants of colonialism. It also means creating laws and
policies that recognize Indigenous governments and lands.
Over the last few decades, the term “reconciliation” has been used to describe this process of
rebuilding relations – whether in decisions rendered by the court, the findings of independent
Commissions and Inquiries, or more generally as discussed within civil society.
The growth in dialogue amongst Canadians about reconciliation is, of course, important and
necessary. However, in my view, reconciliation is not possible without recognition – indeed,
recognition must occur before reconciliation can begin to manifest itself in our lives and
relationships. Let me explain...
In thinking about recognition, one might be forgiven for thinking that the progress made during
our country’s recent history would have already ended the period of denial. While it was illegal
for Indigenous peoples to raise issues of title and rights in the courts until the 1950s, since then
and for the last sixty years Indigenous peoples have won dozens of court decisions affirming
their rights and establishing a legal basis for which reconciliation should occur. In 1982, with the
patriation of the Constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35
was enshrined in our Constitution clearly recognizing and affirming the rights of Indigenous
peoples.
There have also been a number of successful land claims and self-government agreements
negotiated. But despite all these important developments, many aspects of relations between
Indigenous peoples and the Crown are still based on denial rather than recognition.
For example, Indigenous peoples have had to prove their rights in court – despite the fact that
they are recognized by section 35 of Canada’s Constitution. Such a process often costs
Indigenous peoples millions of dollars and takes years. Similarly, most of our laws and policies –
such as those around land and resource decision-making – do not properly consider the existence
of Indigenous title and rights. Underlying all of this, of course, is that colonial legislation such as
the Indian Act continues to govern the lives of many Indigenous peoples and communities across
the country.
To simply say to Indigenous peoples “let’s reconcile” while still demanding that rights are only
relevant if proven in court, or may be recognized at the end of a protracted negotiation, is not a
true reconciliation. Neither is not acting to undo colonial laws and legacies that are based on
denial. For reconciliation to fully manifest itself in Canada, denial must be ended in all of its
aspects, and recognition become the foundation of relations.
This is no easy task when laws, policies, and practices have been built in one way for 150 years.
This is why our government is taking a systematic and coherent approach to this work. To
inaugurate this shift, our government endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples without qualification.
We then created a centralized mechanism – a Working Group of Ministers – to start working

with Indigenous peoples to decolonize our federal laws, policies and operational practices, and to
ensure that all aspects of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples become rooted in the
recognition of rights. The Working Group’s mandate is nothing short of transformative. It is a
process I expect to be driven by principles to be released publically, so that all Canadians –
Indigenous and non-Indigenous – will see the expectations we are placing on the federal
government for the change that must occur.
This approach also supports the hard work that Indigenous peoples themselves need to undertake
to ensure that modern nation-to-nation relationships can be fully realized.
Amongst many important standards affirmed in UNDRIP is the idea of self-determination. At its
core, self-determination means that Indigenous peoples set the direction for their own future,
including the self-governing institutions they will use to serve and meet the aspirations of their
citizens.
In undertaking this work, decisions will have to be made about what constitutes the nation.
In his decision at trial in the Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title case – a decision that was ultimately
upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada – the late Justice Vickers, in granting the first
declaration of Aboriginal title in Canada, spoke to the question of the Indigenous nation in the
context of the proper rights holder.
Interestingly, he characterized the Indigenous nation in the same way that French-speaking
Canadians are viewed as a “nation” within Canada – namely, a group of people sharing a
common language, culture and historical experience.
With respect to the administration of Indians, he was also very clear that the setting aside of
reserves and the establishment of bands was “a convenience to government” and that “…the
creation of bands did not alter the true identity of the people. Their true identity lies in their
Tsilhqot’in lineage, their shared language, customs, traditions and historical experiences.” He
went on to say that “While band-level organization may have meaning to a Canadian federal
bureaucracy, it is without any meaning in the resolution of Aboriginal title and rights for
Tsilhqot’in people.” Accordingly, and most importantly, he went on to conclude that the proper
rights holder, whether for Aboriginal title or rights, is the community of Tsilhqot’in people. In
other words, the Nation.
Matching the political and legal structure of the modern Indigenous nation to that of the proper
rights holder will inevitably be a challenge as it already has been where modern treaties have
been negotiated, or are still being negotiated. It will equally be a challenge for those groups that
already have historical treaties given the pervasiveness of the existing and imposed colonial
administrative structures.
There will no doubt need to be some compromise by Indigenous peoples themselves as to what
constitutes a modern Indigenous nation and the associated institutions of self-governance. And
we will need a clear process for the transition moving away from the status quo.
What is also clear though, is that it is not for the federal government to dictate what self-
government must look like, but for Indigenous nations to set a path forward, and the federal
government to learn to act as partners in operationalizing and supporting that path as
appropriate.
For me, another telling aspect about the SCC decision in Tsilhqot’in – and I have said this
elsewhere – was that the bench (if I can be so bold in this audience), having apparently made up
its mind on the proven Aboriginal title area, was clearly moving on to the next big question,
which is “what laws will apply to the title lands so proven.” The answer is, of course, a
combination of laws in accordance with the constitutional division of powers and the rules of
federalism as they are evolving. It will be a combination of Tsilhqot’in law, provincial and
federal law. And the relationship between laws will have to be addressed through discussions
and agreements among the parties or if necessary ultimately determined by the courts.
So going back to the wampum analogy, while the laws may no longer exist solely within their
own ship or canoe, side-by-side, they do still co-exist together. As the common law has evolved
with new legal principles being developed, and notwithstanding the 1867 constitutional division
of powers, the reality today is a Canada with multi-level governance where the federal,
provincial and territorial, and now re-emerging Indigenous governments share power and
decision-making between and among each other. Where existing and evolving legal principles
such as cooperative federalism increasingly guide the complex web of authority for governments
to make laws, often in the same area, in support of effective governance. As we move to a place
of recognition, this becomes all the more important to understand.
Moving forward, my colleagues and I are very confident we can, indeed, move Canada from a
position of denial to one of recognition and, in so doing, remove the colonial institutions that
stand in the way of Indigenous progress and, therefore, progress for our country as whole.
And before I close, I can tell you that where Indigenous peoples have taken back control of their
lives – and are well on the path to nation rebuilding – they are doing much better socially and
economically than those groups that remain trapped within the colonial structures. And the good
news is that many communities are already on this path but need support. There is success. And
there is hope.
As both a proud Indigenous woman and a proud Canadian, I believe that we are at a turning
point where young people today, and generations to come, will experience growing up in a
Canada where relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples have been transformed
through new nation-to-nation relationships.
Where the nation-to-nation relationship is within the borders of a united Canada, where groups
of peoples with different legal traditions co-exist side-by-side within an evolved constitutional
framework. A respect for legal plurality and social diversity that is, in many ways, a beacon of
hope in an otherwise troubled world of seemingly more inward looking and ethnically divisive
forms of state nationalism.
So in closing, let me leave you with this thought. As we celebrate Canada’s 150th birthday, think
about this anniversary not so much as about celebrating the past, but about embracing a new
optimism for the future within an even more inclusive and just Canada – and making the next
150 years better for all.
Thank you, Gilakas'la.

Celebration and Reconciliation: Canada 150
Speech

To the
2017 Lord Speaker’s Lecture Series
Palace of Westminster
House of Lords – Queen’s Robing Room
London, United Kingdom
July 4, 2017
Gilakas’la. Thank you very much for inviting me to be here today. It is a great honour to be
among so many distinguished members of the House of Lords, House of Commons, judiciary,
Foreign Service, and others dedicated to public service within our two countries. I would like to
express my gratitude for the hospitality and generosity that has been extended to me during
my visit.
In particular, I thank the Lord Speaker for the honour he has conferred on me and the Right
Honourable Kim Campbell to speak with you in this, Canada’s 150th year.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I am very pleased to bring greetings from our Prime
Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau. It goes without saying that Canada and the UK
share a long-standing relationship, anchored in shared values, shared histories, and strong
personal and familial ties.
I also want to take a moment at the outset to acknowledge the recent attacks in Manchester
and London, and the strength and resilience displayed by the British people. Canada stands
united with Britain. We know that you mourned the loss of a Canadian in the London attacks,
just as all Canadians mourned the loss of British lives.
As a former British colony, Canada’s history as a nation is intimately intertwined with yours. Our
country is celebrating two historical milestones this year, both of which the UK played an
important role in. The first is Confederation – the birth of “Canada” as a country – which
happened in 1867, 150 years ago, with your Parliament’s passing of the British North America
Act.
The second is Repatriation – which happened only 35 years ago, when our Constitution,
through the leadership of the first Prime Minister Trudeau, was brought home from the UK.
With repatriation came our adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – a
rights-protecting constitutional document that underpins Canada’s modern legal system – as
well as an express affirmation within our Constitution of the rights of Indigenous peoples.
This evening, I wish to speak to these moments in our shared history, in the spirit of celebrating
of Canada’s 150th birthday. I will also share with you some reflections about our country’s work
of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples – the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples who were
the original inhabitants of Canada. This work is critical to the future of our Indigenous peoples
and to the future of Canada as a country as we complete the unfinished business of
confederation.
As no doubt you are aware, not all Canadians have been celebrating Canada 150 so
passionately. There are voices that question the celebration. The experience of Indigenous
peoples has not always been characterized by the same positive values and realities that the
world rightfully associates with Canada.
However, first, and as is the custom in my culture, I must introduce myself properly and say
something about my own journey here today.
I was introduced to you as Jody Wilson-Raybould, but my traditional name is Puglaas.
My Nation is the Kwakwaka’wakw of the Kwak’wala-speaking peoples of northern Vancouver

Island, in the province of British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada. Within my Nation I
come from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk and Laich-Kwil-Tach tribes. I am from the Eagle clan.
I come from a matrilineal society with hereditary Chiefs. Being matrilineal means that descent is
traced through the mother and our maternal ancestors. Power and inheritance flows through
the mother’s line.
My father is the hereditary Chief of our Clan. His name is Hemas Kla-Lee-Lee-Kla which means
“number one amongst the Eagles, the Chief that is always there to help.” He was given that
name in a potlatch, a ceremony that is our traditional institution of government. We still
practice our potlatch – even though for some generations Canada’s laws forbade us to do so. It
is where our names are passed down. It is where laws are made; disputes settled; people
married; and where possessions are redistributed.
My grandmother’s name was Pugladee, the highest-ranking name in our clan. Her name means
“a good host” – a name that was also given to my older sister, Kory. My name, Puglaas, means
“a woman born to noble people.” The names were given in a naming potlatch when I was five
and my sister six.
Both my grandmother and my father advocated for and pursued Indigenous rights and for full
inclusion of Indigenous peoples within Canada. It was in that context that I was raised.
My upbringing, my education, my professional and personal experiences have all shaped my

worldview and strengthened my determination to achieve reconciliation between all nations
within Canada.
For many years, I, and many others, have worked to change the laws and policies of Canada’s
federal government, which have been used throughout Canada’s history in a misguided
attempt to assimilate and oppress Indigenous peoples. I performed much of this work in my
previous role as elected Regional Chief representing British Columbia at the Assembly of First
Nations – an organization representing the nearly one million First Nations people – across
Canada.
Having been appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in November 2015, I
am now responsible for the very laws and policies that so many of us have worked so hard to
change.
I see my appointment to Cabinet not so much as a personal accomplishment but rather as a

symbol of how far Canada has come. Not so long ago, Indigenous women like me would not
have been allowed to practise law or to vote, let alone run for office. Today, an Indigenous
woman is the chief law officer of the Crown.
That symbolism becomes even more apparent when you consider the history of Canada, and
the role of Indigenous peoples within it, which I will turn to now.
The country we now call Canada has been on a remarkable journey in the 150 years since three
colonies confederated to form the Canada we now know – one of, if not the, most diverse,
peaceful, democratic, respectful, and cohesive nations on earth.
A critical point in that evolution was the passage – 150 years ago – of the Constitution Act,
1867. Originally called the British North America Act, this foundational document was enacted
by the British Parliament and sets out the essential constitutional framework of Canada. That
moment marks, in many ways, the passing of the torch from the British to the Canadian
Parliament. Initially comprised of four provinces, Canada would quickly expand to welcome
additional British colonies, stretching from the Atlantic, to the Arctic, to the Pacific.
When the fathers of Canadian Confederation came together in 1864 to lay out the foundation
for Canada, Indigenous people were not present. Indigenous peoples were not partners to
Confederation. That fact has had far-reaching implications for Canada, which I will return to in a
moment.
But first, allow me to fast-forward to 1982 and the enactment, by your Parliament, of the
Canada Act, 1982. This marked the beginning of affirmative constitutional independence by
bringing our constitution home from the UK. Queen Elizabeth II came to Ottawa to signal the
patriation of our constitutional order.
For many Canadians, patriation is remembered above all else for the adoption of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Enumerating, within a written constitution, the rights and freedoms
guaranteed to all Canadians, marked a departure from the then reigning Commonwealth
consensus to affirm rights in the common law and in statute, but not in a self-standing bill of
rights.
Many of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter are formulated in language that
reflects the wording in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including:
• the fundamental freedoms of expression, association, religion and conscience, and

peaceful assembly;
• the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person;
• criminal justice rights; and
• equality rights.
Other aspects of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms signal the special emphasis that we – as a
country – place on the recognition of rights:
• our official language rights;

• our minority language educational rights; and
• our commitment to multiculturalism.
Over the past 35 years, the Charter has inspired and instilled a culture of rights within Canada’s
governing institutions and within our citizens. The reputation of our Charteras a world-
renowned human rights instrument is a result of individuals and groups seeking recognition of
their rights before our courts and our Parliament.
But moreover, it has now become, as our retiring Chief Justice has said, a part of the Canadian
identity. In a 2015 Statistics Canada survey, some 70 per cent of Canadians named the Charter
as a very important national symbol — beating out the Maple Leaf flag, the national anthem,
the red-coated Mounties, hockey and even the beaver.
As the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I like to think of myself as an ambassador for
the Charter. With a statutory duty to ensure that all laws and policies, and all litigation
decisions of the government, uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Beyond the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the patriation of our constitution
in 1982 marked a significant turning point for the inclusion of Indigenous peoples within
Canada’s constitutional framework. Section 35 of our Constitution recognizes and affirms
existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples.
Including these rights in our constitution amounted to a promise to Indigenous peoples that
their presence in Canada and their rights would no longer be denied, that assimilation and
marginalization were colonial relics of the past, and that Canadians were ready to work
together with them to build a better Canada.
Meeting this promise has not come easily and change has not happened overnight. There is still
much work to be done. But the explicit inclusion of Indigenous rights in the Constitution has
changed the dynamic. Our courts have become active vehicles intervening to advance
reconciliation. Injustices have increasingly come out of the shadows, and the Canadian public is
more aware of these issues than ever before. And slowly, governments are learning they must
change in tangible ways.
This brings me to my final remarks on the subject of Reconciliation.
I met our now Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, for the first time about
four and a half years ago when he attended a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations.
We talked about the future of Canada and his convictions with respect to Indigenous peoples.
I came to see formal political participation as a chance to be part of a government whose leader
made a solemn commitment to fundamental change with a vision for true reconciliation with
Indigenous peoples.
Four and a half years later, I am proud to be the Minister of Justice and Attorney General within
a Government that is moving forward on this path towards true reconciliation.
Our Government has committed to implementing the report of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, established to address the dark legacy of “residential schools.” For those of you
who unfamiliar with this legacy, Indigenous children were taken away from their families and
placed in state-run schools, where they were forbidden from speaking their languages or
following their cultural practices. Worse, children suffered unimaginable abuse in the schools,
and some never came home. The traumatizing effects of these events have echoed through
Indigenous communities over the years.
But beyond the necessary apologies and the emotional work of truth telling and healing,
reconciliation requires laws to change and policies to be rewritten.
In this regard, I see my role as the Minister of Justice as ensuring that our country’s laws and
policies actually do change in accordance with our commitment to a recognition of rights.
To this end, earlier this year, the Prime Minister established a Working Group of Ministers to
review all federal laws and policies related to Indigenous peoples, and appointed me as its
Chair. Our mandate is nothing short of transformative: to decolonize our federal laws and
policies and to ensure that a recognition-of-rights approach is reflected in all aspects of
Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. No small task, but one that I am honoured to
undertake and which has the potential to alter the course of Canadian history.
So in closing, let me leave you with this thought. As we celebrate Canada’s 150th birthday,
there is much optimism and hope. For many Indigenous people, this anniversary is not so much
about celebrating the past, but about what Canada has become and is becoming – about
embracing a new optimism for the future within a more inclusive and just Canada – and making
the next 150 years better for all.
Canada and the UK have a shared history and a deep friendship. Our longstanding traditions of
multilateralism, rights protection, diversity and tolerance unite us and will continue to unite us
into the future.
In the tragic attack on London Bridge last month, the name of the young Canadian woman lost
was Christine Archibald. In a public statement, Christine’s family reflected that “she had room
in her heart for everyone and believed strongly that every person was to be valued and
respected.” In believing this, she found a home in the United Kingdom as welcoming as the one
she left in Canada.
Thank you, Gilakas'la.

Separate Journeys, Similar Path: Truth and Reconciliation in Canada
and South Africa
Speech

To the
University of Cape Town Law School
Wilfred and Jules Kramer Law Building
Cape Town, South Africa: March 30, 2017
Gilakas’la. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for that very generous
introduction.
And thank you for inviting me to speak this evening at the University of Cape Town Faculty of
Law. It is a great pleasure to be here and I thank all of you for coming.
I am very pleased to bring you greetings on behalf of the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
Prime Minister of Canada.
Canada and South Africa share a long-standing and broad relationship, anchored in shared
values, shared histories, and strong people-to-people ties. In particular, former Prime Minister
Brian Mulroney’s contribution to the liberation movement and his steadfast support for the
release of Nelson Mandela is well known and I personally would like to recognize and hold up
your government for awarding him the Supreme Companion of O.R. Tambo.
I have been touched by the esteem with which Canada is held in South Africa for the small role
we played in promoting the establishment of a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, democratic society in
South Africa.
As Canadians, we shall not forget the times that Nelson Mandela addressed our Parliament. He
did so in 1990, as a freedom fighter denied citizenship in his own country.
When he visited some eight years later in 1998, President Mandela became the first foreign
leader to be awarded the Order of Canada – our highest honour – and then, in 2001, he became
the first living person to be awarded honourary Canadian citizenship.
Today, globally, the message of freedom and hope and respect for diversity that Madiba spread
wherever he went resonates as strongly and as powerfully as it ever did – and guides us all as we
look to create a fairer and more just society.
As our Prime Minister often remarks, Canada is stronger not in spite of our differences, but
because of them. That capacity to celebrate the rich composition of our people will be at the
heart of the success of our democracy. I hope that it is a message that we can humbly share with
the world.
In the year of Canada’s 150th birthday – the anniversary of our founding as a country – I would
like to share with you some reflections about our work of reconciliation – our work of
transformation – with Canada’s Indigenous peoples – the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples
– work that is vital not just for the well-being of Indigenous peoples but for our country’s future.
But I must be up front to you – and tell you that for many Indigenous peoples, celebrating our
country’s 150 birthday has its challenges. It is hard to celebrate 150 years of colonialism. So for
many Indigenous people it is not so much about celebrating the past, but rather celebrating a new
optimism about the future within a more inclusive and just Canada – and about making the next
150 years better for all.
To which I would add, an optimism shared by most Canadians, not just for Indigenous peoples,
but for all peoples, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender.
But first, as is the custom in my culture, I must introduce myself properly and say something
about my own journey here today.
My traditional name is Puglaas.
My Nation is the Kwakwaka’wakw of the Kwak’wala-speaking peoples of northern Vancouver

Island, in British Columbia on the west coast of Canada. And within my Nation I come from the
Musgamagw Tsawataineuk and Laich-Kwil-Tach tribes. I am from the Eagle clan.
I come from a matrilineal society where we, like many of the tribes here, have hereditary Chiefs.
Being matrilineal means that descent is traced through the mother and our maternal ancestors.
Power and inheritance flows through the mother’s line.
My father is the hereditary Chief of our Clan. His name is Hemas Kla-Lee-Lee-Kla, which
means “number one amongst the Eagles, the Chief that is always there to help.” He was given
that name in a potlatch, which is our traditional institution of government. We still practise our
potlatch – though for some generations Canada’s laws forbade us to do so. It is where our names
and our lands are passed down or given from generation to generation. It is where laws are made;
disputes settled; people are married; where possessions are redistributed; and so forth.
My grandmother’s name was Pugladee, the highest-ranking name in our clan. Her name means
“a good host” – a name that was given to my older sister, Kory, the same time I was given my
name. My name, Puglaas, means “a woman born to noble people.” The names were given in a
naming potlatch when I was five and my sister six.
My grandmother raised me to know who I am, where I come from, and to recognize the rights
and responsibilities that our people have in our country. Both my grandmother and my father
pursued justice and equality for Indigenous peoples, recognition of their rights in our laws and
Constitution, and full inclusion of our peoples within Canada.
I followed in their footsteps. After leaving law school, the first job I took was as a Crown
Prosecutor in Vancouver’s notorious Downtown Eastside. Far too frequently I found myself
prosecuting young Indigenous men and women whom I often felt were a product of a system that
had failed them.
After my time as a Crown Attorney, I spent much of my adult life in various roles as an elected
Indigenous leader. Most recently, I was the elected Regional Chief representing British
Columbia at the Assembly of First Nations – an organization representing the nearly one million
Indigenous people across Canada known as “First Nations.”
In my work as an Indigenous leader, I had seen how slow and frustrating the pace of change and
reconciliation has been.
Making the jump from being an Indigenous leader to Canadian politics was not an easy one for
me, or a decision taken lightly.
Given my upbringing and experience, I cannot claim to have had a long-standing ambition to be
a Member of Parliament, let alone a Minister of the Crown. However, during my time as
Regional Chief, I came to a greater appreciation that Indigenous peoples could not rebuild their
nations and move beyond their colonial past without willing partners in government.
As is always the case when moving from patterns of injustice to justice – creativity, change, and
courage are required of everyone. New approaches to reconciliation were required to pursue the
transformation that is required in Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.
I met our now Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, for the first time about four
years ago when he attended a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations.
We talked about the future of Canada – our visions. About making Canada even better and, in
particular, his convictions with respect to Indigenous peoples.
I came to see political participation as a chance to be part of a government whose leader has
made a solemn commitment to fundamental change with a vision for true reconciliation with
Indigenous peoples.
Having been appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am responsible for
the very laws and policies that so many of us had worked so hard to change – laws and policies
which remain on the books and have been the tools of colonization.
I see my appointment as a reflection of how far our country has come. Not so long ago,
Indigenous women like me would not have been allowed to vote, let alone run for office, or
practise law. Today, an Indigenous woman is the chief law officer of the Crown.
My upbringing, my education, and my professional and personal experiences have all shaped my
worldview and strengthened my determination to achieve reconciliation between Indigenous
peoples and all Canadians as well as between Indigenous peoples and the Government of
Canada.
And now, as a Minister of the Crown, and in particular as Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, I find myself in a unique position to help to further those efforts. I hope to
fulfil the great sense of responsibility that accompanies this calling. Which brings me to why I
am here in South Africa.
Your path toward reconciliation and transformation offers many important insights from which
Canada can learn in reviewing its own laws and policies to do right by Indigenous Peoples.
Both of our countries have pursued reconciliation to right the wrongs of the past. Both
established Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to discover the truth about our respective
pasts and to record that truth so we do not forget.
Of course there are some significant differences in our realities and the scale of the challenges
that we face. In Canada, the goal of reconciliation is to empower Indigenous peoples, who make
up approximately five per cent of the total population. Your challenge has been of a different
order.
And while there are parallels in our countries’ histories with respect to reconciliation, the
experience of peoples and societies is unique to them – and acknowledging and respecting those
realities requires listening and learning from the voices and perspectives of those who
experienced them.
That said, there is tremendous value and importance in the sharing of these experiences, as the
more humanity comes to understand oppression, racism, and how peoples have overcome, the
more we can build a future where the values of equality, diversity and inclusion reign and where
freedom rules.
In the days that I have been here, I have already learned much about your country’s recent
history and your ongoing efforts to heal the wounds inflicted by apartheid. I have come to greatly
admire the strength, courage, and resilience that individuals and communities are showing as part
of the path of reconciliation. I am grateful for the honesty and openness I have experienced in my
meetings here.
Today, both our countries share common values for a more inclusive and just society – reflected
in your seven constitutional pillars of democracy, equality, reconciliation, diversity,
responsibility, respect and freedom.
This, of course, was not always the case. As Archbishop Tutu acknowledged some 20 years ago
during a visit to Canada:
“The struggles of native people in Canada have many parallels with those of black South
Africans’ fight against apartheid. They have been treated less than justly. They have the right to
be human and Indian…their culture must be recognized as having integrity and must not be
subverted.”
Both countries now recognize that addressing this history is not a choice, but a fundamental
necessity that is required for the future well-being of society and the population as a whole. To
ensure the important words of freedom and hope are not empty or hollow, and where we breathe
life into our respective Constitutions with conviction and goodness through our actions and a lot
of hard work.
The fact that Canada’s Indigenous peoples were left out of our constitutional framework in 1867
has had far reaching implications. Government policy towards Canada’s first peoples became
one of denial and assimilation and not recognition and partnership. This approach was fuelled by
racist ideas and assumptions regarding Indigenous peoples.
The most insidious example of this was the Indian Act. In the early years of Canada’s creation,
the Parliament of Canada enacted the Indian Act, as the primary legislative tool used to
propagate the policy of denial and assimilation. The Indian Act was – and continues to be – one
of the central legal tools of colonization of Indigenous peoples in Canada. It has had a central
role in breaking down Indigenous systems of governance, moving people off their ancestral
lands, and interfering with family and kinship systems.
Rather than being citizens or members of a Nation or Tribe of Indians recognized in the early
treaty relationships that were established under the British Crown, under the Indian Act, legally
defined Indians were moved onto small reserves, made wards of the state, with the government
being their trustee.
Indians were considered legally incompetent unless they enfranchised to become full citizens of
Canada. And if they chose to enfranchise, they were no longer recognized as Indigenous and lost
their political voice within their community, and abandoned access to lands in their communities.
The Indian Act also created the infamous residential schools, which separated more than 150,000
children from their families and forbade them from speaking their languages or following their
cultural practices. As one senior Crown official described it, the policy was designed to “Kill the
Indian in the Child.” Thousands suffered unimaginable physical, emotional and sexual abuse,
and many actually died, in the schools. The trauma caused by residential schools continues to
echo through Indigenous communities, particularly among women and girls.
Ironically, even though the policy objective of the Indian Act was to assimilate Indigenous
peoples, it also discouraged them from participating in Canadian society. It is not an over-
exaggeration to say that it is one of the most sinister tools ever used to subjugate a people.
The Indian Act continues to exist today. This fact is troubling and telling. Canadians know that
the Indian Act is wrong, harmful, and archaic – and cannot shape our future. But it has become
so entrenched in the fabric of relations between Canada and Indigenous peoples that it is
sometimes hard to see what lies beyond it. But we have to do so and do so together.
We know that reconciliation requires getting rid of the Indian Act and building proper relations
based on recognition and respect, where Indigenous peoples are self-governing and self-
determining – but we have struggled as a country to get to that place.
Thankfully, our world has changed and continues to change. The signs of change point toward
recognition that Indigenous peoples in Canada are distinct groups with inherent rights that must
to be protected and realized. Our Prime Minister has said that no relationship is more important
to him than the one with Indigenous peoples.
In Canada, our modern legal system is underpinned by the recognition of fundamental human
rights in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Indigenous rights in section 35 of
our Constitution.
Like your Constitution’s Bill of Rights, our constitutional protection of rights is a recent
commitment to a more just future. Both affirm a shift from a legal order based on authority to
one based on the recognition of rights. It is a shift from a “culture of authority” to a “culture of
justification,” to quote from Etienne Mureinik, whose work on your then-new Constitution and
Bill of Rights continues to be cited worldwide today.
A recognition of rights approach affirms the authority of rights and the burden of justification on
all government action.
In this important way, including Indigenous rights in our Constitution amounted to a promise to
Indigenous peoples that their presence in Canada and their rights would no longer be denied, that
assimilation and marginalization were colonial relics of the past, and that Canadians were ready
to work together with them to build a better Canada.
Meeting this promise has not come easily and change did not happen overnight. Change has been
slow – far too slow – and there is still much more work to be done. Changes to a Constitution
alone do not change minds, hearts, and actions. Changes to a Constitution alone do not lift
individuals or communities out of poverty, return land that was unlawfully taken, or re-
invigorate cultures and traditions that have been suppressed.
What the changes to the Canadian Constitution in 1982 did is set out a new path – a path where
the historic injustices, the continuing patterns of colonization, and the divisions and inequalities
in society have to be dealt with. To be clear, this is a not a new path that has always been
embraced. Many governments have moved with reluctance – and stayed in old patterns. The
journey of decolonization and reconciliation is complicated – often painful and never easy.
But the inclusion of Indigenous rights in the Constitution has changed the dynamics. The Courts
have become very active vehicles intervening to try to advance reconciliation. The injustices
have increasingly come out of the shadows, and more of the Canadian public has become voices
for change. And slowly, governments are learning they must change in real ways.
Today, for both Indigenous peoples, and the Government of Canada, the challenge is to finally
make the fundamental shifts towards reconciliation from which we cannot turn back. We now
have over 170 court cases in Canada dealing with Indigenous rights. We also have the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document that our Government
endorsed last year without qualification. The challenge today is to actually use these tools to
ensure practical benefits on the ground in communities, and to ultimately improve the lives of
Indigenous peoples.
The colonial legacy however is a heavy burden even with good intentions and political will: the
poverty, the health and social issues, the breakdown of the institutions of social order, and the
dependency. There is considerable rebuilding that is needed. It requires recognition. It requires
healing. It requires forgiveness. It requires trust.
As an important step, in 2008, the Government of Canada formally apologized to Indigenous

peoples for the tragedy of residential schools and established our own Truth and Reconciliation
Commission. Our Commission’s objective was to specifically examine the dark period of the
history of the residential schools.
Justice Murray Sinclair, the Chair of the Commission and now a member of Canada’s Senate,
has publically acknowledged that Canada’s Commission was modelled after your TRC. Each of
our countries’ Commissions were implemented as a way to acknowledge the human rights
violations of the past in order to build new relationships for a better future.
The TRC in Canada documented the stories of abuse told by survivors while honouring their
truth, and it made numerous recommendations in a report released at the end of 2015. Those
recommendations or “calls to action” address many aspects of the reconciliation project through
the lens of the residential school experience.
Our Government has committed to implementing every one of these Calls to Action where the
federal government is implicated.
Our Government has also taken another important step toward reconciliation by facing another
dark legacy – the over 1,200 Indigenous women and girls who have been murdered or reported
missing.
Although Indigenous women make up 4 per cent of Canada’s female population, 16 per cent of
all women murdered in Canada between 1980 and 2012 were Indigenous. This is completely
unacceptable.
This past September, our Government launched an independent national inquiry into missing and
murdered Indigenous women and girls. That important work is ongoing and will conclude in
2018.
There is no question that the combined work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and
now the Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls will be invaluable in
the healing and truth-telling that are part of the journey of reconciliation.
But, as the late Nelson Mandela taught us – beyond the necessary apologies and beyond the
emotional work of truth telling and of healing – reconciliation actually requires laws to change
and policies to be rewritten.
As the Minister of Justice, it is my responsibility to ensure that our country’s laws and policies
actually do change based on the recognition of rights. There are numerous laws and policies that
need to change and new ones that need to be developed.
So you may ask, where do we start?
In fact, the work has already started – with Indigenous peoples in the lead in undertaking the
important community development work to rebuild. I take my hope for the future from how
Indigenous nations are leading the way – and showing all of Canada what the future should look
like.
Many Indigenous nations have further developed their own institutions of governance reflecting
their own cultures and traditions – some at the local level, others regional or sometimes Canada-
wide in scope.
Today, there are now over 40 former Indian Act bands that are recognized as self-governing
within Canada and dozens more involved in some form of governance reform. These self-
governing communities are doing significantly better both socially and economically than those
that are not.
But of course, there is obviously much more and essential work the Canadian government must
do. There is, in truth, still no simple legal mechanism for moving from denial and assimilation of
a people to recognition and reconciliation. What we need to do is make a 180 degree turn so that
our laws and policies are pointing in the direction of the future of reconciliation and
transformation – not the past of colonization.
To this end, just last month, the Prime Minister established a Working Group of Ministers to
review all federal laws and policies related to Indigenous peoples and appointed me as
Chairperson. Our Working Group’s mandate is nothing short of transformative: to decolonize
our federal laws, policies and operational practices, and to ensure that all aspects of Canada’s
relationship with Indigenous peoples are rooted in the recognition of rights.
We understand it is going to take more than simply changing the rules. There are other supports
that are needed to help communities and individuals to address the ongoing social and economic
legacy of colonialism. And for us education is the key – something that I have come to
appreciate during my trip is key in your country’s experience as well. To ensure that all
Indigenous children receive a quality education. The rising tide, as they say, lifts all boats.
As with education, there are also health legacies that must be addressed – both physical and
mental. And to ensure that all Indigenous communities have clean water – which in Canada it is
hard to believe that many still do not. To these ends our government has made, and will continue
to make, significant investments. But more will be needed. And of course there never seems to
be enough. But truth be told, this is the new price of freedom when the wars of equality are over.
In my opinion, new nation-to-nation relationships and the resurgence of Indigenous self-

governance – based on Indigenous legal traditions – will, over the next generation, change, for
the better, the way Canada is governed – not only in transforming Indigenous Nations but our
country as a whole.
As Indigenous peoples take back control of their lives, our country is strengthened – ensuring
that we have a Canada that all Canadians aspire to live in. A country based on shared values and
principles that we have spent years as a nation fostering – creating a fair, caring and
compassionate society that ensures our place on this planet as one of the best countries in which
to live.
But there is a lot of work ahead for all of us in Canada. Canada’s Indigenous peoples must come
prepared to rebuild their nations and to assume the responsibilities that come from self-
determination and self-government. Some are ready, willing, and able to do so today. Some will
require more time.
In turn, the Government of Canada must do its part to support Indigenous nations in this
rebuilding work. Canada must confront the history of colonization and the denial of Indigenous
peoples and their rights, a legacy we continue to be surrounded by today. Canada must review its
laws and its policies to ensure that they align with a recognition of rights approach. We must
make the necessary investments into community development now.
The truth is that reconciliation is not easy. As South Africans know better than most, it is a long
journey and one that often can be painful and difficult. But for those who believe in equality,
peace and human dignity, it is essential – there is no other path.
Overcoming apartheid has made South Africa a stronger, more respectful, inclusive and
prosperous nation. This is not to say that the journey is over; in fact, as I heard said many times
during my visit, much work remains to be done. But South Africa has truly made remarkable
progress and has generated valuable lessons that countries such as Canada can learn from.
And on this note, and before I close, I do want to reflect on being here at the University of Cape
Town and speaking to you, the future generation of legal minds that will continue to guide your
country along its journey of reconciliation and transformation over the years, and decades, to
come.
Your school is renowned for its historic support for freedom. As students here, you carry that
legacy with you. Law has been a tool of oppression, but under the Rule of Law it is an incredible
tool for justice and for giving voice to the most disadvantaged. As tomorrow’s lawyers, you have
an opportunity to shape your country’s future. Your Constitution is one of the most advanced in
the world. You are empowered to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of your constitutional
rights for all South Africans.
Your Faculty of Law was the place where great minds like Albie Sachs took part in the Defiance
Against Unjust Laws Campaign and, within a lifetime, was appointed to your Constitutional
Court. Your Faculty is also home to the Oliver Tambo Moot Court, whose namesake fought his
entire life for a free South Africa but who died before your country’s first free elections. You
honour him by awarding his name a permanent place within your Faculty.
Your university has also built on its reputation for inclusion and now has one of the most diverse
university campuses in South Africa.
And in acknowledging, “the role of the law in creating a society that was characterized by
oppression” and “remains deeply divided by inequality,” your Law School’s statement of values
and goals draws an important connection between past wrongs and how they continue to impact
the present. And the statement goes on to set out laudable goals for today and a future celebrating
and promoting diversity.
These are values and goals that can be universally applied and certainly have great resonance in
Canada. The willingness to acknowledge the past in our efforts to embrace diversity in the
present makes our institutions and our societies stronger.
In closing, let me say this. Like the many inspiring South Africans I have met during my journey,
I am optimistic by nature. And I am convinced that our two great countries will continue to see
that better is always possible.
When Madiba received his honorary Canadian citizenship, he told our Parliament that in the
world in which we all now live, the rich and poor, strong and weak, are all bound in a common
destiny that decrees that none shall enjoy lasting prosperity and stability unless all others do as
well. Prophetic words indeed.
Whether as the Indigenous minority population in Canada or the majority Black population here
in South Africa, it is how we treat others and seek equality that is the true measure our humanity.
That is the message of reconciliation – the message of transformation. It is the message of South
Africa. I believe it is the message of Canada. It is our collective message.

Finding Solutions: Improving the Reporting, Charging and
Prosecution of Sexual Assaults against Adults
Speech

To the
Justice Canada Knowledge Exchange 2017: The criminal justice system’s responses to
sexual assault against adults
Hilton Lac-Leamy, Gatineau, QC: March 8, 2017
As Delivered
Good morning, everyone. Gilakas’la, thank you for having me here this morning to speak at this
incredibly important and very timely forum or knowledge exchange. I want to recognize
everybody in the room and not to point out any people in particular but I’m going to just
acknowledge one of my amazing Parliamentary Secretaries, Marco Mendicino, who is here
today.
Thank you to Roberta [Della-Picca] for the welcome to Algonquin territory.
I am so pleased that the Department of Justice is hosting this knowledge exchange in an

incredibly important time – a very timely discussion. The issue of sexual assault and how we
deal with sexual assault in the criminal justice system is something that I’m deeply committed to
addressing, as is our Prime Minister and our government.
I would like to thank the Policy Centre for Victims Issues for inviting me to speak and to thank
Gillian [Blackell] for the kind introduction. I would also like to take some time or this
opportunity to acknowledge the incredible work that so many of you, all of you in this room, are
doing to address sexual assault. We have – over the course of today and yesterday, as I
understand – an incredible lineup of speakers and presenters and I know we’ll all appreciate
hearing the knowledge and experience that you bring to this issue – this shared issue of
importance.
Our government has been clear that sexual assault is unacceptable and wrong. We are
unwavering in our commitment to ensure that victims of sexual assault and gender based
violence are treated with respect and dignity.
This knowledge exchange provides a timely opportunity to discuss how cases of sexual assault
are reported, charged and prosecuted in Canada. It will look at issues from the perspective of
victims, the judiciary and criminal justice professionals.
It will also consider best practices with a view to strengthening the criminal justice system and
how the criminal justice system responds to these horrific crimes. I’m grateful for the chance, at
least in part, to participate in this important forum and stress my commitment to making sure the
criminal justice system is more responsive to the needs of victims of sexual assault.
I am incredibly honoured to be the Minister of Justice and understand the responsibilities that I
hold in my office. I bring, as was mentioned, a background in prosecution, and certainly
recognize and have been confronted with victims of sexual assault, not only in my capacity as a
former prosecutor but certainly in my capacity as the former Regional Chief of the BC Assembly
of First Nations.
While anyone can be a victim of sexual assault, this gathering on International Women’s Day
serves as a poignant reminder that victims and survivors of these crimes are disproportionately
women. This crime has a gender impact and, unfortunately, myths and stereotypes continue to
surface at all stages of the criminal justice system. For Indigenous, transgendered, two-spirited,
disabled and other marginalized survivors of sexual assault, gender can be compounded by
additional myths and stereotypes, creating further barriers to justice.
I understand that these initial obstacles were discussed last night in an armchair discussion. Here
as in other countries, the vast majority of sexual assaults against adults, as we know, are not
reported to police. We also know that charging, prosecuting and conviction rates in these cases
are significantly lower than other types of violent crimes.
Sexual assault is certainly not unique to Canada. What is somewhat surprising, as was
mentioned, is that our country’s comparatively robust criminal legislation has not led to the rates
of reporting, charging and conviction that most Canadians would hope to see.
Our Criminal Code is clear. It prohibits sexual assault in all its forms. The law provides a
definition of consent and clearly sets out circumstances where no consent can be given. In
addition, important amendments were made to the Code to protect complainants of assumptions
based on myths and stereotypes about how victims of sexual assault are expected to behave. The
panelists today will explore some of the measures in more detail.
Despite this robust legislative framework and the Supreme Court of Canada cases that have
expanded upon it, we know that victims of sexual assault still face significant barriers in
reporting to police and in testifying in court. According to Statistics Canada – as we are probably
all familiar with in this room – only five percent of sexual assaults in 2014 were reported to
police. In 2015 only 43 percent of sexual assaults reported to police resulted in a criminal charge.
Only 43 percent of those charged were actually ultimately convicted.
This means that for every 100 sexual assaults in Canada, less than one percent of those accused
are convicted. That, as I am sure you know, represents the lowest conviction rate for any type of
violent crime in this country and this is completely unacceptable.
This problem is not new. My recent media reports have highlighted a few significant concerns,
namely the number of cases deemed by police to be unfounded remains unacceptably high and
this varies across the country.
Recently, some of these stories touched on why these cases were deemed unfounded. As articles
noted, harmful myths and stereotypes remain the greatest barrier to charging and prosecuting
sexual assault. Clearly, then, having strong laws on the books is not enough and we need to look
at new approaches. We must look beyond changes to the letter of the law for solutions and
examine why the law is not being applied and enforced as it should be.
As Minister of Justice, I am incredibly concerned about the barriers to access to justice for
victims of sexual assault. If victims of sexual assault do not report because they fear they won’t
be believed or they lack the confidence in the criminal justice system, then the integrity of the
whole system is called into question. When victims cease to turn to our criminal justice system,
perpetrators are not held to account for their actions. That is a problem and I know that is a
concern for everyone in this room.
How can we ensure our laws are effectively enforced? One place to start is ensuring that we do
what we can to provide every professional working in the criminal justice system with the
necessary tools to understand and apply the law. This means specialized training on sexual
assault law for police and Crown prosecutors. It means encouraging police colleges, law schools
and the judiciary to provide training as well.
It also means making sure that our practices in dealing with victims and survivors reflect an
understanding of how trauma affects the brain and the ability to recall events. There are, of
course, broader societal forces at play that also influence attitudes and the prevalence of gender-
based violence. Our government is committed to tackling ongoing gender inequality and sexism
in all of its forms.
What we hope to focus on here today are, as was said, some of the promising practices,
approaches and mechanisms being used both at home and abroad to improve the criminal justice
system’s responses to sexual assaults. We are very fortunate to have many experts in this room
who are going to talk of these promising practices.
Without a doubt, the Philadelphia model is one of the most exciting policing initiatives in this
area, and it has received some recent attention in the media. This model of external oversight of
police practices was designed to address the high rates of sexual assault cases deemed to be
unfounded in the city in the 1990s. We are very fortunate to have two presenters here with us
today that will speak about this model.
We’re also going to hear from representatives from Ontario and Quebec who will describe the
criminal justice elements of their sexual violence action plans. Of particular note is the project in
Ontario that offers up four free hours of legal advice to victims of sexual assault.
For my part, I am currently working – as you probably know – on a wide-ranging review of the
criminal justice system. Among other things, the review is looking at the changes in the system
and in sentencing reforms over the past decade to ensure the current provisions align with the
objectives of the system. The ultimate goal of my review is to improve public confidence in the
criminal justice system.
I want to make sure that the system treats victims with compassion, that it better meets the needs
of vulnerable populations, that it takes a more integrated approach to addressing and preventing
crime. My vision is of an effective criminal justice system that will respect victims and hold
offenders to account. It will address the needs of vulnerable populations, including Indigenous
peoples. It will also address the root causes of criminality and inspire public confidence.
I’m particularly interested in exploring the use of restorative justice approaches. I know this is
one of the topics that was discussed last night and will be discussed today.
I’m also working very closely with my colleague, the Honourable Maryam Monsef, Minister of
the Status of Women, in support of the development of a federal strategy against gender-based
violence.
This strategy will build upon the work that our government has undertaken to launch a national
inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, which we launched last
September. In addition, given the important role of the provinces and territories in the
administration of criminal justice, I am working with my counterparts to explore practices,
policies and legislative approaches for improving access to justice for victims of sexual assault.
More specifically, last October the federal provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for
justice and public safety tasked a working group of senior officials to explore these issues and to
bring recommendations to our attention. I know there are many of these representatives in the
room.
We know that sexual assault takes its toll not only on victims and survivors but also on their
families and loved ones. As we will be exploring today, understanding the impact of trauma is
critical to properly addressing this issue.
In this respect, through the federal Victims Fund, our government is supporting community-
based, culturally-grounded and trauma-informed support for families of murdered and missing
Indigenous women and girls. We are also assisting families in gathering the information they
seek about their loved ones through funding for Family Information Liaison Units. This is a
concrete step and help for families affected by sexual violence and homicide.
Moreover, last fall my department made up to $12 million available over three years for projects
designed to improve the criminal justice system’s responses to sexual assaults against adults. The
funding is available to provinces and territories, municipal governments, First Nations
governments, criminal justice professional organizations and non-governmental organizations.
I’m happy to say this funding is already supporting pilot projects for some very promising
practices that you will hear about today. These projects include an initiative in Newfoundland
and Labrador to provide free legal advice to victims of sexual assault and funding to enhance the
Ontario project I spoke about earlier. These resources are also supporting a project in New
Brunswick to provide specialized training for Crown prosecutors and other criminal justice
system professionals in dealing with victims of sexual assault and interpersonal violence.
In addition, our government is funding more than two dozen projects run by non-governmental
organizations. One of them will look at the Philadelphia model and see about adapting it to the
needs of a particular community.
Sexual assault is a serious problem in Canada. It crosses social and economic barriers, affects
communities right across the country, and has devastating consequences for individuals, their
families and their communities. It is a significant barrier to women’s equality. Indeed, it
represents a clear violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, something I
know we are all reflecting on this International Women’s Day.
Gatherings like this – with so many professionals committed to getting at the root causes,
committed to improving our criminal justice system to properly and appropriately address the
needs of victims of sexual assault – are so important.
I very much look forward to hearing of your discussion, and I very much look forward to hearing
your solutions and how we can employ them together.
Gilakas’la. Thank you for listening.

Patriation, the Recognition of Rights and Reconciliation
Speech
by
To the
Constitution 150 Conference
Shaw Centre, Ottawa, Ontario: March 10, 2017
Check Against Delivery
Gilakas’la. Good afternoon. Bonjour, tout le monde.
I want to acknowledge the territory of the Algonquin People that we’re meeting on today.
Today as we consider the 150th anniversary of Canada, the theme of my remarks is “Patriation,
the Recognition of Rights and Reconciliation.” The idea that the recognition of rights
accompanied patriation is a familiar one. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms that accompanied
Canada’s constitutional independence is the obvious manifestation of that recognition. And it has
been transformative. Indeed – in many ways it defines our country – and when asked what
Canadians value most about Canada – after health care – it is the Charter.
However, and that said, for Indigenous Peoples – the 150 year celebration has for obvious
reasons invoked mixed reactions – on the one hand it is hard to celebrate the past 150 years – a
history of colonization, denial and failed promises – but on the other there is a renewed hope for
a better and more inclusive Canada over the next 150 years.
This is because the recognition of rights that was brought about with Patriation has been only
partial, for the guarantee in section 35 of the Constitution that the rights of Indigenous People
“are hereby recognized and affirmed” has not been the reality of Canada’s relationship with
Indigenous peoples.
Despite section 35, Indigenous peoples have still had to spend the last 35 years using the courts
to prove their rights exist, and that governments should respect those rights. The end result is that
we have spent more time in conflict rather than in a nation-to-nation relationship grounded in
recognition and respect that a rights-based approach demands and as is reflected more generally
in the principles of civil society that the very idea of the Charter evokes.
I will return to this subject later. But first I will reflect on the 35th anniversary of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s 150th year. The Charter is internationally-renowned, and
continues to be full of promise today.
The story of our Charter begins not in 1982, but in the global recognition of rights that followed
the systematic denial and violation of those same rights. The Second World War and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights represent both the worst and the best of the human
condition; both the most frightening and the most promising illustration of our capacity for
human endeavour.
The Universal Declaration

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sought to affirm the universality of human rights
against the odds of history and geography—an affirmation in one time, at one place, for all time
and for all people everywhere. The success of this endeavour before the UN General Assembly
in December 1948 rested on its ability to incorporate different visions of freedom or, as French
philosopher Jacques Maritain poetically put it: ‘many different kinds of music [can] be played on
the document’s thirty strings.’
The initial draft of the Declaration was prepared by the first director of the UN Secretariat’s
Human Rights Division – a Canadian whose name will be known to many here – John
Humphrey.
Humphrey instructed his staff ‘to study all the world’s existing constitutions and rights
instruments’ in order to prepare a draft document recognizing universal rights. The creation of
the Declaration proceeded from the local as it aspired to the universal – national and regional
attempts to set out rights and freedoms for select communities informed the grander appeal to
universality for all of the world’s communities. Quite an ambition.
Perhaps because of this approach, Humphrey, when questioned on what philosophy had guided
him in setting out a first draft document of universal rights, responded that the draft was based on
‘no philosophy whatsoever.’
I do not think Humphrey meant that the very idea of human rights – their universality, their
indivisibility, their inalienability, their inviolability – is without philosophical authority. On the
contrary, Humphrey sought to insulate the Declaration from the charge that it was motivated and
articulated from the perspective of any one governing philosophy or worldview. Arguably, the
only philosophical disposition or world-view nakedly inconsistent with the Universal Declaration
was one that would deny the very idea of rights.
In this way, Humphrey captured how the success of the Universal Declaration was to affirm
rights common to humankind, to affirm that each right was to be read in relation to every other,
and to do so in a manner that would be acceptable to the world’s many political communities.
And, as such, it became a new collective and truly global world-view.
It is a success that is not to be underestimated. The vote to adopt the Declaration before the UN
General Assembly in December 1948, was unanimous. There was not a single dissenting vote.
To this day, the Universal Declaration remains an iconic affirmation of our capacity for human
good. It remains, too, a ready reminder of the many ways in which human rights are declared for
everyone, but not everywhere recognized.
Charter of Rights and Freedoms

After its passage the Universal Declaration required a renewed effort by Canada to recognize
rights in our laws and policies. The Canada of 1948 was not without its human rights successes,
but nor was it without its human rights failures.
Despite Canada’s support for the Declaration being based on strong foundations, we were quite a
different country then than we are today. Before the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, there was no
pan-Canadian recognition of rights; no pan-Canadian affirmation of the Universal Declaration in
Canadian law. Our rights and freedoms were not recognized in any supreme law.
The fate of the Canadian Bill of Rights is known to all in this room. While an important part of
our human rights history, it was also not transformative. Despite the significance of 1960, it is
not a year that stands out in Canadian history as the turning point for the recognition of rights.
In contrast to 1960, the year 1982 does stand out as transformative in Canadian history. It stands
out as the year marking the recognition of rights in our constitutional order.
It is a year known for many milestones:
• Patriation;
• a constitutional amendment formula;
• constitutional independence;
• the birth of another major constitutional instrument; and
• the renaming of our founding constitutional instrument so that our Confederation
Constitution would no longer be known as the colonial British North America Act;
1982 is a year known too for the promise captured in section 35 of the Constitution Act, a theme
I will return to.
But for many Canadians, 1982 is remembered above all else for the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms – 1982’s defining moment. It is a reputation that the Charter has earned over time.
It is a reputation grounded in the Charter’s success to do what the Canadian Bill of Rights failed
to do – that is, to inspire and instil a culture of rights within Canada’s governing institutions and
within Canada’s peoples. That culture of rights has been a culture of the recognition of rights.
The Charter is Canada’s Universal Declaration – our vision of freedom within the human family,
or – to paraphrase Jacques Maritain – it is Canada’s music played on the Declaration’s thirty
strings.
Many of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter are formulated in language that
tracks very closely the wording in the Declaration:
• the fundamental freedoms to expression, association, religion and conscience, and

peaceful assembly;
• the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person;
• criminal justice rights; and,
• equality rights.
Other aspects of our Charter signal the special emphasis that we – as a country – place on the
recognition of rights:
• our official language rights;

• our minority language educational rights; and,
• our commitment to multiculturalism.
For some, that special emphasis is not a candidate for universal affirmation. Certainly, for a time,
some of these rights were saddled with a restrictive interpretation, a reading that limited their
scope on account of a “political pact” understanding of their nature. This reading was in contrast
to the broad and generous interpretation awarded to the more universalist rights in the Charter.
That understanding has waned. In fact, it was never a contender. It was never true to the
Universal Declaration itself, which captures, in its 22nd Article, the complex story of
individuality and community:
Everyone, as a member of society, … is entitled to realization … of the economic, social and

cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
The closing thought of the Declaration’s 22nd Article is powerful: economic, social and cultural
rights are indispensable for dignity and the free development of one’s personality.
Consider the relationship of the individual to the community captured by this reference. This
relationship is perhaps the richest question of political philosophy. And the Declaration signals
that it is indispensable for the dignity of individuals that they and their rights be situated in
community. It is a conception of rights that is familiar to Indigenous peoples.
So it is perhaps Canada’s special contribution to human rights instruments that we began our
Charter with a clause that affirms that special relationship between the community and the
individual. Our Charter’s first section signals that the very understanding of rights must be one
that is situated socially.
It is an understanding that should not be distracted by readings of section 1 of the Charter that
suggests that governments have license to violate rights and freedoms. No government has that
authority, even if many have purported to exercise it. The justification for positioning this clause
first in our Charter, first in the constitutional instrument that marks our Patriation, is to pair the
recognition of rights with the free and democratic society in which they are recognized.
The Charter over the past 35 years
Over the past 35 years, the transformative change brought about by the Charter is in very large
part owed to the leadership of our courts. Yes, there are those that may be critical. But the
reputation of our Charter as a human rights instrument is a result of the jurisprudence that now
underpins it. And that jurisprudence is the result of individuals and groups seeking recognition of
their rights before our courts and of the courts, in turn, finding the balance that defines Canada,
and in many ways distinguishes us from other nations and makes our country special in a world
where rights and freedoms seem to be in a period of global retraction.
There is no question that the past 35 years of judicial application of the Charter has strengthened
our laws and our policies and made our country better. It has affirmed not only the philosophical
priority of rights, but also their legal priority by putting the authors of laws and policies to the
test of justification – can our laws and policies be justified as being consistent with the
recognition of rights?
Judicial leadership has been the defining success of the past 35 years of our Charter. The success
of our Charter over the next 35 years will, I hope, be measured by political leadership. The
success or failure of the Charter’s next 35 transformative years will be measured by the ability of
political leaders to demonstrate that a recognition-of-rights approach guides the development of
our laws and our policies.
And it is in this regard that I now want to turn, specifically how I see the role of the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada and what our government has been doing with respect to
the Charter and the recognition of rights.
MoJAG as ambassador of the Charter

Since my appointment as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I have sought to
frame my role and my responsibility as “ambassador of the Charter.” It is a way of signalling that
the Charter is, for our Government, not a constraint on the actions we take under threat of
judicial review, but rather a guide for a recognition-of-rights culture within the activity of
government.
Much of this work is quiet and out of view:
• It is the work of policy development.

• It is the work of providing legal advice on the Charter to Cabinet and my ministerial
colleagues.
• It is the work of developing and shaping Memoranda to Cabinet.
The evidence of our success in adopting a recognition-of-rights approach will be measured by

our outcomes. Simply put, do our laws and our policies reflect our commitment to the Charter?
Even if much of our recognition-of-rights work is necessarily out of view, in the spirit of
accountability and transparency some of it is, and must be, publicly communicated, and is done
so proudly.
Earlier this year, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I announced the re-establishment of a
renewed, modernized, and expanded Court Challenges Program. Government funding for
Charter challenges is a way of signalling political responsibility for the Charter, as we recognize
that not all of our laws and policies are always as they should be.
Not all Canadians have an equal chance to have their day in court, and sometimes those that most
need to bring a challenge are the least able to do so. The Court Challenges Program seeks to
remove some of the economic barriers faced by those seeking recognition of their rights.
As the Minister with primary responsibility for the rule of law, aligning our statutes with the law
is a duty that rightly falls to me. With respect to the Criminal Code, earlier this week, I tabled in
the House of Commons Bill C-39, a “Charter clean-up” bill, to remove provisions that have been
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. The so–called “zombie provisions”.
One of the reasons I suspect the clean up was not undertaken by previous governments had to do
with the political sensitivity around the issue of abortion. Prohibition against abortion was
declared unconstitutional in 1988, yet – nearly 30 years on – remains on our books.
The prohibition against murder in the commission of offences was declared unconstitutional in
1990, yet – as we all know too well after the Vader case – remains on our books.
However, it is also recognized that more needs to be done and will be done in the months to
come. Aligning the Criminal Code with the Charter requires more than repealing just the
unconstitutional provisions. It also requires aligning the text of the Code with the interpretation
that courts have given to various provisions.
That said, when we consider the fact that the first step of this process involves removing
provisions declared unconstitutional 30 years ago, we should not underplay the significance of
this step or of the more encompassing criminal justice review I am undertaking.
This “clean-up” initiative relates to the laws of previous governments and parliaments. But what
of the work of this Government and this Parliament – how are we demonstrating publicly our
Charter commitments?
One of the initiatives I undertook upon taking office as the Minister of Justice, and of which I am
particularly proud, is the use of “Charter Statements.” For each bill I have tabled in the House, I
have tabled an accompanying Charter Statement, which outlines how a recognition-of-rights
approach has guided the development of each new legislative initiative. This is a very powerful
way of demonstrating how the Charter is top of mind in the development of legislative
initiatives. It is transparent and instructs informed debate.
Each Charter Statement aims to highlight for public and parliamentary consideration and debate
key Charter rights and freedoms that are engaged in my department’s legislative initiatives.
The political leadership that will guide the next 35 years of the Charter and beyond requires an
actively engaged Government and Parliament. I hope that the tabling of Charter Statements will
help ensure a recognition-of-rights culture in all of our legislative work.
The Attorney General in Charter litigation

With respect to litigation, my responsibility as ambassador of the Charter takes on a different
dynamic, when I fulfil the office of Attorney General.
As the Chief Law Officer of the Crown, the Attorney General has a responsibility to act in the
public interest. In my mandate letter from the Prime Minister, I was tasked with fulfilling that
duty in reviewing Canada’s litigation strategy.
Early in my mandate, I acted on the promise to end appeals or positions that are not consistent
with our commitments, the Charter or our values.
Accordingly, I withdrew Canada’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada in the matter of the previous Government’s refusal to allow Ms. Ishaq to wear her niqab
during her citizenship ceremony.
I also abandoned Canada’s appeal challenging Omar Khadr’s grant of bail.
I discontinued Canada’s appeal in the refugee health care matter and our Government has
restored refugee health care coverage.
These and other actions are outlined in my Litigation Year in Review 2016, the first report on
litigation positions ever published by the Attorney General of Canada.
Reflecting on the conduct of the Attorney General in Charter litigation, let me say this.
In reviewing Canada’s litigation strategy in Charter cases, I have sought to act in a principled
manner, mindful of the special constitutional position of the Attorney General who is both a
member of the executive and the Chief Law Officer of the Crown, mandated to defend
Parliament’s legislative record.
A principled approach has been necessary especially when laws adopted under a previous
Parliament are challenged in court and again especially when our Government has committed to
repealing the impugned provisions. The question asked is should I concede the Charter
challenge?
In conceiving of my responsibilities, I have identified and am following six principles that I

believe should guide the Attorney General in Charter cases:
First, the principle of Constitutionalism and the rule of law – the Attorney General must
uphold and adhere to the Charter.
Where the Attorney General concludes that there is no viable argument in favour of a law’s
Charter compliance, she should concede a Charter claim. However, it should be noted that the
Charter itself invites some nuance here, as there are three possible places for Charter
concessions: whether a right is limited; whether the limitation is justified; and, what the remedy
should be.
Second, the principle of parliamentary democracy – the Attorney General is responsible for
upholding laws passed by Canada’s democratically-elected legislature until they are changed by
Parliament or declared unconstitutional by a court.
As a member of the executive branch, the Attorney General should not undermine parliamentary
democracy by readily conceding the unconstitutionality of laws that have been approved by
Parliament.
The Attorney General may therefore defend the Charter compliance of federal legislation at the
same time that her Government promises to amend or repeal the challenged legislation through
the parliamentary process.
Third, the principle of adjudication – the only institutions that can authoritatively determine
questions of law are courts. In fulfilling their duty, courts are assisted by full and fair argument
by counsel, each putting forward the best case for and against the compliance of federal law with
the Charter.
Unqualified concessions by the Attorney General on constitutional questions may frustrate

courts’ ability to arrive at informed constitutional conclusions.
Fourth, the principle of continuity – the Crown’s legal position, as advanced by the Attorney
General, must be coherent and consistent across changes in government.
While a new Attorney General may change a previous government’s litigation strategy, any
changes must be informed by her evaluation of what is in the public interest, and not in the
partisan interest.
Fifth, the principle of consistent application of the Charter – Charter rights should be
interpreted and applied coherently across the country. And yet, a finding of unconstitutionality
by a court in one province or territory has effect only in that province or territory.
A decision by the Attorney General not to appeal a finding of unconstitutionality to the Supreme
Court of Canada could therefore result in the inconsistent application of the Charter. The
Attorney General may therefore appeal a court’s ruling on a Charter question in order to ensure a
pan-Canadian determination of the law.
Sixth, the principle of access to justice – Litigation is expensive. Where an issue in dispute is
discrete and limited to the parties before the courts, access to justice may be served by reserving
scarce judicial resources for matters that are the subject of broader legal disputes. The Attorney
General in these cases should seek to settle Charter litigation if she shares the legal conclusion of
the claimant.
In other cases, where a judicial decision may have immediate or broader importance, access to
justice may favour the continuation of litigation so that the issue can be decisively resolved in a
public forum.
The interplay of these six principles will not always favour the same litigation positions. But I
hope that they illustrate why, even for the ambassador of the Charter, litigation positions invite
questions of deep constitutional strategy even in those instances when the Attorney General may
share the Charter conclusions of claimants.
Nation-to-Nation Reconciliation
I want to return now to the theme with which I began: reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples
and the unfinished work of this country – work not completed by Confederation or Patriation.
The Crown’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, pre-date both of our two great constitutional
moments. In that pre-Confederation period, while there were some instances of treaty-making,
and at times some other constructive patterns between peoples, there were also significant
wrongs and injustices.
A legacy was left of massive work that still had to be done in order for proper relations between
the original inhabitants of this land and settlers to live in harmony and bud a shared future of
mutual interdependence. This massive work was not achieved, and was further complicated, by
colonial attitudes and structures, disease and beliefs in the superiority and inferiority of different
groups of people. As such Confederation did not set us on a course of reconciliation. Quite the
contrary.
By contrast and in an effort to correct the past, Patriation was accompanied by a clear promise to
Indigenous peoples that moving forward, things would be different. It was a promise for the
recognition of rights and reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the Crown.
It is important to remember though, that section 35 was not without its own controversy. Many
Indigenous peoples were sceptical of what was intended and whether the Crown could be trusted
in this effort – in particular during the constitutional conferences that followed which were
intended to spell out the right of self-government. My father was involved in these talks with the
first Prime Minister Trudeau and I remember that from my grade six class. Even in 1982, I think
it is fair to say, that the broader public did not have a strong appreciation of the legacy of
colonialism that continued to exist in relation to Indigenous peoples – including residential
schools and the Indian Act. Something that I believe today has changed somewhat and is
supported by the release of report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
The original vision at Patriation, that the political conferences would chart the course for the
implementation of section 35, never truly moved forward. This meant Indigenous peoples had to
take to the courts to force the implementation of section 35. And the courts responded, through
hundreds of cases that have affirmed the importance, meaning, and strength of section 35 rights.
But what I have just described is also part the challenge that we must now rise to. Instead of
building relations based on recognition, the Crown has put Indigenous peoples to the test of
‘proving’ their rights through long and expensive litigation. Similarly, Canada often has adopted
approaches to negotiations that do not engage the common work of implementing and protecting
Indigenous rights, but rather is focussed on trying to limit them.
In my opinion, the promise of section 35 is not one that lends itself to the fulfilment through the
courts or through protracted conflict. Reconciliation and adversarialism do not align. The
promise of section 35 can be fulfilled only through proper and respectful nation-to-nation
relationships. It is a promise that can be fulfilled only through political leadership and by the
Crown and Indigenous peoples making the hard choices to move out of past patterns of relations
that do not work. We need to build the trust necessary to move from conflict to collaboration,
and chart a course to a new and transformative future that addresses inequalities and injustices
through recognition and reconciliation.
So, we all have hard work to do. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis nations must come prepared to
rebuild their nations and to assume the responsibilities that come from self-determination and
self-government. Some are ready, willing, and able today. Some will require more time.
In turn, Canada must do its part to support Indigenous nations in this rebuilding work. Canada
must confront the history of colonization and the denial of Indigenous peoples and their rights,
legacies of which we continue to be surrounded by today. Canada must review its laws and its
policies to ensure that they align with a recognition-of-rights approach.
After too long, I am pleased to say that Canada is now undertaking this work. Last month, the
Prime Minister struck a Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies related
to Indigenous Peoples. He appointed me Chair of this Working Group. Its mandate is nothing
short of transformative: it is to decolonize our federal laws and policies and to ensure that a
recognition-of-rights approach is reflected in all aspects of Canada’s relationship with
Indigenous peoples. No small task.
Yes, the task ahead will not be easy. Some aspects of our review will invite dissent. But every
aspect of our work will be guided by the promise of section 35 and the direction from the courts,
by Canada’s unqualified support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, and by our Government’s commitment to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission’s Calls to Action. We will revisit the recommendations of the Royal Commission
on Aboriginal Peoples.
In closing let me say this: in many respects the Charter and section 35 are closely aligned. Both
constitutionally affirm the recognition of rights and both require a shift from the judicial
leadership of the past 35 years to political leadership over the next 35 years and beyond. That
said, I think we have made more political progress with respect to implementing the Charter than
we have in implementing section 35.
Whether it is with respect to the Charter or section 35, political leadership requires, as a constant
reminder, the ringing words of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau during the Proclamation
Ceremony of April 17, 35 years ago when he said: “Let us celebrate the renewal and patriation
of our Constitution; but let us put our faith, first and foremost, in the people of Canada who will
breathe life into it.”
And as we begin to write the next chapter in our great country’s story there is much to be
optimistic about. That we will, indeed, continue to collectively breathe life into our Constitution,
and in so doing set the standard for the globe in terms of freedoms and rights and the protection
of equality for all.
Gilakas’la. Merci.
Investing in Canada’s Future: The Next 150 Years
Speech
To the Public Policy Forum Reconciliation and Inclusive Economic Growth Conference
Westin Ottawa - Ottawa, Ontario: February 15, 2017
Thank you for that kind introduction. Kim [Baird, Former Chief, Tsawwassen First Nation;
Member of the Board, Public Policy Forum; and Master of Ceremonies] and I have been friends
for many years.
First of all, gilakas’la; bonjour, tout le monde. It's my incredible honour to be here to speak to
this policy forum. I just want to acknowledge Elder Commanda and everyone that's here: chiefs,
leaders, matriarchs, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation. And I want to
acknowledge my new parliamentary secretary, Marco Mendicino, who is going to be working
with me very closely when it comes to Indigenous issues. Again, I’d like to thank the Public
Policy Forum for inviting me to speak here. And I would also like to acknowledge the traditional
territory of the Algonquin people, whose ancestral lands we are gathered on.
I'm pleased to be here this afternoon, and certainly it is a testament, given the numbers, to the
increasing recognition of the role that Indigenous peoples in Canada are playing, and will play,
that so many of our country's leading thinkers on issues of public administration and governance
are eager to come and discuss what reconciliation and inclusive growth can mean for First
Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples and all Canadians. I also want to thank the National Aboriginal
Economic Development Board and the National Aboriginal Capital Corporation for partnering
with our government on this important event. It is really good to see a lot of familiar faces here,
many from the west coast of British Columbia, old friends and colleagues.
So, many of you who have heard me speak before have heard me discuss the issues that I'm
going to touch on today in other venues, in particular when I was the Regional Chief of the BC
Assembly of First Nations and as well, on the council in my home community of We Wai Kai.
While I may be in a different role, my perspective on Indigenous nations and rebuilding has not
changed. As a country, we know we have much work ahead of us in moving forward to ensure
that Indigenous peoples can take their rightful place within Confederation. And there is no
question that Indigenous peoples are in a tremendous period of transformation, of transition,
rebuilding their nations.
Today's session, “Expanding the Circle,” is particularly meaningful. It speaks to how Indigenous
peoples have not been included, at the same time negatively impacted, in much of the evolution
of Canada. “Expanding the Circle” embodies the need for Canada's society and economy to
expand to provide opportunities for more Indigenous communities to become prosperous,
healthy, and culturally thriving. For far too long in Canada, colonial legislation, policies, and
attitudes have worked to hinder the economic potential of Indigenous nations. For far too long,
First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples have been excluded from the opportunities that most
Canadians take for granted. To me, today is an opportunity to talk about how our government's
commitment to a true nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples will enable that
expansion.
At the same time, through the work that we are doing – work that is imperative to the future
economy and society of Canada as a whole – we acknowledge the economic dimensions of
Aboriginal title and rights, and recognize the need to build a collaborative climate of
predictability and clarity. It is an opportunity for me to share with you some of my thoughts on
our collective journey, in particular, as we reflect on Canada 150. While I recognize that many
Indigenous peoples feel that there is little to celebrate with regard to the past 150 years of our
country's history, I truly believe that there is optimism and hope for the next 150 years. Let us
not forget that this year also marks the 35th anniversary of the adoption of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, both incredibly important
in charting the path for the next 150 years.
As a government, we recognize that the fundamental purpose of section 35 is reconciliation of

the prior occupation of Indigenous peoples with Crown sovereignty. And we are fully committed
to fulfilling the constitutional promise made to Indigenous peoples in 1982. And personally, I
would add that my cultural teachings and my previous work have always spoken about being
optimistic. And this optimism is not just tied to my current role and the constitutional provisions
just cited, but it is an optimism rooted in the resilience and work of Indigenous peoples who have
sought justice through reconciliation for generations. Accordingly, as we look back – but more
importantly look forward – this year marks an especially fitting occasion to envision the role that
Indigenous nations will have, and indeed must have, in Canada, where the outcome of true
reconciliation must be to ensure that Indigenous peoples are finally accorded the opportunity to
fully participate in the economic and social fabric of our country.
So, in keeping with the conference theme and focus, I will speak to how, in my view,
reconciliation will support economic growth for First Nations peoples. But before I do, I need to
say something about the commitments our government has made and the pace of change.
Rightfully so, a lot has been made of the commitments we have made to Indigenous peoples and
to resetting the relationship with Indigenous peoples in this country, a principled relationship
based on the “recognition of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership.”
So our government is now some 15 months into our mandate, and there are those who have
questioned the strength of our commitment to Indigenous issues. Let me say this: Our
commitment is as strong as ever. Our Prime Minister has made it very clear that we need an all-
of-government approach based on recognition of Indigenous peoples and their rights to address
the colonial legacy in a substantive and meaningful way that will be transformative. We have
been laying the internal groundwork to advance this shift, and we will be taking more publicly
visible and bold action. In December, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that he will be
establishing a new and important working group of ministers who will be tasked with reviewing
federal laws, policies, and operational practices related to Indigenous peoples and their rights. It
is anticipated that this working group will work with a broad range of partners and experts – and,
of course, with Indigenous peoples and communities – to assess and recommend what statutory
changes and new policies are needed to best meet our constitutional obligations and international
commitments to Indigenous peoples.
As some of you have heard me say before when speaking about reconciliation, we should
remember the words of the late Nelson Mandela, who, reflecting on his own country, stated that
– and I paraphrase – beyond the necessary healing and truth telling, reconciliation actually
requires laws to change and policies to be rewritten. By making these systemic shifts, we will be
setting ourselves on a new path and course which breaks from past patterns and secures a new
future for Indigenous peoples and all Canadians. As a starting point, there is a need to take a
principled approach to the review of laws and policies based on the recognition of Indigenous
peoples and their rights. To this end, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples provides a framework for our reconciliation efforts. And by implementing it, we can
create the space for real and practical shifts in the economic, social, and human well-being of
Indigenous peoples across Canada. The Declaration has been, and will continue to be,
instrumental in informing our work as we develop a Canadian framework for reconciliation
rooted in our unique constitutional and legal structures, which I view as the strongest way to
ensure the dignity of Indigenous peoples and thriving communities.
As I've said before, and as anticipated by Article 38 of the United Nations Declaration,
implementing the United Nations Declaration will require a set of new laws, policies,
institutions, structures, and patterns of relationships that fit together and acknowledge and
integrate Indigenous knowledge, perspectives, and legal traditions. Our government is committed
to undertaking this important work here in Canada, to ensure the necessary mechanisms are put
in place to actually do it. It will not be easy, and at times it will be contentious. This is because
deconstructing Canada's colonial past, the last 150 years, requires both the federal government
(and our provincial partners, where appropriate) and Indigenous peoples and their governments
to be self-reflective, ask some incredibly difficult questions, and, more importantly, come up
with solutions to the challenges that in the past have seemed to be too insurmountable to
overcome.
For example, given that this forum is speaking specifically to First Nations, let us consider for a
moment the interplay between the United Nations Declaration and the Indian Act. The UN
Declaration points us to how fundamental the work of nation rebuilding with Indigenous peoples
is as a critical part of recognition and reconciliation. Accordingly, this must be a central part of
our work. Two of the most important articles, in my view, of the Declaration are Articles 3 and
4. Article 3 states, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development.” Article 4 states “Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-
determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal
or local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.” In stark
contrast to the Declaration, the Indian Act imposes a system of band council government.
Obviously, on the face of it, to have a federal statute such as the Indian Act determining the
political status of a group of Indigenous peoples is contrary to Article 3 and 4 of the Declaration.
Another example of how the Indian Act is at odds with the Declaration would be Article 33,
which speaks to Indigenous peoples determining for themselves the membership of their nations.
Yet, in Canada, only those Indigenous nations which are recognized as self-governing truly
determine their citizenship. For persons that are constitutionally recognized as Indians, this
represents still only approximately 40 former Indian Act bands, including Tsawwassen, which
my good friend Kim Baird is a member of. So, for all other First Nations, everyone else who is
not self-governing, the Indian Act continues to impose a system of government and rules. The
challenge is for each of the nations to truly self-determine how they are going to govern
themselves, how they are going to organize, and who they are.
Fundamental problems of the Indian Act system from a recognition-of-rights perspective aside,
and speaking from a pragmatic one of supporting economic development and growing
Indigenous economies, it is very clear that governing Indians and lands reserved for the Indians
under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution, separate and apart from other Canadians under the
paternalistic Indian Act, has contributed to the lack of economic activity on reserves. Indeed, the
very limitations of Indian Act reserve-based government that hindered the ability of First Nations
to develop economies on reserve lands are now the same impediments to engaging with industry
and businesses off reserve within the broader traditional territories, and therefore impacting the
broader economy. The Indian Act is not an appropriate framework for governance for First
Nations people, nor for any people, for that matter.
With respect to on-reserve management and administration as part of the transition to self-
government, thankfully this is changing, but too slow and perhaps not evenly. Over the past 30
years – again, as many of you in this room who were involved in many of the First Nations-led
governance initiatives are fully aware – there have been a number of attempts to at least improve
some aspects of governance on reserve. And here I'm not just thinking about the more high-
profile modern treaties or self-government arrangements, but also sectoral governance initiatives
such as the First Nations Land Management Act or the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.
With respect to the FNLMA, in my previous life I had the honour to be elected to the Lands
Board, given that my home community has a land code. I am also very well aware of the Fiscal
Management Act and the importance of the initiatives to strengthen the ability of First Nations to
raise revenues, as well as to borrow monies on the bond market, and generally establish sound
financial administrative systems. The roles of the First Nations Finance Authority, the Financial
Management Board, and the First Nations Tax Commission are very critical. And, in my opinion,
there is a need to consider how we can support additional Indigenous institutions that support
nation rebuilding.
But here is the challenge, as I see it: While there are a number of very important First Nations-
led governance initiatives, their foundation in terms of core governance is still the Indian Act.
They are all initiatives that have the band as established under the Indian Act as an imposed
system of government at their core. Further, they really only address a small amount of reserve
lands that were historically set aside for Indians and do not deal with shared, collaborative, or
consensus-based decision making or multi-level governance beyond the reserve boundaries. To
be clear, what I am saying is not to in any way diminish the importance of these initiatives or the
advancements that have been made to develop strong and appropriate governance for the
communities that have set them up. On the contrary, what I am saying is that, if we are to get rid
of the Indian Act, we need to determine how First Nations transition away from band
government to something which is reflective of the proper title and rights holder, Indigenous
modes of governance, and legal traditions, which is truly an expression of self-determination,
whether those communities are part of a historic treaty or whether they have not entered into a
treaty.
Again, to be clear, the Government of Canada cannot do this. It is not appropriate, nor is it the
role of the Government of Canada, to determine, impose, or direct what these Indigenous modes
and systems of government should be. Only Indigenous peoples can determine their institutions
and shape their future. What I can say, however, is that the government can no longer be an
obstacle to nation rebuilding by imposing a system of government through instruments such as
the Indian Act. So, if we are to reset the relationship based on recognition, this is one of the
fundamental institutional challenges we face and will need to address in determining a path
forward.
While we may all now agree that we need to move away from the Indian Act towards self-
government – and I do not need to tell anyone in this room what a challenge that has become,
especially given that for some the Indian Act has become entrenched as a part of life – in finding
the path to self-determination that includes moving away from the Indian Act, the reality of our
post-colonial transition to date has been that, short of a court saying Indigenous peoples have the
right over land or the right to govern themselves, Indigenous peoples have had to negotiate self-
government with the Crown and then, community by community, vote to remove the
government's paternalistic role in their lives. This approach has been slow, marked with
adversarialism that often runs contrary to reconciliation, and is not nearly as effective, principled,
or collaborative as it could and should be. No other segment of Canadian society has had to
decolonize and then go through this process to establish basic structures of governance, to create
tools for economic and social development.
So, in terms of the review of laws and policies, it is my expectation that we will start with those
policies that speak to the fundamental principle of recognition and that reflect our unique legal
situation in Canada, section 35. Through recognition, we will create an environment where the
real work of nation building and rebuilding and reconciliation can advance in significant and
innovative ways. For example, this means looking at the comprehensive claims policy, a series
of policies and mandates dealing with land matters, as well as the inherent right of self-
government policy that deals with governance matters. We will also be looking at existing
legislation that applies to Indigenous peoples with an expectation that there will be significant
changes to some of that legislation, taking into consideration of course the need to continue to
support federal legislation that was jointly developed with Indigenous peoples.
Clearly, as we move forward, we should build on our success, on your success, and what we
have learned, both in terms of governance and of establishing effective mechanisms to support
economic development on reserve. We need to make more opportunities available to
communities that are ready, willing, and able to move forward. For there to be reconciliation,
and for the transition to be transformational and enduring, communities both individually and
collectively as peoples need to self-determine their governing structures and institutions and
completely embrace Articles 3 and 4 of the Declaration and what is meant by the inherent right
of self-government as protected under section 35.
As we move forward, in my opinion, we also need to give more consideration to how we support
Indigenous-controlled institutions that advance nation rebuilding so that it is Indigenous peoples
that govern these institutions with a vested interest in the outcome of the work they do and the
decisions they make. Nation rebuilding is the real work ahead of us, ahead of all of you: the
foundational work, based on recognition, where Indigenous nations are providing their own
proposals or solutions for how they seek to organize and be recognized and where the role of the
federal government is to support that work and move away from its current role of administering
Indian reserves for First Nations.
As we implement the Declaration, we need to look to the lands and resources that Indigenous
peoples have rights to and that can further support their economies and their ability to raise
money to provide programs and services to meet the needs of their citizens. We need to consider
what the courts have referred to as the inescapable economic component of Aboriginal title
in Delgamuukw, and how we can broaden the applicability of that concept to the ancestral lands
of our nations.
Meanwhile, as we look to develop new tools and mechanisms with respect to the relationship,
governance, access to lands and resources, and the new fiscal relationship, we also have to
ensure that the pressing and of course immediate health, social, and education needs are also
being addressed. It's somewhat of a Catch-22. As the relationships around governance, land, and
fiscal matters between the Crown and Indigenous peoples are dealt with, more opportunities will
be created. But without healthy or educated citizens in Indigenous communities, the ability to act
on those opportunities can and may be hindered. There are basic needs that must be met now:
clean water, safe housing. There are issues of suicide, children and families that must be
addressed. We do have parallel work to do. But moving forward, we need leadership, vision, and
goodwill. And, of course, we need trust, which is perhaps the hardest to come by, given the
colonial legacy. But because I know that there have been successes, and I know that there are
good people like my colleague and friend, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs,
Carolyn Bennett, that are truly committed to reconciliation, I have the confidence that we can
finally meet the great challenge of our generation that has for so long remained quite elusive for
so many.
Change is truly occurring, but of course we are not going to solve all of the challenges facing
Indigenous communities overnight. For some First Nations, the transition will happen relatively
quickly if the mechanisms for the transition are put in place, as we have seen in communities that
have already begun to rebuild their governing institutions, and in some cases where a new
generation of First Nations people has never known life under the Indian Act. For some
communities, however, it will take a little more time than others to rebuild, and before there is
comparability in social indicators and outcomes. In some cases there are challenges of
remoteness and geography; in others, there is the question of size and the need for aggregation
and cooperation, where there is a need to look beyond the nation, and for nations to work
together.
What we can do as a government – based on an approach founded on recognition and regardless

of the nation's current situation – is to set our country on a path that cannot be reversed, and
where the systemic limitations to change that is reflected in laws and policies are removed. This
is a new vision for our country. And while we may not have all of the answers as to what an
approach based on recognition will mean in all cases, nor is it likely that every step we take in
this transformational time will be perfect, what is certain is that the vision of reconciliation based
on recognition will change our country, and for the better. It will create the space where
colonialism and paternalism give way to recognition, responsibility, and opportunity, and where,
working together, we can develop solutions and build a future jointly.
So, to conclude, Canada's economy and First Nations and our collective future are intertwined. It
is essential we undertake this work of reconciliation that will enable us to build a future together.
In expanding the circle, clearly, if we want to unlock our collective social, cultural, and
economic potential, it is needed. Personally, as a proud Kwakwaka'wakw woman and an
incredibly proud Canadian, I am optimistic. But, at the same time, I know the challenge that is
ahead of us. I firmly believe that the recognition of Indigenous rights and economic growth are
not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, I believe that reconciliation founded on recognition is
the sure path to economic growth, not just for First Nations, but for all Canadians. Evidence
clearly shows that, where governance reform has been successful, economic opportunity has
followed. And as I have stated before, unlocking the economic potential and business success of
First Nations is not the end itself, but rather the means to an end, the end being healthier and
more prosperous First Nations communities with our peoples enjoying a better quality of life,
with practising and thriving cultures. As we reflect on 150 years of Confederation, and as we
look forward to the next 150 years, we must never lose sight of this objective. And I look
forward incredibly to doing this work together. Gilakas’la. Thank you very much.
2016 Aboriginal Law Conference – Continuing Legal Education
Society of British Columbia
Speech
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, QC, PC, MP

Pan Pacific Hotel

Vancouver, BC, November 25, 2016
Gilakas’la. Good afternoon. Bonjour, tout le monde. You got me all teared up, Leah. Thank you
for that kind introduction.
And I'm very pleased to be here this afternoon and certainly want to acknowledge the
traditional territory of the Coast Salish people, the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh,
on whose ancestral lands we are gathered.
So the last time I had the pleasure to speak to CLESBC, the Aboriginal Law Conference was
during the summer of 2010. And at the time, I was the Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of
First Nations, and when I look around the room, there are many people here that were there. And
the title of my presentation in 2010 was “Implementing Reconciliation from Law to Reality.”
And the words I spoke then are as entirely relevant now as they were at that time.
This afternoon, I will reflect on some of what I said in 2010 as I talk about nation rebuilding and
the opportunities ahead as our government embarks on a renewed nation-to-nation relationship
with Indigenous peoples. And some of my comments are contextualized in the context of British
Columbia, given that I'm back here at home.
We have been in government, as Leah said, for just over a year now, and over the course of that
year, it has often been repeated that no relationship is more important to our Prime Minister and
our government than the one relationship with Indigenous peoples, to the point where I think
there's very few people in this country that aren't aware of this. Certainly, everybody in this room
is aware of that, I suspect.
To facilitate the relationship, each of the Ministers is mandated with fostering reconciliation –
that is, prioritizing the need for a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples
based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. Powerful words. And not
surprisingly, expectations are high and so they should be.
And with such high expectations, it is also not surprising that there are some that are now
questioning our government's commitment because progress has not been seen as occurring
perhaps quite fast enough. But change takes time. Rome was not built in a day, and neither is
rebuilding Indigenous nations. I can assure you that the commitment of our government and my
commitment has not wavered and remains strong. And as I have said elsewhere, the legacy of
this government will, in a very large measure, be determined by the ongoing relationship
between the Crown and Indigenous peoples.
So there should be no misunderstanding. Change is coming. This is real, this is not a dress
rehearsal. When our government says we are approaching the relationship based on recognition,
we mean it. And this requires new way of doing business, both for government and for
Indigenous peoples. As such, we are very much in a period of transition.
And the transition is not easy. It is messy, it is not simple to break free from dysfunctional
colonial systems epitomized by the Indian Act to a true nation-to-nation relationship, one based
on recognition of First Peoples and not one centred around federally-imposed band
administration and power. In this transition, we all have a role to play and we all have
responsibilities.
In my remarks in 2010, speaking then as Regional Chief, I suggested that for many of our
people, Indigenous peoples who live on reserve, important legal instruments such as the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Section 35 of the Canadian
Constitution and the reams of Aboriginal title and rights cases flowing from it mean very little to
Indigenous people who are struggling to make ends meet. As they try to make do with the
backward political chaos of Indian Act government and/or the confusion and contradictory
relationships Indigenous peoples still have within Canada as both colonial authority and a
partner.
I talked about how in some ways, it was easier in the past to divorce the actual reality of
our Indian Act community lives from the fight for legal recognition of rights and title, where our
leaders would go to Ottawa, Victoria or Vancouver, championing Section 35 and fighting
vociferously for self-government, knowing that the rank and file in our communities, if asked,
would vote against self-government, the majority of them afraid of life beyond the Indian Act,
coupled with the insidious dependency on the federal government.
In this context, I questioned then what would happen if we, as Indigenous peoples, got
everything we were asking for, including the right to self-government. At the time, I observed
there still had not been a declaration of title. Today, of course, we now do in Chilcotin. I asked
would we – again remembering speaking as a First Nations representative – be prepared to
govern the day after a declaration was granted. A challenging but most welcome reality for the
Chilcotin, who are dealing with this at this moment.
And today, there is a new reality for all. It is not only a changed legal landscape, but also a
political one. And as hard as it might be for some to believe recognition is actually coming, let
me assure you it is. And with all the questions that this raises and hard work ahead to
operationalize it. And while we cannot know exactly how it will all unfold, and certainly we do
not have all the answers at the outset, the nation-to-nation relationship will, I know,
fundamentally transform our country. It will change Canada for the better, moving into a post-
colonial world.
It will be transformative. It is how we breathe life into Section 35 and actually implement
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Interestingly, a lot of
commentary has been made about my statements earlier this year at the Assembly of First
Nations in Niagara Falls, where I said that "simplistic approaches such as adopting the United
Nations Declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political
distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in
communities."
Let me offer a few reflections on my statement. First, and to be very clear, and contrary to what
might have been posted in social media or misreported in the media, our government has
endorsed the United Nations Declaration unequivocally. What I was saying, though, is that you
cannot simply incorporate the UNDRIP word for word into federal statute. Unfortunately, this
has become politicized. The critical work of reconciliation, of which implementing the United
Nations Declaration is a central part, must be above the daily push-and-pull of political choices,
discourse and expediency.
True reconciliation has to be above politics, or rather, it has to be about a different order of
politics, an order of politics that is dignified and that commits us all – Indigenous and non-
Indigenous Canadians alike – to chart a future together, to be reconciled together, to make
Canada whole together. This is because reconciliation demands so much of all of us – the Crown,
Indigenous governments and civil society.
Reconciliation requires putting colonialism into the past, including beyond the Indian Act. It
demands rebuilding Indigenous government and communities and in closing the socio-cultural
gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. It involves recognizing the Indigenous
relationship with the land, respecting treaties, Aboriginal title and rights and building new
structures and making decisions in new ways. It is the politics of nation building.
In other words, reconciliation involves fundamental changes in the ways of talking, acting and
relating that we all have to be a part of – Indigenous and non-Indigenous – for many generations,
and transforming laws, policies, structures and processes that we have taken for granted for too
long. We must all be nation builders. There is no single piece of legislation that can accomplish
this.
While new and changed legislation will be required and will take place, we need that and far
more. Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will
require an interlocking set of new laws, policies, institutions, structures and patterns of relations.
We must pursue those changes comprehensively. We cannot afford to invest our focus, time and
energy on one initiative or approach which only meets a small part of the challenge, or gives a
false sense of comfort that, really, change has occurred.
For too long, small steps and initiatives on the path of reconciliation have been misrepresented as
major shifts. Now is the time, working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples, to deliberately
and systematically design and implement the major changes that are needed to be transformative.
Recognition and building the nation-to-nation relationship will do this.
Lastly, it is important that we always keep in mind the relationship between the United Nations
Declaration and Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Section 35, when it was adopted, was
intended to complete the critical unfinished promise of achieving reconciliation between
Indigenous peoples and the Crown. For that reason, political conferences and work was to be
done following the adoption of Section 35 to achieve that goal. That work did not unfold as
intended.
As a result, Indigenous peoples had to continue the long, expensive and arduous path of using the
courts to define how Section 35 will achieve reconciliation. That work of defining the path of
reconciliation through Section 35 is ongoing. The United Nations Declaration now accelerates
and provides a framework for this work, by working together at the political and community
levels to implement it.
We are fulfilling the intention and the promise of Section 35, while ensuring we are upholding
the minimum standards in the declaration and the fundamental human rights of Indigenous
peoples. Central to the work of reconciliation is moving from conflict to collaboration and
considering how we can structure our legal processes to better serve this ultimate goal. This
requires grappling with how we play our roles as lawyers when and how we choose to use the
courts, and what we do and say when we get there.
As lawyers, we need to consider this question from the perspective of what are the objectives of
our clients and interpreting the instructions from them, and providing advice. Recognition of
rights has never been the end objective in itself for Indigenous peoples, I would submit. The end
objective has always been to ultimately improve the lives of Indigenous peoples, translating
rights into actual practical benefits, ensuring that they are operationalized on the ground in
communities.
Fifty years ago, when there was limited or no recognition of Aboriginal title and rights, the
advice of lawyers working for Indigenous clients was simple: make a claim for the land,
resources and governance based on the fact that no treaty had been entered into and that nation's
land had not been ceded to the Crown. Central to the work of reconciliation is moving from
conflict to collaboration, and considering how we can structure our legal processes to better
serve this ultimate goal.
This requires grappling with how we play our role as lawyers, when and how we choose to go to
court, and what we do and say when we get there, as I said before. As lawyers, of course, we
have responsibilities to faithfully and diligently serve our clients, but when working in
Aboriginal law the Crown context, this service can be rendered in different ways that advance or
hinder the work of reconciliation, both in that specific set of relationships and more broadly in
society as a whole. For far too long, the federal government has taken positions in court that have
not been aligned with reconciliation.
These positions at various times and in various ways have been rooted in notions that Indigenous
peoples were uncivilized, disorganized, without laws and governments, and in some instances,
did not even exist as distinct peoples. In a word, it was all about denial. One thing we are now
doing in my department is to begin applying the lens of reconciliation to all positions we take,
and that the choices we make on the road to and within litigation.
This is why we are beginning to find ways to recognize Indigenous peoples and Aboriginal and
treaty rights, including title, create new space for solutions to be found in how we interpret the
law, present the facts or frame the issues, and in some instances, seek to move matters altogether.
And this is not easy. It takes time and much more needs to be done. But the work has begun and
some significant changes have already been seen.
The Aboriginal Bar also has an important role to play in moving reconciliation forward. As more
space emerges to find constructive solutions and ways forward that may move us out of the
courts, the Aboriginal Bar has to creatively take advantage and use that space. Similarly, just as
we are seeking to do in my department, in situations where we do end up in court, members of
the Aboriginal Bar may also consider how to frame the issues and positions in disputes in ways
that focus all of us and the court on the core issues in the dispute and make the proceedings more
effective for everyone involved.
Beyond this, we all need to grapple more with the question of how. For example, we can all
agree that recognition is fundamental to reconciliation. What we need to spend more time
considering is how recognition is translated and implemented into tangible and real ways on the
ground between governments, in communities and across Canada.
For those of you in the Aboriginal Bar, what does recognition look like in the relationship
between the Crown and the nations you represent? What does it mean for how decisions are
made? For the structures we have, for the ways in which the nations' government and the federal
government are structured, operating and interacting, for the economic relationship of the nation
and all Canadians to resources of territory. And are you in fact representing a nation as
contemplated in the nation-to-nation relationship that is the proper title and rights holder?
It's important to always advance principled legal positions. We now need to be ready to articulate
in real ways what the application of those principles will look like so we can work together to
move from extract frameworks for reconciliation to real action. This is a responsibility we all
share as lawyers working in this context. And it is in this regard and now speaking certainly as
the Minister of Justice, that I see my central role. And not just ensuring that the Crown's
positions in court are principled, but that our country's laws and policies actually change based
on recognition to support the real action of reconciliation.
And there are numerous laws and policies that need to change and new ones to be developed.
Legal and political reconciliation in furtherance of the nation-to-nation relationship is a national
project that requires significant coordination and commitment at the highest level of government.
For all of us at the highest level, the United Nations Declaration provides the framework for
reconciliation, setting minimum standards and is instructive on how we develop our own made-
in-Canada framework for reconciliation, reflecting our history and our unique legal and
constitutional framework.
Above all else, this framework for reconciliation must be grounded in a commitment to
principles. Those principles should not only be grounded in the law, but should also demonstrate
a commitment to go beyond existing legal obligations and to strengthen the nation-to-nation
relationship. Transformative change must comply with the Crown's constitutional obligations but
it must go beyond them.
Transformative change requires the government to demonstrate leadership under Section 35 so

that the Crown, and not only the courts, are seen to be leaders in realizing reconciliation. For
example, a strong commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship between the
government and Indigenous peoples requires a principled approach based on the recognition and
implementation of the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples. It should be acknowledged that, it
should also acknowledge the centrality of the honour of the Crown in all processes.
It should understand treaties and agreements and other constructive arrangements between the
Crown and Indigenous peoples are acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and
respect, and that mechanisms for reconciliation must be developed in partnership with
Indigenous peoples. These are all key principles that need to guide Crown action.
With respect to specific mechanisms to be developed to facilitate the renewed nation-to-nation

relationship, there are currently no simple mechanisms for recognition in Canada that support the
transition away from the colonial-imposed systems of administration – for example, the Indian
Act – when a nation is ready, willing and able to be self-governing.
The reconciliation processes that do exist and that may eventually lead to political or legal
recognition – for example, the modern treaty-making process – are contingent in that they
require an agreement with the Crown for recognition, which one must assume has driven some
groups to court. By some accounts, at the current pace, using existing mechanisms for political
and legal recognition to support nation rebuilding – including reconciling Crown and Aboriginal
title – it would take generations for all nations to move through what I like to call the post-
colonial door.
This is obviously not acceptable and clearly demands a need for a more concerted effort by
government with new legislative tools and other mechanisms to support transition to support
nation rebuilding. This is something our government is committed to developing in partnership
with Indigenous peoples. And I cannot stress this enough. As we proceed, based on recognition,
it is absolutely imperative that Indigenous groups propose solutions as to how to manage the
transition from the imposed systems of government and administration.
As a government, we are not going to impose solutions. And while I'm aware of solutions that
are already working, but where mandates need to change and processes tweaked, I am aware of
others that have been proposed over the years, but never acted upon, such as recognition
legislation or the establishment of specialized dispute resolution bodies.
I know that there are other solutions and ideas out there. For example, I know some Indigenous
groups are looking to work together to advance the development of new Indigenous institutions
that respect but transcend the Indigenous nation. For me personally, the work of developing
strong and appropriate Indigenous governance is the work of nation rebuilding that really excites
me. Because as an Indigenous person, I know it is essential to ensuring thriving and practising
Indigenous cultures reflective of our Indigenous legal traditions.
Indeed, Indigenous laws and legal orders are central to the work of reconciliation and creating
new nation-to-nation relationships. Both Section 35 of the Constitution and the United Nations
Declaration speak to this. And many of the truth and reconciliation calls to action touch on the
need to understand and engage Indigenous laws. Canada has always been a country with
dimensions of legal pluralism – the coming together of different legal orders that learn to co-
exist and operate together within our constitutional framework.
This was true at the founding of the country almost 150 years ago in relation to our common law
and civil law heritage. Expressing dimensions of legal pluralism is a challenge we must now
meet in relation to Indigenous laws, as well. Indigenous governments, the Crown, law schools
and the bar all have roles and responsibilities to play in relation to how Indigenous legal orders
come to be further understood and expressed in Canada.
Indigenous nations across the country are at various stages and in different processes of
rebuilding their governments. This is essential work they must do as part of ushering in an era of
new relationships where self-government and recognition and exercise of Indigenous jurisdiction
will steadily increase. Nations must tackle the hard work of increasing their governance capacity.
This includes reinvigorating and expressing in diverse and new ways the laws and legal orders
that Indigenous peoples have relied on for countless generations.
They must also undertake the work of expressing their laws and their application in a
contemporary world. The Crown has the opportunity to seek out and create the appropriate space
for the operation and application of Indigenous laws and legal orders through changes in our own
existing laws and creating new models of relations. This requires moving beyond the practice of
denying the operation of Indigenous laws and starting the work of creating a pattern of legal
pluralism that recognizes them and includes their role.
Law schools and the bar have vital roles to play as well. We need to systematically build
understanding about Indigenous laws, how they operate, how they fit into the constitutional
fabric of Canada and how their application is part of the work of reconciliation. Law schools
should continue to rise to the challenge of training new lawyers equipped with the knowledge of
these matters and the roles they play as lawyers in ensuring they are respected. In my position, I
have been privileged to seeing this happening across the country.
Similarly, the bar as a whole has to build opportunities for gaining deep understanding of
Indigenous laws in relation and relevant in various ways to all areas of contemporary legal
practices. And note that, in the new open and transparent process our government has adopted
for judicial appointments, to ensure greater diversity on the bench, we will strongly consider
candidates with knowledge of Indigenous legal traditions.
In practice, when considering the way Indigenous laws and legal orders contribute to legal
pluralism in Canada, there are many areas of the law to consider as there are many different legal
traditions reflecting the diversity of Indigenous peoples within Canada. There are unique
Indigenous systems of land tenure and land holding with different rules of how property is
passed on and rules of descent. Nations have different traditions when it comes to how decisions
are made within governing bodies, often with special rules for certain groups. For example, the
rule of the matriarchs and hereditary chiefs.
In the area of family law, there may be special rules with respect to the raising and
responsibilities for children that extend beyond biological parents. In some cases, Indigenous
legal traditions are something that all Canadians can learn and benefit from, and that can have
wider application than simply to the specific Indigenous peoples whose legal order it is – for
example, with respect to how disputes are resolved.
A case in point is in the area of sentencing. Measures such as restorative justice and sentencing
circles are already providing off-ramps to the criminal justice system in Canada and leading to
lower incarceration rates and recidivism rates for non-violent offenses. This is, in fact,
Restorative Justice Week, and I would like to acknowledge that British Columbia has been a
leader in bringing restorative justice measures forward.
Indigenous legal traditions will, I am sure, increasingly have a positive impact on our country as
the process of reconciliation unfolds. So, too, will the influence of Indigenous governance more
broadly. For example, with respect to and use planning and natural resource development,
historically – and I've said this before – political power in Canada, whether federal or provincial,
has been weighted to the south where most of us live and therefore, vote. Local communities
with their limited governance role in rural Canada have typically had less influence over
significant public policy decisions that affect them and generally keep little of the wealth
generated from resource development despite being impacted by it the most.
However, this is changing with the re-emergence of Indigenous government. People who are
attached to, live on and survive off the land they live on have their own perspectives on land
management and resource exploitation than can often differ from those that do not, or are just
passing through or are passive investors. This developing political reality is already beginning to
change the way land use planning and decision-making is being conducted across Canada and
particularly here in B.C., including how governments must ensure sustainability as well as a
share in revenue.
So in closing, let me say this. Today, we truly have an opportunity to develop a nation-to-nation
relationship that will ensure Indigenous peoples take their rightful place within Confederation in
our evolving system of multi-level governance and cooperative federalism. And as part of this
Indigenous nation rebuilding, Indigenous laws and legal orders are going to play an increasingly
important role in our country's legal mosaic.
As someone who was raised in the laws of our big house and now being where I am today, I can
appreciate both the importance of ensuring Indigenous legal orders, including those of my
people, the Kwakwaka’wakw, and ensuring legal pluralism. Through reconciliation and the
promotion of legal pluralism, I am incredibly excited about the prospects of how our institutions
of governance in Canada will become the stronger for it.
In my opinion, the nation-to-nation relationship and the resurgence of Indigenous governance,

based on Indigenous legal orders, will, over the next generation, change for the better the way
Canada is governed, not only in transforming Indigenous nations, but our country as a whole.
And as Indigenous people take back control of their lives, the federation is strengthened. We are
helping to ensure that we have a Canada that I think all Canadians aspire to live in – a country
based on shared values and principles that we have spent years as a nation fostering, creating a
fair, caring and compassionate society that confirms our place on this planet as a favoured nation
and one of the best countries in the world in which to live.
It is in this special place of what must remain Canada that Indigenous nations and the future of
our diverse cultures and languages will be safeguarded and, indeed, our many ways to be
Canadian, our diversity.

2016 ANU Annual Reconciliation Lecture - "Reconciliation: Moving
through the Post-Colonial Door"
Speech
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, QC, PC, MP

Molonglo Theatre, JG Crawford Building

Australian National University
Canberra, Australia: November 9, 2016
Time: 5:30 p.m. local time
Thank you so much for that very generous introduction, and gilakas’la to everyone here. Thank
you so much for inviting me to present the Reconciliation Lecture. And I am very appreciative of
the kind introduction, and certainly, Chancellor, I was very pleased to be able to meet with you
when you came to Ottawa a couple of months ago, and we had the opportunity to chat a bit about
ANU and the lecture.
And I wanted to acknowledge all of the dignitaries in the room, all of the students, all of the
Indigenous peoples and thank you for coming today. And I am very pleased to bring greetings on
behalf of the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau to all of you and a pleasure to be here as Minister
of Justice.
I was very happy to have Auntie Agnes here as well. We certainly welcome individuals to our
territories and have the utmost respect for elders. So thank you to Auntie Agnes Shea for
welcoming us to the territories of the Ngunnawal people.
I would also like to acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as the
first peoples of Australia and in particular the traditional custodians of the land that we’re
meeting on today that Auntie Agnes spoke about.
And as I’ve known and grown to know, the custom here is to acknowledge the elders, past and
present and into the future, and we, too, place great value on the wisdom of our elders.
So both here in Australia and Canada, we are pursuing a path of reconciliation, and it is that path
of reconciliation that it’s so important for us to know who we are and where we come from, and
it’s the elders’ wisdom that guides us in that regard.
So as has been stated, our countries have much in common. Both former British colonies, we are
the product of colonialism with all of the resulting losses and harms to Indigenous lands, legal
and governing systems, languages, cultures and even lives. Our countries are both still coming to
terms with our colonial pasts and rooting out colonial attitudes that undermine the modern
relationships between the descendants of first peoples and the newcomers. It takes courage and
hard work, but our post-colonial countries are stronger and more successful for embracing
reconciliation.
Our Prime Minister has said publicly that “there is no relationship more important to me and to
Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.” He has tasked all of his ministers to work
towards rebuilding a nation-to-nation relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect,
cooperation and partnership.
In Canada, there is a sometimes little understood transformation occurring as Indigenous nations

rebuild and move through what I like to call the post-colonial door, reestablishing their
institutions of good governance and taking their rightful place within our Confederation.
So this evening, I would like to provide some historical, legal and political context and maybe a
little bit of personal context to this transformation and speak about what our government is doing
in support of the important work of reconciliation and nation rebuilding – critical not only to the
future of Indigenous peoples, but the future of our great country.
However, first, as is my culture, I would like to introduce myself properly and say something
about my own journey that brought me here today. My traditional name is Puglaas. My nation is
Kwakwaka'wakw, the Kwak'wala-speaking peoples of northern Vancouver Island. And within
my nation, I come from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk and Laich-kwil-tach tribes. I am from the
Eagle Clan.
I come from a matrilineal society. We have hereditary chiefs. And being matrilineal means that
descent is traced through the mother and our maternal ancestors. Power and inheritance flows
through the mother’s line. Hereditary chiefs, always men, are identified from the time that they
are born, and they’re groomed for leadership. My father – the hereditary chief of our clan – his
name is Hemas Kla-Lee-Lee-Kla. His name means Number One Amongst the Eagles, the Chief
that is always there to help.
He was given his name in a potlatch, which is our traditional form of governance. We still
practise our potlatch. It is where our names are passed down or given from generation to
generation. It is where our laws are made, disputes settled, people are married, where possessions
are redistributed, and so forth. Our potlatch, or in our potlatch, the highest-ranking male leaders
are called Hamatsa, or Chiefs.
With rank reflected in positions and names comes considerable responsibility and obligation. My
grandmother’s name was Pugladee, the highest ranking name in our clan. Her name means A
Good House, a name that she gave to my older sister Kory the same time that I was given my
name. My name, Puglaas, means A Woman Born to Noble People. The names were given to us
in a naming potlatch in a small community called Gilford Island when I was five years old and
my sister six.
Although our chiefs are always men, it is always a woman, a Hiligaxste, who grooms them for
leadership, leads them into the Big House and symbolically readies the chief to lead. Hiligaxste
means One Who Corrects the Chiefs’ Path, a metaphor for life, and in the potlatch symbolized in
our rituals where symbolically the power of the Hamatsa is tamed.
I am Hiligaxste myself, and in many ways, this role has carried into all aspects of my life,
including the role I currently serve in. My grandmother certainly raised me to know who I am, to
know where I come from and to recognize the rights and responsibilities that our people have in
Canada. Both my grandmother and father advocated for and pursued Indigenous rights for full
inclusion of our peoples in Canada. You might call them activists, and it was in this context that I
was raised.
My upbringing, my education, my professional and personal experiences have all shaped my

world view and strengthened my determination to achieve reconciliation between all nations in
Canada.
For many years, I and many other leaders have worked for change – or to change the laws and
policies of Canada’s federal government, including the Indian Act, which dates back to 1876.
I’ve always regarded the Indian Act as an enormous impediment on the road to reconciliation,
the antithesis of self-government as an expression of self-determination.
It was a point of view that I advocated for as Regional Chief representing British Columbia at the
Assembly of First Nations, an organization in our country representing more than 630 First
Nations communities, nearly one million people across Canada.
Given my past experience, you might wonder or ask why I would decide to run to be a Member
of Parliament for Canada. And to be honest, taking the leap into federal politics was not an easy
one for me, nor was the decision taken lightly. I cannot claim to have wanted or had a
longstanding desire to be a Member of Parliament, let alone a Minister of the Crown. However,
during my time as Regional Chief for British Columbia, I came to a greater appreciation that
Indigenous peoples could not get the work done without willing federal and provincial partners. I
also realized that new approaches to reconciliation were required.
And then about this time, I met a guy named Justin Trudeau. I met him for the first time about
three and a half years ago when he came up to see me in the Yukon. We were in the Yukon for
an annual general assembly for the Assembly of First Nations, and he attended one of our
working sessions, a working session that I happened to be chairing and where we were dealing
with questions of nation rebuilding and of reconciliation.
Afterwards, we sat down and chatted. We talked about the future of Canada, about making
Canada even better, and in particular, we talked about his convictions with respect to Indigenous
peoples. We talked about what we shared in common, including talking about walking in the
footsteps of our political fathers, who actually knew each other. His father, of course, more well-
known than mine. But our then soon-to-be Prime Minister eventually asked me if I would
consider running as part of his team in the 2015 federal election.
I did not agree right away, if you can imagine, but eventually came to see my candidacy as a
chance to be part of a government whose leader has made a solemn commitment to fundamental
change with a vision for true reconciliation with Indigenous peoples as a function of an inclusive,
just and respectful society.
And now having been appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, essentially
the steward of the Canadian justice system, I am responsible for the very laws and policies that
so many of us had worked so hard to change.
Even though it’s just been a year and about four or five days since the appointment, I still
sometimes have to sit back and reflect, and it still takes a moment to sink in. And I see my
appointment – and thank you for your comment, Terry, on my appointment – but I see my
appointment not so much as a personal accomplishment, but rather as a symbol of what the
appointment represents and how far we’ve come as a country.
Not so long ago, an Indigenous woman like me would not have been allowed to vote, let alone
run for office or practise as a lawyer. Today, an Indigenous woman is the chief law officer of the
Crown, and I hope – (applause). Thank you, and I hope and take on this tremendous
responsibility with absolute vigour.
That symbolism became even more potent when you consider the history of Indigenous peoples
in Canada, and we have commonalities in terms of our history between our two countries. And
understanding that history is essential to determining the work that is needed today, which I now
want to turn to.
So when the fathers of Canadian Confederation came together in 1867 to lay the foundation for
Canada, Indigenous peoples were not present. They were left out. This, despite the early treaty-
making and the many political and military alliances made with Indigenous peoples, including
those under the auspices of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
During the time of the Proclamation, the colonial authorities recognized the power of various
nations or tribes of Indians and the need to make treaties. The fact that Indigenous peoples were
left out of Confederation in 1867 as partners has had far-reaching implications for Canada in the
tumultuous intervening years. And in many ways, what we’re doing today is correcting that
mistake.
Before Confederation, some of the tribes in eastern Canada indicated their assent to treaty by
presenting wampum to officials of the Crown. The wampum belt – shells on leather, reflecting
an understanding that neither group will force their laws, traditions, customs or language on the
other, but will co-exist peacefully through mutual recognition. The laws of the tribe in their
canoe in the river, symbolized by one row of purple shells, and those of the newcomers in their
boat, also symbolized by a row of purple shells. While the two rivers exist side by side, they will
never cross.
Unfortunately, after Confederation, Crown policy became one of assimilation, not partnership.
While historical treaty-making did continue up to the 1930s, for the governments of the day, the
treaties were seen as little more than land surrenders. The legislative tool used to propagate the
policy of assimilation – and regardless of whether or not the tribe had a treaty – was the Indian
Act, a law that applied to all Indians who, under Canada’s Constitution, are the legal
responsibility of the federal government. Rather than being citizens or members of a nation or
tribes of Indians recognized in the treaty relationship as symbolized by the wampum belt, under
the Indian Act, legally-defined Indians were moved onto reserves, made wards of the state with
the government being their trustee.
The Indian Act system of administration partitioned the pre-contact Indigenous nations, the 60-
plus nations – or peoples, as the term is used and understood in the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – into 630-plus administrative Indian Act bands living in
some 1,000-plus reserve communities.
Indian Act Indians were considered legally incompetent until such time as they enfranchised,
becoming full citizens of Canada, at which point they were no longer recognized as Indigenous
and consequently lost their political voice within their nation, lost access to or ownership of any
lands they shared an interest – or shared an interest in on reserves, and so on.
Similarly to Australia, the Indian Act also created residential schools whose sole purpose was to
take the Indian out of the child. Those schools told children every day that their culture – the
culture of their ancestors – was inferior. Children were forbidden from speaking their languages
and following their cultural practices. Worse, many of them suffered unimaginable abuse in the
schools. Some children never came home.
The traumatizing effects of these events have echoed through Indigenous communities over the
years. Women and girls in particular were left vulnerable through cycles of violence and abuse
that carried through generations.
Ironically, even though the policy objective of the Indian Act was to assimilate Indigenous
peoples, it also discouraged them from participating in Canadian society. I believe it is not an
over-exaggeration to say that it is one of the most insidious tools ever used to subjugate peoples.
Thankfully, our world has changed and continues to change. The signs of change point toward a
recognition that Indigenous peoples are distinct groups within their respective countries with
special rights that need to be protected and acted upon. In the modern era, the approach that
Canada chose was to expressly recognize and affirm Indigenous peoples and their Aboriginal
and treaty rights when our Constitution was repatriated from the United Kingdom in 1982.
In Canada, our modern legal system is underpinned by the recognition of fundamental human
rights. The Constitution Act of 1982 includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as
specific provisions dealing with Aboriginal rights. In many ways, and I’ve said this many times,
my role as Minister of Justice can be seen as somewhat of an ambassador for the Charter, and to
ensure all laws and policies of the state uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today, Aboriginal rights are an important part of our legal framework and shape how the Crown
and Indigenous peoples manage their relationship moving forward. Including these rights in our
Constitution amounted to a promise to Indigenous peoples that their presence in Canada and their
rights would no longer be denied, that assimilation and marginalization were colonial relics of
the past, and that Canadians were ready to work together with them to build a better Canada.
Meeting this promise has not come easily, and change did not and has not happened overnight,
and there’s still much work to be done.
Interestingly, Aboriginal rights were not originally going to be included in the Constitution.
However, in the face of considerable legal and political pressure, they eventually were. In fact, at
the time of repatriation, some legal advisers to the provinces played down the significance of
Section 35, advising their clients that any continuing Aboriginal rights were limited and that they
did not need to worry about the implications of the constitutional provisions. For these folks,
Section 35 was a so-called empty box that could only be populated at the will of the Crown. In
other words, there really were no inherent rights, including the right of self-government, the
constitutional division of powers having been fully exhausted as between the federal government
and the provincial governments.
At the time of repatriation, some Indigenous leaders were not comfortable with Section 35,
fearing the domestication of rights or that perhaps the empty-boxers were right. However, the
vast majority of Indigenous leaders in our country supported Section 35, and for those that had
fought so vigorously for it and for the Charter amendments – including my father – it was, of
course, anything but an empty box.
One of the provisions of the new Constitution called for a series of constitutional conferences in
the early 1980s to set out the scope and the extent of the rights recognized in Section 35, and in
particular, the right of self-government. During the constitutional conferences that ensued, the
disconnect between the Indigenous views and the government’s views was palpable at the
negotiating table.
I remember in 1983, as a young girl, watching the conference at school; I was in Grade 6. And
my father and our current Prime Minister’s father – then-Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau –
I watched them go toe to toe. When the negotiations were going nowhere, my father, in his
imitable way, told Trudeau senior that “there needs to be some good faith about it and that the
exercise now is not about frank and open discussion or understanding an appreciation of the
other people’s concerns on the basis of respect and dignity. It has now become all of a sudden a
question of power and who exercises it.”
René Lévesque, then Premier of Quebec, summed it up best when he said later that day: “Behind
all of this, what is going on is a political process, a political process that is fundamentally a
question of power. One authorized spokesperson of the Aboriginal peoples has already stated the
whole thing is about power.” Premier Lévesque continued to say: “Power has traditionally been
exercised in several classic ways. Probably the most classic example is by force of arms and by
the strength of numbers. For example, the dispossession of the Métis during the time of Riel was
a crime, which was an abuse of the force of arms backed up by strength of numbers. What
alternative is left so a group can realize a civilized solution? It means accumulating enough
power, enough ways of asserting pressure, so they can negotiate as equals. That is fundamental.”
And of course, he was right. Since the failure of those conferences in the 1980s, Indigenous
peoples in Canada have been doing just that, accumulating enough power – economic, legal and
political power – to reach what Premier Lévesque stated is a civilized solution. Today, I think we
call this reconciliation – reconciling the power of Indigenous peoples with that of the Crown.
And since 1982, our courts have confirmed Indigenous peoples do have the inherent right of self-
government and that these powers survived Confederation. To quote the court, these powers are
“one of the unwritten, underlying values of the Constitution outside the distribution to Parliament
and the legislatures in 1867.” They are not absolute, but they are indeed very real.
Reconciliation is now possible precisely because Section 35 is not an empty box. The negotiation
table has been levelled. Today, it is about sharing power and it is about cooperative federalism.
With respect to land rights in those parts of the country where no treaties were entered into,
either historic or modern, we also have seen clarity provided by our highest court. In 2014,
the William decision, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, granted the first declaration of
Aboriginal title to the Tsilhqot’in Nation in British Columbia. Most commentators, and rightly
so, point to the decision as being game-changing. In my view, there were two important
elements, or takeaways, of that decision.
The first is that in granting the declaration of Aboriginal title, the Court found that title is
territorial in nature and not just to intensively used sites or small spots that the Crown had
previously argued, assuming that there was title in the first place.
The second being that title is held collectively by the nation, the Aboriginal peoples sharing
common language, culture and history and not the federally-imposed Indian Act bands. Both of
these findings have critical repercussions for reconciliation moving forward and the need to
support nation rebuilding.
For both Indigenous peoples and the Crown, the challenge today is not to re-fight the fights of 40
years ago – for after all, we have Section 35, we have over 170 court cases dealing with rights.
We also have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document
that our government last year endorsed without qualification. No, the challenge today is to
actually use these tools and ensure in the use of these tools that we translate them into practical
benefits on the ground in our communities to ultimately improve the lives of Indigenous peoples.
However, it is one thing to have rights on paper or declared by a court and quite another to be
able to realize them in practice. The journey of decolonization and reconciliation, as I know you
know, is complicated, often painful and certainly never easy. It is not easy to make the transition
as a subjugated people living day to day in a colonial reality and to walk through the post-
colonial door. The colonial legacy is a heavy burden – the poverty, the health and social issues,
the breakdown of institutions of social order, and the dependency. There is considerable
rebuilding needed. It requires recognition. It requires healing. It requires forgiveness, and it
requires trust.
As an important step, in 2008, the Government of Canada apologized to Indigenous peoples for
residential schools – coincidentally, the same year as the apology came in your country.
Similarly, and again like here, the government also established a Reconciliation Commission – in
our case, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to examine the dark period of our history of
residential schools. It was inspired by the commission created in South Africa post-apartheid.
The Commission documented the stories of abuse told by survivors, while honouring their truths,
and it made numerous recommendations – calls to action – in a report it released at the end of
2015 that addressed the aspects of the reconciliation project through the lens of residential school
survivors and experience.
Our government has committed to implementing the calls to action through improving education,
child welfare, health care in Indigenous communities, and protecting languages and culture of
Indigenous peoples.
Our government has also taken another important step towards reconciliation and facing another
dark legacy: the over 1,200 Indigenous women and girls who have gone murdered or reported
missing by the RCMP – and I know the numbers are higher than that. Although Indigenous
women make up four percent of Canada’s female population, 16 percent of all women murdered
in Canada between 1980 and 2012 were Indigenous.
This past August, the Government of Canada launched an independent National Inquiry into
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. And there is no question that the combined
work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and now the Inquiry into Murdered and
Missing Indigenous Women and Girls will be invaluable in the healing journey of reconciliation
and in deconstructing our colonial legacy.
But as the late, great Nelson Mandela taught us, beyond the necessary apologies and beyond the
emotional work of truth-telling and healing, reconciliation actually requires laws to change and
policies to be rewritten. And it is in this regard that I see my role as Minister of Justice, as
ensuring our country’s laws and policies actually do change based on the recognition of rights.
And there are numerous policies and laws that need to change and new ones developed. Political
and legal reconciliation in furtherance of the nation-to-nation relationship is a national project
that requires significant coordination and commitment at the highest level of government.
So you may ask, where do we start? What is needed to be done to rebuild Indigenous nations, to
actually get back to the original relationship as represented by the wampum belt, both for those
nations that have treaties and for those that do not?
The good news is that over the last 30 years since Aboriginal and treaty rights were recognized
in our Constitution, as Aboriginal title and rights have crystallized in the court, many Indigenous
nations in Canada have already begun rebuilding and have demonstrated success, often with little
fanfare and little media attention, developing their own institutions of governance – some at the
local level, others regional, and sometimes Canada-wide in scope, some as a result of modern
treaty-making, others as part of sectoral governance initiatives. There is much that can be learned
from this work, and we need to build on that success.
In Canada, we have something called a Community Well-Being Index, and the evidence is clear.
Self-governing communities are doing significantly better, both socially and economically, than
those that are not. Today, there are over 40 former Indian Act bands that are recognized as self-
governing within Canada, and dozens more involved in some form of governance reform,
whether sectoral or comprehensive. In fact, approximately one-third of our nations are involved
in some form of governance reform based on the solutions that they have found and are
developing, working in cooperation with the Crown.
For example, in the area of land management, communities are developing land codes that
replace those sections in the Indian Act with their own laws dealing with on-reserve land
management, including the creation of interests in land, how they are transferred and land use
decisions made. There are regional initiatives where communities can make laws with respect to
health and health care delivery and education. About a third of communities are developing or
have developed financial administration laws. Others are collecting property or goods and
services taxes. A group of communities is collectively issuing debentures and raising monies on
the bond market secured by their own source revenues to build much-needed infrastructure.
However, while progress has been made, the pace of change is far too slow and not evenly
spread across the country. In most cases, the foundational work of nation rebuilding through re-
establishing core institutions of governance beyond the Indian Act has not occurred. There is, in
truth, no simple legal mechanism for recognition in Canada that supports the transition away
from the colonial-imposed systems when a nation is ready, willing and able to resume control.
There have been many attempts at recognition legislation in the past, but they’ve gone nowhere.
By some accounts, at the current pace – using existing mechanisms for legal and political
reconciliation to support nation rebuilding – it would take generations for all nations to move
through the post-colonial door. This is obviously not acceptable and clearly demands a need for a
more concerted effort by government with new legislative tools and other mechanisms to support
nation rebuilding – something that our government has committed to doing, working in
partnership with Indigenous peoples.
At the highest level, the United Nations Declaration provides a framework for reconciliation,
setting minimum standards and is instructive on how we develop our own made-in-Canada
framework for reconciliation, reflecting our history and our unique and strong legal and
constitutional framework.
Above all else, this framework for reconciliation must be grounded in a commitment to
principles. Those principles should not only be grounded in law, but should also demonstrate a
commitment to go beyond existing legal obligations and to strengthen the nation-to-nation
relationship. A commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship between the government
and Indigenous peoples should be based on the recognition and implementation of the inherent
rights of Indigenous peoples. It should acknowledge the centrality of the honour of the Crown in
all processes, and it should understand treaties and agreements and other constructive
arrangements between the Crown and Indigenous peoples are acts of reconciliation based on
mutual recognition and respect, and that mechanisms for reconciliation must be developed in
partnership with Indigenous peoples.
Re-establishing the nation-to-nation relationship, practically speaking, means deconstructing

the Indian Act system where it still applies and getting rid of imposed administrative structures
and replacing them with self-governing nations. This is the work that excites me the most
because as an Indigenous Canadian, I know it is essential to ensuring practising and thriving
cultures.
So additionally, as Minister of Justice, there are other ways my department is supporting

reconciliation. For example, we are reviewing our litigation strategy to ensure that the positions
we take in court are in line with our commitments to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship that
is based on recognition of rights.
Also, as part of my broader mandate – big mandate – from the Prime Minister, we have initiated
a full review of our justice system. Just as the Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous
Women and Girls examines how Indigenous women have been victimized, our government has
committed to tackling the over-representation of Indigenous peoples, both as victims and
offenders, in the criminal justice system – another symptom of marginalization, poverty and the
legacy of colonization.
Our review of the justice system is focussing on problems that make the system less efficient and
less fair, which can reduce access to justice. Working across government, this review is looking
at how measures such as restorative justice and sentencing circles can provide off-ramps to the
justice system and possibly lead to lower incarceration rates for nonviolent offences. Sentencing
circles as an Indigenous legal tradition are something that all Canadians can learn and benefit
from.
And it is not just in the area of justice that Indigenous traditions, legal traditions and governance
can have a positive impact on our country as the process of reconciliation unfolds. When it
comes to natural resource development, reconciling with Indigenous peoples also has the
potential to influence the way we approach governance in Canada more broadly.
Returning to the theme of power, historically, political power in Canada – whether federal or
provincial – has been weighed to the south where most of us live, and therefore, vote. Local
communities with their limited governance role in rural Canada have had typically less influence
over significant public policy decisions that affect them, and generally keep little of the wealth
generated from resource development, despite being impacted by it the most.
However, this is changing with the re-emergence of post-Indian Act Indigenous government.
People who are attached to, live on and survive off the land that they live on have their own
perspectives on land management and resource exploitation that can often differ from those that
do not, are just passing through or are passive investors.
This developing political reality is already beginning to change the way land use planning and
decision-making are being conducted across Canada, including how governments must ensure
sustainability as well as share in revenue. In my opinion, the nation-to-nation relationship and the
resurgence of Aboriginal governance based on Indigenous legal traditions will, over the next
generation, change for the better the way Canada is governed, not only in transforming
Indigenous nations, but transforming our country as a whole.
And on that note, and in closing, let me leave you with these thoughts. Reconciliation is a
journey, not a destination. Canada is a federation, and we are going to celebrate our 150th
anniversary in 2017. And as we celebrate this milestone next year, I think for Canadians there is
much hope and optimism – I don’t think, I know. And where in the spirit of partnership we look
to complete the project of federalism and where the promise of federalism is enjoyed both by
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike, and for the betterment of all. As Indigenous
peoples take back control of their lives, our federation will be strengthened, ensuring that we
have a Canada that I think all Canadians aspire to live in – a country based on shared values and
principles that we have spent years as a nation fostering, creating a caring, fair, and
compassionate society that ensures our place on this planet as a favoured nation and one of the
best countries in the world in which to live.
It is in this space of what is and what must remain Canada that Indigenous nations and the future
of our diverse cultures and languages will be safeguarded and indeed the many different ways to
be Canadian, our diversity.

John Sopinka, the Charter and the Evolution of Canada's Justice
System
Speech
Notes for the Sopinka Lecture delivered by

to
The Criminal Lawyers’ Association
Toronto Marriott Downtown Eaton Centre Hotel

Toronto, Ontario
October 28, 2016
Gilakas’la. Good afternoon, everyone. I certainly wanted to thank Breese [Davies, vice-president
of Criminal Lawyers’ Association] for that very kind introduction. And my sincere apologies for
being late.
Again, I'm very pleased to be able to join you this afternoon to speak to you on Anishinabek
territory, and it is indeed a pleasure to be asked to deliver this year's Sopinka lecture, because it
gives me the opportunity to speak about Justice Sopinka's important work, but also on the role of
advocacy and the state of Canada's justice system. And I was told that the late Justice Sopinka's
daughter Melanie is in the room somewhere. Maybe not.
From what I understand, a very accomplished lawyer in her own right.
So just providing some reflections – and I appreciated Breese speaking about the mandate letter
that the Prime Minister gave me, but thinking about Justice Sopinka, I had the opportunity, as
many of us did, to listen to the now-confirmed Supreme Court of Canada Justice, Justice Rowe.
Speaking as the then-nominee, he appeared before parliamentarians earlier this week, and he
identified John Sopinka as his favourite in a long line of excellent jurists on Canada's top court.
This choice does not surprise me. When I reflect on John Sopinka's illustrious career, I'm struck
by how much Canada's justice system has evolved since his passing – his so sudden and
unexpected passing – almost 20 years ago.
During his term on the Supreme Court, Justice Sopinka wrote several decisions that certainly
have helped shape that evolution. Everybody in this room will be familiar with the
1991 Stinchcombe ruling. Before 1991, there was no legal duty on the Crown to disclose all
relevant information to the defence. An outdated notion from today's perspective, the element of
surprise remained a legitimate tool in the Crown's arsenal. The unanimous decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Stinchcombe, written so eloquently by Justice Sopinka, helped to
put this notion to rest. More than two decades later, it is widely considered a landmark case in
the area of criminal law and fair trial rights.
Another decision written by Justice Sopinka has been much revisited and analyzed over the past
year, the 1993 Rodriguez v. British Columbia case. Last year, as you know, the Supreme Court
of Canada came to a different conclusion in Carter v. Canada. The court struck down
the Criminal Code's prohibition of assisted suicide and created space for Parliament to draft a
new law. Justice Sopinka's written decision in Rodriguez focused on the need to protect life and
to protect vulnerable individuals, values that were upheld and clearly reflected in the court's
ruling in Carter, even though the court came to a different conclusion. Those same values
inspired the Government of Canada in its response to Carter.
I think the new law that Parliament passed in response to Carter speaks to the progressive nature
of our justice system, a system that evolves continually to meet the changing needs and
expectations of Canadians. Two factors play a particularly large role in driving this legal
evolution: the Charter, of course, and advocacy. And when it comes to advocacy, trial lawyers,
such as the men and women in this room, are important agents of change. Looking back in time,
it is easy to see how our justice system and our society has changed. We must never lose sight of
the fact that the two go hand-in-hand. In 1988, the appointment of John Sopinka, a Ukrainian-
Canadian, to the Supreme Court represented something of a milestone. And today, as mentioned,
my appointment as the first Indigenous woman to serve as the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada also reflects how our society has changed.
For many years, I have advocated for new laws and policies to support reconciliation with
Indigenous peoples. I've served as a Crown prosecutor, and as the Assembly of First Nations
Regional Chief for British Columbia. And last year I was greatly honoured to be elected by the
constituents of Vancouver-Granville to be their first Member of Parliament. And further,
November the 4th, which is almost upon us, when the Prime Minister asked me to serve in
cabinet—it was a very emotional moment for me. Of course, I felt honoured and privileged,
especially being asked by a man for whom I have the utmost respect as a leader and a visionary.
But for both me and the Prime Minister, the emotional reaction to the appointment was more
than just personal. It was not that long ago that a person like me could not even vote, let alone
run for office or aspire to such a high office. My mind flooded with memories of Indigenous
leaders of days gone by and other Canadians who paved the way for the moment I was
experiencing. And after the initial shock passed, I was immediately seized with the enormity of
the task and the responsibility that was entrusted to me, but also, and more importantly, the
incredible opportunity I now had to make a difference.
So turning to some of that list that we've talked about and some of the work that we're engaged in
as the Department of Justice and as a government, a key focus of our government's commitment
and my mandate letter is criminal justice reform. It was one of the tasks that Prime Minister
Trudeau assigned in the mandate letter. He asked me, as part of a very long mandate letter, to
assess the changes that have taken place over the past ten years; to increase the use of restorative
justice processes and other initiatives; to reduce the rate of incarceration amongst Indigenous
peoples; and to generally determine whether the current provisions of the Criminal Code are
aligned with the objectives of the criminal justice system.
I have chosen to interpret my mandate letter in this regard incredibly broadly. Indeed, it seems a
perfect time in our history to do so. Next year Canada will celebrate two important anniversaries:
the 150th anniversary of Confederation, and the 35 years since the enactment of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And as we prepare for these important milestones, it is time for
us together to formulate a vision and a framework for where Canadians want their justice system
to be in the 21st century.
Those of us who have worked in the criminal justice system are all too familiar with problems
such as overburdened court dockets and excessive delays, but these are merely symptoms of an
underlying malaise. I suspect that everybody here today has experience with this common
scenario. A young adult commits a non-violent crime, comes into contact with the justice system,
and never really leaves. He or she enters a self-sustaining cycle of court appearances, court
orders, breaches of those orders, and returns to custody. Soon the young person is spending more
time behind bars than in their community, and has no hope of breaking that cycle. This cycle
affects all Canadians. It delays other cases, it erodes public trust and faith, and it drives the costs
of the criminal justice system up.
Imagine if we could change the system to better align it with the needs of all Canadians. What if
the offender's first interaction with the criminal justice system did not become the first in a long
series? What if it triggered supports designed to address the underlying factors that influenced
the criminal behaviour in the first place – supports such as housing and shelter, assistance for
mental illness and addiction, or an off-ramp to structure and support from an Indigenous
community? For so many thrown into the system, we can do much better.
I am committed to a long-term, multi-pronged approach to achieve this aim one day, and one day
soon. We've already reached out – I have already reached out – to my colleagues across
government – the Minister of Health, the Minister of Social Development, Public Safety – and
we are committed to working together in a collaborative way. I also intend to continue to work
collaboratively with the provinces and territories, and have held roundtables in several provinces
across the country to hear local and provincial perspectives, and to understand the different
approaches to the administrative of justice across the country. And for the second time this year,
I was pleased to be able to meet with my counterparts in the provinces and territories in Halifax
to grapple with how we collectively address deep-rooted social problems that we all face and
how we can collectively fashion a justice system that better serves Canadians. I was impressed
by the almost uniform view that this transformational change is needed.
What follows, then, are some ideas guiding our efforts to review the criminal justice system to
ensure it remains efficient and fair. To determine the best way forward, we will base our
decisions on evidence and principles, and we will follow an approach based on listening to all
voices and based on consensus building. I am convinced that, to truly fix the system, we must
take a broader approach. We must look at society as a whole. Nowhere is this more evident than
in the victimization of Indigenous women and girls, and society's shameful and tacit acceptance
of this mistreatment. Indigenous women comprise only four percent of Canada's female
population, and yet represent sixteen percent of the women murdered in this country between
1980 and 2012.
During the engagement sessions leading to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Girls, I had the honour of hearing from loved ones, family members,
survivors, and experts, and to listen to their concerns and expectations for the national inquiry.
And I was proud to witness the launch of the inquiry this past August. And I am pleased that all
the provinces and territories will be participating. I am confident that the inquiry will help us
learn from the past and take the actions needed to end this national tragedy.
And just as this inquiry will be examining how Indigenous women and girls have been
victimized, we are acknowledging how our criminal justice system has affected Indigenous
peoples disproportionately. Last year, Indigenous people made up more than 25 percent of the
total admissions to federal and provincial custody. I believe that offenders must be held to
account for their actions, but I also believe that many Indigenous people see that the system does
not serve their interests, and arguably never has. This is precisely why reconciliation with
Indigenous peoples is so important. We must take a broader view if we want our criminal justice
reform to be truly effective.
The same applies to all marginalized and vulnerable individuals, particularly those suffering
from mental illness and addiction. Up to 80 percent of all federal offenders have past or current
substance abuse issues. What if we did a better job at treating mental illness and addiction?
Imagine the impact this could have on our justice system. I truly believe that societies will be
judged on how they treat their most vulnerable.
So turning to some specific initiatives and work in terms of Drug Treatment Courts and drug
policy, as everybody in this room knows, if you can address the factors that inspire criminal
behaviour in the first place and perhaps reduce an offender's interaction with the criminal justice
system, then you can break the vicious cycle. This is what Drug Treatment Courts are intended to
do. These courts give sentencing alternatives for drug-addicted offenders who agree to attend
provincially approved and court-supervised treatment programs. And according to the evaluation
completed by Justice Canada officials two years ago, these courts produce promising results.
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to sit in on a session in Vancouver's Drug Treatment
Court, right next to the courtroom in which I was a prosecutor for many years. I was truly
touched with what I saw that day. I witnessed the sincere efforts of the judge, staff, and counsel
to help the participants along the path of recovery, including frantic calls to get a bed in a detox
centre, and congratulatory applause and incentives for doing well. While one offender, clearly
high on drugs, was not yet ready to participate, another one had completed the residential
treatment program, was now sober, and eventually received a suspended sentence with
conditions. While I recognize these types of courts, often referred to as specialty courts, are not
perfect and do not work in all cases, they show great potential, and I look forward to the input of
the defence bar and others to help make them even better.
So last week I was pleased to introduce changes to the federal victim surcharge in the House of
Commons.
Three years ago, as you know, judges lost the discretion to waive the federal victim surcharge for
offenders who are truly unable to pay. The results have been overwhelmingly negative: Charter
challenges, numerous judges refusing to impose the surcharge, and of course, countless
sentences that cannot be enforced. One judge described the surcharge as a tax on broken souls.
The new legislation that I introduced last week aims to put an end to those Charter challenges
and restore fairness to the federal victim surcharge regime.
If passed, it would return to judges the discretion to waive the surcharge for the poor and
marginalized – those truly not able to pay. The intent of the legislation is not to return to the
former situation, when the surcharge was often waived even for those able to pay. The surcharge
ought to continue to be a way to hold offenders accountable and to fund the delivery of programs
and services to victims of crime. Clearly, though, the current situation is problematic, and we
have introduced legislation to change it.
In terms of mandatory minimum penalties, I am certain that the rise in the use of mandatory
minimum penalties is an issue of importance to everyone in this room, so I want to address it
briefly. The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken definitively and clearly on this issue, and I am
committed and currently engaged in a comprehensive examination and will be putting forward
reform to the current use of mandatory minimum penalties. This is a priority for me, and the
action is going to be taken in the near future.
In a similar vein, there has been significant media attention of late to outdated provisions of the
Code, so-called zombie provisions, struck down by the courts for not complying with the
Constitution. Section 230 relating to murder in the commission of offences comes to mind.
Section 159 on anal intercourse has been mentioned as well. As one academic during our
roundtables has suggested, the Criminal Code has a hoarding problem.
It is riddled throughout with provisions that have been struck down or read down by our nation's
highest courts, but the old provisions remain. We have listened to the views of academics and
other stakeholders on this front, and long prior to the recent media attention, I tasked my
Department to develop a strategy to clean up the Criminal Code. And we look forward to
substantive change on this front also in the coming months.
The preceding reforms are among the many I hope to introduce during my time as Minister of
Justice. As I gather information from consultations, roundtables, and other engagements, I look
forward to substantive change on other fronts as well, from bail reform to treatment of mentally
ill in the criminal justice system. These reforms must be reflective of a cohesive vision for
criminal justice reform. It will not be a tough-on-crime agenda, nor will it be the exact opposite.
Instead, it should be a balanced approach to justice, one that is guided by evidence, a desire to
keep the public safe, compassion for all, and sound principles. While by no means exhaustive, let
me suggest what those principles ought to be and how they might guide us moving forward.
First, those responsible for administering the criminal justice system and creating its laws,
including myself, ought to espouse the principle of proportionality and restraint when it comes to
using criminal law to solve society's problems.
Criminal law, of course, has an important role to play, but I do not need to tell those present that
it is a blunt instrument, with lasting repercussions for all affected by it. Before turning to the
criminal law to tackle society's problems, we should first consider whether there are other, better,
tools to use first or in conjunction with the criminal law to address the underlying problem. We
need to create off-ramps, as I mentioned before, for the marginalized offender who needs help,
not jail. In this way, the criminal justice system can be freed up to tackle truly serious crime in a
timely way.
To the principles of proportionality and restraint I would add the importance of discretion –
discretion for judges and for other actors in the justice system to tailor solutions to address the
unique circumstances of the offender, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all solution that often does
more harm than good. To these ideas of restraint, proportionality, and appropriate use of
discretion I would add respect for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This respect should be
proactive, not reactive, and the laws we create should reflect this. As most of you are aware, I'm
also very interested in exploring rehabilitative and restorative approaches to sentencing. There
will always be those who must be incarcerated for safety's sake, but what purpose is achieved by
a system that does not have the infrastructure in place to reintegrate an offender into society once
he or she is ready?
Finally, if restorative justice is to work as an approach and a principle, we must work to restore
to victims a degree of faith and confidence in the criminal justice system while still protecting
the accused's right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. This is a difficult balancing
act, I know, but one I feel must be struck if we are going to bring Canada's justice system into
the 21st century. Restorative justice and new approaches to criminal law will not work if the
voices of all those affected by the criminal justice system are not heard.
Turning to judicial appointments, allow me just to speak about it for a bit. This is, after all, an
address in commemoration of one of Canada's greatest justices. Canadians are more likely to
have faith in a justice system when they see themselves reflected in that system. This is why we
must strive to ensure that members of the federally appointed judiciary are representative of the
diversity of the Canadian population.
As you know, our government recently filled a number of judicial vacancies in the country,
including six in Ontario. This leaves the overall vacancy rates in Ontario around two percent, and
across the country around 3.6 percent. The appointees throughout the country and in Ontario
were of the highest calibre, and hail from diverse backgrounds and experiences, and we have
every confidence that they will serve this country well. And that was one of the greatest things I
get to do as the Minister of Justice, is to call each soon-to-be judge personally and to
congratulate them on their appointment. Their reactions are quite diverse and surprising.
I was also pleased at the same time to announce a new, modernized judicial appointments
process, one intended to fulfil our government's commitment to making the judicial
appointments process more transparent, accountable, merit-based, and reflective of Canada's
diversity. The changes to the appointments process are many.
To enhance accountability, our government has restored the full vote of the judicial
representative on the judicial advisory committees, reintroduced the “highly recommended”
category for evaluating candidates, introduced diversity and merit assessment training for
committee members, and started a program of releasing the aggregate demographic data of
judicial appointments to the public.
To increase transparency, our government has, among other things, introduced a new process to
allow members of the public – lawyers and non-lawyers alike – to apply to sit as the Minister of
Justice's public representative on the JACs.
To ensure openness, we have increased the scope and depth of the questions asked of judicial
applicants, including to assess bilingualism; expanded the considerations of life experience,
gender, and diversity by requesting self-identification; and required provincial and territorial
court judges to go through the same assessment process as lawyers.
To increase diversity, we have provided specific direction to the judicial advisory committees to
create a pool of candidates that reflect Canada's diversity.
So if anyone present wishes to sit as the government's appointed representative on the judicial
advisory committees, please apply, or invite your friends to apply. They close on November the
17th. Everything is available online. And if there are any among you considering sitting on the
bench, please apply, or re-apply, and ask your friends to apply, even if you do not necessarily
hail from the traditional pipeline of would-be judges. Again, our government is committed to
appointing the highest calibre of judges and creating a judiciary that reflects the society in which
it serves. I look forward to working cooperatively with all of you towards this aim.
And on the topic of high-calibre appointments, I am so pleased – or I was so pleased – to be a

part of the new process for appointing, and in this case replacing, Justice Cromwell on the
Supreme Court of Canada. Earlier today the Prime Minister confirmed Mr. Justice Rowe of the
Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador as the next Supreme Court of Canada justice,
the first in 67 years. It was my pleasure to appear at the House of Commons Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights earlier this week with the chairperson of the independent advisory
panel, the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. Ms. Campbell explained the process by which the
panel received and reviewed the applications for the Supreme Court of Canada vacancy. I
explained why our government has adopted this new approach and why we nominated the
eminently qualified Mr. Justice Rowe. And the following day, Justice Rowe himself appeared
before parliamentarians at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law to answer questions and to
introduce himself to Canadians. It is my sincere belief that this new process has been open,
transparent, inclusive, and accountable to Canadians in the way that has never been before.
So our government has taken several other actions to better align our justice system with the
needs and expectations of Canadians. Bill C-16, which I was proud to introduce in the House of
Commons earlier this year, would update the Canadian Human Rights Act to make it illegal to
deny someone a job or otherwise discriminate against them in the workplace on the basis of their
gender – or on the basis of the gender they identify with or outwardly express.
The bill would also amend the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression
in laws against hate speech. It was great to see so many Members of Parliament stand up and
support it at second reading, 86 percent voting in favour. And just yesterday I had the
opportunity to present, at the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights
again, on this bill, and I certainly look forward to its swift passage.
The current state of legal aid is also an important issue, particularly for Canadians who come into
contact with the justice system. Being able to afford adequate legal counsel can be beyond the
means of many or most Canadians. Budget 2016 committed an additional $88 million over five
years to criminal legal aid in the provinces, and to criminal and civil legal aid in the territories.
And beginning in fiscal year 2021-2022, the Government of Canada will contribute an additional
$30 million per year on an ongoing basis.
In addition to the Charter clean-up of the Code, my officials have been instructed to continue
efforts to align existing laws with the Charter. Indeed, my hope is that the next 30 – or the next
35 – years will be marked by political leadership on the Charter, a culture of rights made explicit
in the workings of government and Parliament. To this end, I consider the commitment in my
mandate letter to reintroduce the court challenges program to not only be about affirming judicial
responsibility for the Charter, but also about affirming our government's political responsibility
for it as well. That political responsibility is affirmed by recognizing that even the best legislative
proposals can fail to anticipate all possible impacts on the Charter. A court challenges program
will serve as an additional protection for the years to come.
So in closing, and thinking about where we are, next week, as I said, will mark my one-year
anniversary as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. And I am still inspired
and energized by the opportunity and the challenge. And while I'm proud of what we have
accomplished, including almost half of my mandate letter, I know that for the rest it is still very
much a work in progress. I have assembled an incredibly strong team around me, and we have all
rolled up our sleeves to do the work that is necessary to build a justice system that better serves
Canadians. Society will no doubt continue to evolve, and some of the practices and attitudes
considered outliers today will likely become mainstream a generation from now.
As officers of the court, you have a duty to support this evolution and to help make Canada a
more just society. This conference offers opportunities to increase your knowledge about
important matters, such as the latest Charter litigation, interacting with the media – something I
know a little bit about, and the use of expert testimony at trial. I encourage you to take advantage
of these opportunities so that you can better serve your clients and the interests of justice.
Advocacy remains an amazing driver for change.
I also encourage you to get involved in innovative programs and initiatives that promise to
improve the system. Those of us who work in the criminal justice system must serve as agents of
change. We need to engage and educate Canadians about what it will take to build a more
effective and representative justice system. By working together, we can meet the challenges that
we face and make the most of the opportunities we create. Surely this is the true legacy of Justice
Sopinka. The justice system belongs to all of us. To be effective, it must reflect all of us and
serve all of our interests. It is a never-ending journey, but I know that we can tackle it when we
do it together.
Gilakas’la. Thank you for listening to me.

B.C. Cabinet and First Nations Leaders' Gathering
Speech

B.C. Cabinet and First Nations Leaders' Gathering
Vancouver Conference Centre West

Vancouver, BC: September 7, 2016
10:05-10:25
Gilakas'la. Good morning, Elders, Chiefs, Minister Garneau, Premier Clark, members of the
Cabinet of British Columbia, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to acknowledge the Coast Salish Nation - Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish
- on whose ancestral lands we are gathering.
I am very pleased to be here at the request of our Prime Minister and to bring greetings on behalf
of the Government of Canada.
First, it goes without saying that these types of political gatherings are an important opportunity
for leaders to meet face-to-face, deal with pressing issues and build partnerships. Equally, they
are also an important opportunity for leaders to reflect, to hold each other to account and, in so
doing, speak truth to power.
It was just under a year ago that I was elected Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. I
did not attend this gathering last year given that we were in the midst of the election campaign.
I was, however, pleased to speak at the first of these gatherings two years ago - as Regional
Chief - immediately in the aftermath of the Tsilhqot'in decision. At that time, BC's First Nations'
leadership shared a vision - expressed through the Four Principles - that had been developed by
consensus in the lead up to the first meeting to shift into a new pattern of relations grounded in
recognition, respect, and reconciliation of Aboriginal title and rights, including treaty rights.
The Four Principles were intended to be the basis for building a new framework for how
partnerships, dialogue and negotiations, and relations between governments and Indigenous
Nations in BC would advance - a framework that would move away from an adversarial
approach and conflict, to one of innovation, collaboration, and building new capacities and, for
Indigenous peoples, the assumption of new responsibilities.
I was pleased to learn this morning about the work in progress that is the Commitment
document. Certainly there is more that can be done and there is a role for the federal government.
The approach and goals of the Four Principles are consistent with the message that I have carried
forward as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada - and they are reflected in the
commitments made by Prime Minister Trudeau and our government.
Our government has been very open. We want to establish a new relationship with Indigenous
peoples in this country, a principled relationship based on recognition where getting to this goal
will require us to renew the nation-to-nation relationship, based on recognition of rights, respect,
co-operation and partnership.
The pathway to reconciliation is to establish proper relations between Indigenous peoples and the
Crown that is no longer focused on fighting about "who is an Aboriginal people" or "whether
Aboriginal title and rights exist" - but rather is focused on collaboratively recognizing and
implementing those rights.
But walking this pathway together challenges all of us - both the Crown provincial and federal
and Indigenous peoples. It can no longer be business as usual and it is not simply about politics.
It means we must push past our established patterns and ways of thinking, acting, and relating.
And that is never easy, but it is absolutely essential. It means deconstructing the colonial reality
community-by-community. It means understanding the transformative nature of what recognition
actually demands. It means not fighting battles that have already been won - or reinventing the
wheel where progress has been, or is being, made. It means BUILDING ON OUR SUCCESS.
Above all else, it means rolling up our collective sleeves to rebuild fractured and fragmented
nations and the institutions to support them.
Experience and history have shown us that there is a direct correlation between economic
prosperity and healthy communities following recognition and nation rebuilding. Efforts to
stimulate economic development and create jobs within Indigenous communities that fail to
address the relationship issues and that shortcut ?the ground work that needs to be done to
actually reconcile rarely have the results that the government intended. There is no shortcut to
getting at the root causes of Indigenous poverty.
And internationally we are not alone in these efforts.
Last night I returned from an official visit to New Zealand. Throughout the visit, I was impressed
by how the Māori and the New Zealand government have been settling outstanding treaty issues
and how the New Zealand government has been integrating Māori perspectives into public
policy and governance.
Like us, in recent years, New Zealand has been in a national conversation aimed at redefining the
relationship between the Crown and the Māori. I was able to see first-hand how this has
materialized at the iwi or "tribal" level during community visits with the Tuhoe and the Ngai
Tahu.
I think it is fair to say that they have built their success less on ideology and more on trying to
build a framework that endures. They clearly believe in trial and error when it comes to figuring
out the relationship with the Crown. They believe that settlements are not "full and final," but
require ongoing maintenance and dialogue to be enduring. They do not try and foresee
everything or where they might end up on their journey. I think we can learn from this.
But what really hit home to me was a conversation we had with a Māori community leader when
answering a question about implementing the UNDRIP. She basically told our delegation that, in
her opinion, rights are essentially nothing if you do not have the will, or the power, to act on
them - to get as she said "out of bed" in the morning. She said the UNDRIP and the settlement
laws were just words - that they are somewhere else. Rather she talked about memories that
bring pride. About sharing in the vision of a better future - a vision that all can share.
I know she was not saying that international declarations and laws are not important. After all,
her community's settlement was brought into effect by a state law. What she was saying is that it
does not mean much to people back home if they are just someone else's words.
And she is right.
So while I was, of course, incredibly proud to be in New York last May to speak to the UN
Permanent Forum, and attend with my colleague Carolyn Bennett, as Canada endorsed the
UNDRIP without qualification, I know that the words alone will not change the reality of
Indigenous peoples.
Our collective challenge now is to implement the UNDRIP and to make those words our words -
and to turn words into action - to translate them into practical benefits on the ground in
communities.
Yes, it will require changes in legislation, new forms of agreements, new structures and
processes, and new approaches to decision-making. New mechanisms. But it will, above all else,
require new attitudes and a freeing from the past in favour of a new hope for a better and shared
future. This will require experimentation with new ideas. It will also require trust. How we are
going to walk this path together? It will require all levels of government to take action. But,
moreover, it will also require Indigenous leadership to take action. The work here today
continues the walk along this path.
Moving forward, a principled approach to a Nation-to-Nation relationship based on recognition

does raise some very fundamental questions that must be answered in order to proceed.
Questions that I posed at the AFN AGA in Niagara Falls earlier this summer.
First and foremost, it begs the question, "What are the Indigenous Nations that are to be
recognized?"
That is, "How will you define yourself as Nations?" "What are the structures through which you
will deliver programs and services?" And, then, “What will your relationship with Canada, the
Province, with your neighbours, and with other Indigenous nations, look like? "How will you
resolve your differences between and amongst yourselves?"
In answering these questions, I think we can all agree that the federally- imposed Indian Act is
not the answer even though it is, as a result of the colonial legacy, necessarily a starting point for
conversations in communities. This is because the Indian Act system is, in most cases, currently
the primary system of administration in place, despite being imposed by the federal government
and fundamentally inconsistent with the UNDRIP.
The hard and sometimes painful truth is that many of our current realities do not align with the
standards of UNDRIP and, as such, they must be systematically and coherently dismantled.
So we have to ask ourselves, how do existing Indian Act bands in BC want to move to new
models of self-government, and out of Indian Act, models based on what it means to be a
Nation? What are the concrete steps to take to get to that end?
It is critical, therefore, especially in this context that we all - all of us - regardless of our roles -
appreciate that the UNDRIP requires a thoughtful and sound commitment for implementation.
We have seen other countries where international human rights instruments are adopted, but then
fail to translate into real change for their citizens. We cannot let that happen in Canada.
This is why, with respect to the UNDRIP, it is important to appreciate how come it cannot be
simply incorporated, word for word, into Canadian law.
First, the Declaration itself contemplates that it is to be implemented in many different ways
through various instruments.
Second, the federal government simply does not have the jurisdiction to unilaterally address all
of the minimum standards and principles set out in the Declaration. Many issues will benefit
from a national approach that reflects federal, provincial and territorial, and Indigenous
governments each playing their parts. Still others are specifically aimed at the United Nations
itself and other international bodies.
Third, and in truth, every party involved in implementation needs the time to develop practical
and effective approaches to issues such as free, prior and informed consent - when it comes to
resource development, addressing issues such as the proper title holder, for instance.
Again, these approaches could mean amending legislation, or developing new policies,
depending on which element of the Declaration we are concerned with. All parties need to be
involved in identifying the most appropriate and effective mechanisms.
And in order for that involvement to happen, Indigenous nations must be organized and
empowered to contribute to these discussions - that is, being able to participate in developing
approaches according to their own aspirations and needs as Nations.
Fourth and finally, and I think most importantly, the implementation of the Declaration has to
take into account our specific constitutional and legal context here in Canada. That includes our
federal system, our Constitution - particularly Section 35 of the Constitution Act, and the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. Accordingly we will want to identify which laws, policies and practices
need to be changed to give full effect to both Section 35 and the UN Declaration.
Moreover, how we, as a society, choose to balance the various rights and interests protected by
our Constitution, set out in our Charter of Rights, or expressed in the UN Declaration, is also a
decision we have to make together.
And without going through every article in the Declaration, we can think about the important
clarification that the combination of section 35 and Canadian common law has brought to our
understanding of Aboriginal title and rights in the Canadian context.
I cannot see us simply setting aside the important guidance we have from our courts -
from Tsilhqot'in for example - and starting afresh from the Declaration's articles.
The actions we take to implement the UN Declaration must be guided by the important advances
that have been made within the framework of s. 35 of the Constitution.
Recognizing Aboriginal and treaty rights in this section was a turning point in our history. One
we can truly be proud of.
It was a promise to Indigenous peoples that their presence in Canada and Aboriginal rights
would no longer be denied, that assimilation and marginalization were colonial relics of the past,
and that all Canadians were ready to work together to build a better Canada.
Our primary task today is to fulfill the constitutional promise made in 1982 through practical
solutions.
For our part, the federal government, for one, is mandated to review laws, policies and practices
to ensure that we are living up to the unfulfilled constitutional promise of Section 35 and the
mutually respectful relationship that the courts have rightly called for. This work is on-going. As
an example, this includes actively moving away from federally-imposed systems of governance
and administration and making the transition to systems and fiscal relationships focused on
Indigenous control and delivery.
For the Indigenous leaders in this room, for your part, you are of course responsible for looking
at how best to organize yourselves to play your role as partners in Confederation, and having
your nations and legitimate institutions of government recognized. Our government needs you to
answer the questions I posed earlier.
As for the Crown, both provincial and federal, it means supporting nation rebuilding and
ensuring that Indigenous nations have the tools they need.
During this transition, the Government of Canada is committed to working in full partnership
with nations looking to rebuild. We also, at the same time, recognize the on-going role of the
government and the need to ensure that communities continue to receive the necessary programs
and services until they are in a position to take back control or where there are agreed to
alternatives - so no community is left behind. It goes without saying, the transition has not and
will not be easy.
But here in British Columbia, we are starting to see the results of how self-determination can
result in social and economic success.
And there will be no going back as we work together to provide a clear and predictable path for
Indigenous peoples to be part of a genuine nation-to-nation relationship.
Yes, there will be tough decisions that will need to be made prior to the full implementation of
the Nation-to Nation relationship.
My role as Minister of Justice is to help build the framework for reconciliation in accordance
with our Constitution. Over the past year, the Federal Crown has been inviting and asking
Indigenous peoples to bring forward their ideas and models about how to make the shifts into
this new era of Nation-to-Nation relations - including what work needs to be supported to help
build the capacity to assume and exercise greater self-government powers and jurisdictional
responsibilities.
In closing, let me say this, making this positive change in Canada's relationship with Indigenous
peoples is the only way to reach true reconciliation.
So I welcome and challenge the Indigenous leadership in this room to continue to collectively
put forward substantive ideas about what a new framework of relations would look like based on
your Four Principles.
And I challenge all parties to take a principled approach to reconciliation. This is the
commitment of our government and we will continue to do the necessary work to get our own
house in order - to be a progressive force for substantive change.
Meeting these challenge will be good for Indigenous peoples and good all of Canada - for our
collective future and the strength of our economy.
So my message to all of us is this - we need to act like we mean what we say. And to take some
calculated risks. I challenge everyone to walk together to move to a new era of Crown -
Indigenous relationships.
It is a challenge that I know that we are up for and that I embrace in this what some are calling
the age of recognition.
Gilakas'la. Thank you.

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and
Girls
Speech

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls
Location: Gatineau, Que.: August 3, 2016
Good morning. Gilakas'la. Bonjour tout le monde.
Thank you everyone for joining us today.
And thank you Claudette for welcoming us to the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
It is a pleasure to be here with Minister Bennett and Minister Hajdu, along with Elders for
today's historic announcement.
I would like to begin by saying how deeply moved I was to be part of the gathering this morning
-- in which a beautiful box representing all Indigenous groups in Canada was given to the Inquiry
commissioners in the presence of the families.
This symbolic passing of the torch represents the momentous duty that Canadians have entrusted
to the commissioners.
As my colleague Minister Bennett mentioned, the National Inquiry will focus on the root causes
of the disproportionate rates of violent crime faced by Indigenous women and girls, and on the
extent of their vulnerability to violence.
We need to identify the causes of those disparities and take action now to end them. As I said
when the pre-inquiry began in December, the Government of Canada is committed to doing
better, but it will take action by many to reach that common goal.
And, as we ceremoniously passed the torch, we are asking the Commission to help Canadians
learn from our past, review our present, and recommend actions we can take, moving forward, to
end this national tragedy.
In the pre-inquiry sessions held across the country, some of the families of missing and murdered
Indigenous women and girls told us they wanted to know more about what had happened to their
loved ones, but found it hard to get the information. To help them get that information, the
Department of Justice will immediately increase financial assistance to the provinces and
territories.
Specifically, the Department will provide $11.67 million over three years to help the provinces
and territories establish new Family Information Liaison Units within their existing victim
services departments. When these units are established, they will work directly with families and
with local, provincial and territorial agencies and governments, to help families find the
information they seek about the loss of their loved one.
In addition, these units will help families deal with the trauma of their pain and loss and connect
them with available resources.
The Department of Justice will also allocate an additional $4.5 million over four years to support
victim services projects across the country that will directly help the families of missing and
murdered Indigenous women and girls. This funding will help fill gaps where needs are high,
building on the work of Indigenous organizations and specialized victim services programs.
The services these new funds support will complement the Inquiry's objective of–and the
Government of Canada's commitment to–promoting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
We know that an Inquiry cannot undo the injustices of the past nor restore what has been lost.
But it can contribute to the way forward on this journey of reconciliation.
Thank you. Gilakas'la.

Assembly of First Nations - Annual General Assembly
Speech

Assembly of First Nations Annual General Assembly
Location: Scotiabank Convention Centre, Niagara Falls, ON: July 12, 2016
Gilakas'la. Good morning, Elders, National Chief, Regional Chiefs, Chiefs, Grand Chiefs,
Minister Bennett, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you, Elder Courchene, for the opening prayer, and to Chief Ava Hill, our host, and
Regional Chief Isadore Day for your welcoming comments. I acknowledge the Haudenosaunee
and the peoples of the Six Nations of the Grand River on whose ancestral lands we are gathering.
Yes, National Chief, this has been a momentous year - and yes, the momentum is gaining.
And Indigenous voices are increasingly shaping our country. As you remarked, voter turnout in
the 2015 federal election was up significantly - up by as much as 270 percent in some
communities, and a record 10 Indigenous people were elected to Parliament. Many of them are
here today.
And yes, people are taking note. For example, some of you may have seen a recent article
observing how "Indigenous MPs and senators played a central role in securing passage of the
new assisted dying law," bringing "unique perspective." And it is true, we did seek consensus
where consensus could be achieved - very much in the spirit of Indigenous political traditions
and a non-partisan approach to decision-making.
And yes, there is momentum with the pre-inquiry consultations regarding missing and murdered
Indigenous women and girls - and with beginning an early review of the Crown's position in
select litigation regarding Indigenous issues. And yes, our government has adopted, without
qualifications, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are all
incredibly important advances. But…… it is still only the start.
So - National Chief Bellegarde - while I want to thank you for your optimistic and very
encouraging words this morning - and for taking the time to reflect on what has transpired in the
last year since Montreal - what was most important to me from your words is a signalling of the
hard work that remains before us all - and, in particular, rebuilding the nation-to-nation
relationship.
While we must, and will, address the social issues now - education, child welfare and health -
and consider the immediate needs with respect to closing the financial gap, in truth, the social
and economic gaps will never be fully closed until the foundational work of nation rebuilding
has been completed - the Indian Act gone - and where Indigenous peoples are making decisions
for themselves - and where the role of the federal government has been transformed from one of
designing and administering programs and services for Indigenous peoples, into one that
supports self-governing Indigenous nations in a genuine nation-to-nation relationship.
So yes, the real work is ahead of us - and that is the message I am here to deliver today.
And, in this regard, we are all very fortunate to have a Prime Minister who understands this and
has tasked all of his Ministers with working towards a renewed nation-to-nation relationship
with Indigenous peoples, based on "recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership."
So, with my time this morning, I want to talk about the nation-to-nation relationship and share
some thoughts on how we can focus our efforts to collectively set in place a course of action over
the coming months that ensures we can turn all the good words, the good will, and the golden
opportunity we have into meaningful progress with practical and discernable benefits on the
ground within Indigenous communities. To undertake transformative change.
And I challenge the critics that say it cannot be done - those who, on the one hand, say the
government is not serious or sincere, and on the other, say that Indigenous peoples do not have
what it will take or the resolve, or that the task is too great.
And I make this challenge confident in the knowledge that there is no one in this room who
would suggest that decolonization is easy - and that we all appreciate that trust, especially where
trust did not exist before, must be earned, and that it can just as easily be lost - and that we all
understand that the stakes are high - incredibly high. We are talking about the lives of future
generations of Indigenous children within Canada - about the very survival of our distinct
cultures and ancient languages - about a way of life...
Moving forward, our government's principled approach to a nation-to-nation relationship based

on recognition does raise some very fundamental questions that must be answered in order to
proceed. First and foremost, it begs the question, "what are the Indigenous nations that are to be
recognized?"
That is, how will you define yourselves as nations? What are the structures through which you
will deliver programs and services? And then, what will your relationship with Canada, with
your neighbours, and with other Indigenous nations look like? How will you resolve your
differences between and amongst yourselves?
In answering these questions, I think we can all agree that the federally imposed Indian Act is not
the answer even though it is, as a result of the colonial legacy, necessarily a starting point for
conversations in communities where the Indian Act system is, in most cases, currently the
primary system of administration in place.
Even though it is a system that reflects an impoverished notion of governance, one that is
fundamentally inconsistent with the United Nations Declaration.
Let me explore this thought further.
The seventh preambular paragraph in the UNDRIP speaks to promoting the inherent rights of
Indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures - i.e. not
those imposed by the state, of which the Indian Act is a case in point.
Article 3 says Indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination and, by virtue of that right,
to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. And Article 5 says 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.
So again, it begs the question - what are the political, economic and social structures that the
federal government should recognize and that the UNDRIP speaks to, and what is the
relationship of those institutions to the federal machinery of government?
And as we all know, there is no simple answer. It is, unfortunately, not as simple as just ripping
up the Indian Act. Although, if we are speaking openly, adopting the UNDRIP should really
require us to do so. But, in so doing, we would also create legal and economic uncertainty during
the period of transition.
How we deal with the existing administrative structures on-reserve, including the Indian Act
mechanisms that already exist to support the transition, must be carefully considered. There is
already significant infrastructure and steps towards economic improvement on many reserves -
so we have to be very careful about the new mechanisms that we put in place. To build on our
success.
At the same time we also have to be mindful of the vested interests in the status quo that are
resistant to change. Not to mention the citizens of the nations who may be afraid of change and
more comfortable with the devil they know than the devil they do not. But this is the challenge of
nation rebuilding - something that those of us in this room who have been dealing with these
issues for years fully understand and embrace.
So as much as I would tomorrow like to cast into the fire of history the Indian Act so that the
nations can be reborn in its ashes, this is not a practical option - which is why simplistic
approaches, such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law, are unworkable and,
respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work required to actually implement
it.
What we need is an efficient process of transition that lights a fire under the process of
decolonization but does so in a controlled manner that respects where Indigenous communities
are in terms of rebuilding.
As was described to me by one chief when I was B.C. Regional Chief, rather than popping the
balloon that is the Indian Act, we need to let the air out slowly in a controlled and deliberate
manner - slowly until it is all gone and when it is all out what replaces it will be strong and
healthy First Nation governments - governments that design and deliver their own programs and
services.
This approach is consistent with article 38 of the UNDRIP, which sets out that the role of the
state, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, is to take the appropriate
measures to achieve the ends of the Declaration. Accordingly, the way the UNDRIP will get
implemented in Canada will be through a mixture of legislation, policy and action initiated and
taken by Indigenous nations themselves. Ultimately, the UNDRIP will be articulated through the
constitutional framework of section 35.
So what are the improved or new mechanisms we need to support the nation-to-nation
relationship? What legislation or changes to policy do we need now and in the future? To create
the legal and political space for Indigenous peoples to move forward - to breathe life into Section
35.
What the federal government can do now is begin the process to recognize your nations and your
legitimate institutions of government. What we can do - in full partnership - is to facilitate the
transition - to set us on an irreversible path of action - and to develop a national reconciliation
framework with improved and new mechanisms to guide this transition to rebuilding strong, self-
determining nations with practicing and thriving cultures.
This includes mechanisms to negotiate modern treaties under new mandates as well as other
constructive arrangements that will provide a clear and predictable path for Indigenous peoples
and governments for the exercise of decision-making and governance. It means supporting
nation building in the context of historic treaties and, where there are no treaties, respecting the
proper title-holders. It means creating new mechanisms to facilitate self-government beyond
the Indian Act band.
And we need to get moving on developing these mechanisms as soon as possible. And yes, this
work will be controversial. But it is absolutely necessary. And it cannot take multiple
generations. We do not have time. Incredibly, by some accounts, at the current rate, negotiating
our way out of the dysfunction of the Indian Act system using existing mechanisms would take
600 years. This is not acceptable.
To truly celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada next year, I would very much like to be able
to come back to the 2017 AFN Assembly, knowing we have a jointly developed plan, put it in
place and with the work well under way to develop and implement the mechanisms to support
the transition in this, what some have called "the age of recognition."
We simply cannot waste time on reinventing the wheel or replicating reports of yesterday - we
must act with conviction and determination.
As a proud Indigenous person as well as a proud Canadian, I know that my future and the future
of the generations to come is inextricably tied to the success of the project of creating a stronger
Canada that is inclusive and respects diversity - a post-nation state that recognizes pluralism and
a system of government that supports this objective. Strong Indigenous nations are a part of this
vision.
Legitimate and strong Indigenous nations have already begun to change the way Canada is
governed for the better, and will continue to do so. There is room in our country for different
legal traditions and ways of governing - for an approach that respects diversity and equality and
supports the social and economic advancement of Indigenous peoples as part of our evolving
system of cooperative federalism and multi-level governance.
It is what distinguishes Canada as a nation from other nations of the world where ethnic tensions
threaten cohesion and with it, social and economic stability - indeed, human progress.
Accordingly, there is no place within today's Canada for governments to deny the place of
Indigenous peoples to participate fully in decisions that directly and significantly affect them or
where rights require action or jurisdiction to be respected. And to this end the nation-to-nation
relationship is so critical. Where land-use decisions are being made that affect Indigenous
peoples, the legitimate and recognized governments of those peoples must be able to participate
in shared decision-making with other levels of government. For me, this is how free, prior and
informed consent is operationalized.
I see the role of my Department in this period of transition as one of legal facilitation of
recognition and reconciliation - to work to lay out the constitutional and legal foundations within
government, and then to facilitate building the tools and processes needed to bridge between the
present and that future state.
On this note, the previous government enacted a suite of legislation that I, along with many
others and you, have said is inconsistent with developing a nation-to-nation relationship, and as
we develop the mechanisms to the transition we will have to reconsider this legislation.
And, of course, there will continue to be litigation between Indigenous peoples and the Crown.
Accordingly, my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General is to ensure the Charter is
upheld and that the legal positions taken by the Crown in court are consistent with the
commitments and values of our government with respect to the evolving nation-to-nation
relationship with Indigenous peoples.
By way of conclusion, let me leave you with these final thoughts.
Now is the time. The political and legal ducks are aligned. There is a friendly government. But
we need your solutions. As a government we are not going to impose solutions. With your
leadership we can and will make enormous progress. There is no need to refight battles that have
already been won. Limited resources, time and energy have to be expended on building - not
fighting. On creating - not destroying. On empowering - not protest. Pressing social issues must
be addressed now. But nations need to be ready to assume jurisdiction and the responsibilities
that come with it. And while the federal government has a crucial supporting role to play, the
hard work is going to be in the community. As I have said in the Commons, only the colonized
can actually decolonize. No one else can do it for you.
So are we ready to implement the UNDRIP?
Are we ready to finish the unfinished business of Confederation?
I say we are. I know we are.
So let us get on with it. We have much work to do and I look forward to doing this work
together.
Gilakas'la. Thank you.

Special Statement at the Opening Ceremonies of the United Nations
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 15th Session
Speech
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, PC, MP

Special Statement at the Opening Ceremonies of the United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, 15th Session
Location: United Nations General Assembly, New York, NY: May 9, 2016 Time: 12:45 p.m.
Introduction
Chief Hill, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Permanent Forum, esteemed representatives of the
United Nations, UN Permanent Forum delegates.
I acknowledge our Indigenous hosts and thank them for the welcome onto their ancestral lands.
My traditional name is Puglaas. I come from the Musgamagw Tsawatineuk and Laich-Kwil-
Tach people from the west coast of Canada. I am part of the Eagle clan and my father, Hemas
Kla-Lee-Lee-Kla, is our hereditary chief.
I would like to thank you for inviting me to be part of the opening of the 15th session of the
Permanent Forum, and I am pleased to bring you greetings from our Prime Minister, The Right
Honourable Justin Trudeau.
Today I stand before you as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada - an
appointment that speaks volumes to how far our country has come but also how far we intend to
go.
Indigenous Peoples and the Nation-to-Nation relationship
I am also honoured to be among a record number of Indigenous Members of Parliament elected

last October. I believe that this represents a real change from the time when most Indigenous
people were actively discouraged from participating fully in society. This past election saw
Indigenous peoples vote in record numbers.
Further, I am extremely proud to be part of a government whose leader has made a solemn
commitment to fundamental change with a vision for true reconciliation with Indigenous
peoples.
To this end, our Prime Minister has tasked all of his Ministers to work towards rebuilding the
relationship, which is set out in each of our public mandate letters - letters that state, "No
relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples. It is
time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples based on recognition
of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership."
That said, this is perhaps the most challenging area of public policy our Government's priorities
seek to address - but this work is necessary and long overdue. We must complete the unfinished
business of Confederation. Rebuilding the nation-to-nation relationship and achieving
reconciliation lies at the heart of a strong Canada.
We need to find long-term solutions to decades old problems as we seek to deconstruct our
colonial legacy. Important to this work will be implementing the Calls to Action set out in the
recent report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which considered the legacy of the
Indian residential schools.
One of the significant challenges to this work is that, although strengthening the nation-to-nation
relationship is the goal, practically speaking the administration of Indigenous affairs in Canada is
not actually organized around Indigenous Nations. For the most part, it is organized around an
imposed system of governance. With respect to Indians this is through "bands," which are
creatures of federal statute under the Indian Act - the Indian Act being the antithesis of self-
government as an expression of self-determination.
Simply put, we need to move beyond the system of imposed governance.
And I am confident that we have the legal tools to do so - that for Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples
we can and will breathe life into section 35 of Canada's Constitution, which recognizes and
affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, by embracing the principles and minimum
standards articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples and
guided by the dozens of court decisions that provide instruction. My colleague and friend, the
Honourable Carolyn Bennett, will be making a statement about the Declaration tomorrow.
The challenge moving forward, I submit, is not to fight battles already won, but rather to
translate these hard-fought-for rights into practical and meaningful benefits on the ground in our
communities.
But as any person who has worked in Indigenous communities in Canada knows, it is not easy to
decolonize - it is not easy to throw off the shackles of 140 years of the Indian Act system, for
example. Indigenous communities are clearly in a period of transition - of nation building and
rebuilding. Our job as the Government of Canada is to support this transition.
Tied to the fundamental work of nation rebuilding and implementing the United Nations
Declaration, one of the biggest legal questions we need to unpack is how to implement the
concept of "free, prior and informed consent."
The Declaration recognizes that Indigenous peoples have both individual and collective rights.
Participation in real decision-making is at the heart of the Declaration's concept of free, prior and
informed consent - that Indigenous peoples must be able to participate in making decisions that
affect their lives.
There are many facets to the question, differing perspectives, and a number of options. All
require a new nation-to-nation relationship - reflected in our unique constitutional requirements.
So, how do we move forward? As the late Nelson Mandela taught us, beyond the necessary truth
telling and healing, reconciliation actually requires laws to change and policies to be rewritten.
We intend to do so in full partnership.
There is a need for a national action plan in Canada, something our government has been
referring to as a Reconciliation Framework.
In accordance with the Reconciliation Framework, we need more effective and clear ways of
recognizing Indigenous Nations and providing supports in the transition for those Nations that
are ready, willing, and able to move beyond the status quo. At the same time, we need to ensure
that communities continue to receive the necessary programs and services during the period of
transition. This work also necessarily includes developing a new fiscal relationship with
Indigenous governments.
And we do not need to reinvent the wheel completely. It is important to understand what has
worked and why and to build on the success. There are already many positive steps that have
been taken. Within Canada, there are modern treaties and examples of self-government - both
comprehensive and sectoral. There are regional and national Indigenous institutions that support
nation rebuilding - for example, in land management and financial administration.
The time is right for meaningful and systemic change to respect and acknowledge the place of
Indigenous Nations.
Legitimate and strong Indigenous Nations are changing and will increasingly change the way
Canada is governed, and for the better. There is room in our country for different legal traditions
and ways of governing - an approach that respects diversity and supports the social and
economic advancement of Indigenous peoples as part of our evolving system of cooperative
federalism and multi-level governance.
For this vision to be realized, Indigenous peoples need to be empowered to take back control of
their own lives in partnership and with the full support of all Canadians. For change to occur,
communities must go through their own processes of empowerment and local transformation,
through healing, rebuilding and capacity development. In doing so, we can continue to make real
progress.
Conclusion
And this is not just true for Indigenous peoples in Canada. There are common challenges and
opportunities for Indigenous Nations no matter where they exist in the world. That is why the
UN Permanent Forum is such an important mechanism. The bringing together of States and
Indigenous peoples to address issues of fundamental importance over the past 15 years has made
an immense impact with respect to the recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples.
There have been two official international decades of the world's Indigenous peoples. I say let us
make this the century of the world's Indigenous peoples, one where Indigenous peoples, no
matter where they live, deconstruct their colonial legacy and rebuild their communities. Let us
make it a century where Nation States and Indigenous peoples work in partnership towards true
reconciliation that supports strong and healthy Indigenous peoples that are in charge of and in
control of their own destinies. This, my friends, is our objective: where the Declaration and the
work of this place is a means to an end and not the end in itself, the end being an improved
quality of life for Indigenous peoples with practising and thriving cultures.
Gilakas'la.
Statement from the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of
Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, and
Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville
January 14, 2019

https://jwilson-raybould.liberal.ca/news-nouvelles/statement-from-the-honourable-jody-wilson-
raybould-minister-of-veterans-affairs-and-associate-minister-of-national-defence-and-member-
of-parliament-for-vancouver-granville/
Statement from the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (PDF)

http://jwilson-raybould.liberal.ca/wp-
content/uploads/sites/1565/2019/01/JWilsonRaybouldStatement.pdf
I have received many questions and inquiries about the Cabinet shuffle announced today and
why I am no longer the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Thank you for all
the kind words. While I can understand the interest of Canadians in this matter, I will not be
commenting. In our system, decisions regarding the appointment of Cabinet Ministers are the
prerogative of the Prime Minister.
Moving forward, I am very proud to be the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister
of National Defence. Any opportunity to serve and support Canada’s Veterans is a great honour,
and I look forward to meeting with Veterans across the country, engaging with the crucial
matters that must be addressed, and continuing our Government’s progress to support and honour
Canada’s Veterans.
I do, however, on leaving the office of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
(MOJAG) wish to share with Canadians some reflections about my time in that office.
Serving Canadians as MOJAG for the past three plus years has been one of the greatest
privileges of my life. I was directed in my mandate letter to pursue and achieve a broad,
progressive, and ambitious agenda and I am tremendously proud of our accomplishments. There
is very little, if anything, in my mandate letter we have not done or is not well under way to
completing, and we have also achieved much beyond it. I have attached an overview of these
accomplishments to this statement. I thank my amazing Minister’s office staff and the
hardworking and dedicated public servants within the Department of Justice for their tireless
work and for so ably supporting the advancement of our agenda. I also thank the residents of
Vancouver Granville, and all Canadians who have been overwhelmingly kind, generous, and
supportive as we worked together to help build an ever stronger and more just Canada. This
work goes on, and I remain dedicated to it, whatever public or private roles I may play.
I firmly believe that as a result of our achievements, the state of the justice system in Canada is
stronger and better positioned today than when our Government took office. Most importantly,
the ongoing work of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians has advanced.
As I have said before, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is in many ways
an ambassador for the Charter.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is somewhat distinct from other Cabinet
Ministers because the role is a dual one. The Minister of Justice is the legal advisor to Cabinet. In
this capacity, the Minister is concerned with the administration of justice, including policy in the
areas of criminal law, family law, human rights law, and Indigenous justice. The role of the
Attorney General of Canada carries with it unique responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and
the administration of justice, and as such demands a measure of principled independence. It is a
pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political
interference and uphold the highest levels of public confidence. As such, it has always been my
view that the Attorney General of Canada must be non-partisan, more transparent in the
principles that are the basis of decisions, and, in this respect, always willing to speak truth to
power. This is how I served throughout my tenure in that role.
At a time when the functioning of democracies around the globe is increasingly under strain, and
democratic norms are in peril, the unique and independent aspects of the dual role of the Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada are even more important. I know Canadians across
the country expect such high standards to continue to be met – especially in the uncertain times
in which we now live – and I expect this to continue.
With respect to Indigenous issues, as MOJAG, I have publicly expressed my opinions in various
venues about the ongoing challenges in transforming what the Prime Minister has stated is the
“most important” relationship, that between Canada and Indigenous peoples. One of my main
motivations for seeking public office was to see the work of reconciliation accelerate and
advance in real and tangible ways.
The work that must be done is well known. We have the solutions. Indigenous peoples have
advocated and brought forward what must be done for decades. Countless Commissions, studies,
reports, and analyses have reiterated the work we must do together to reconcile.
The foundation for moving forward is understanding that the dire social and economic realities
that Indigenous peoples continue to face – including lack of clean drinking water, over
representation in the criminal justice system, inadequate housing, high rates of poverty, and
violence against Indigenous women and girls – are directly linked to legislative and policy
regimes that have disempowered and divided Indigenous peoples, eroded their systems of
governance, laws, and responsibilities, harmed their economies, and denied their basic rights and
systems. Long overdue legislative and policy changes based on the recognition of title and rights,
including historic treaties, are urgently needed, so that Indigenous peoples can accelerate and
lead the work of re-building their Nations and governments, and a new climate of co-operative
relations can emerge.
While our government has taken some very important steps, and hard work is being done, the
necessary shifts have not yet been fully achieved. Rather, a number of the proposals that our
government has been pursuing so far require substantial work in co-operation and collaboration
with Indigenous peoples to reset the new foundations for this most important relationship.
As a Member of Cabinet, I will continue to be directly engaged in advocating for and advancing
the fundamental shifts in relations with Indigenous peoples that are required and will continue to
work with my colleagues and to ensure my voice is heard.
Again, I express my deepest gratitude to the residents of Vancouver Granville, and all
Canadians, who have shown me such kindness, patience, and support over the past three plus
years, and I am excited to continue to build a better Canada alongside you in the days and
months ahead as the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence.
Gilakas’la,
Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence
Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville
ANNEX:
LEGLISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS:
As Minister of Justice, introduced 13 pieces of legislation:
Bill C-14 – In conjunction with the Minister of Health, passed legislation that responded to the
Supreme Court of Canada’s Carter decision that gives Canadian adults with a grievous and
irremediable medical condition the choice of a medically-assisted death.
Bill C-16 – Groundbreaking human rights legislation that added gender identity and expression
as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to the list
of distinguishing characteristics of “identifiable group” protected by the hate speech provisions
of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-45 – In conjunction with the Ministers of Health and Public Safety, passed legislation to
legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis for adults.
Bill C-46 – In conjunction with the Minister of Public Safety, passed the companion legislation
to the Cannabis Act, which toughens laws on drug and alcohol impaired driving. Also authorized
the use of the Draeger, the first roadside oral screening device regarding drug use.
Bill C-51 – Legislated the first major update to sexual assault laws in over 25 years. It also
legislated the requirement of Charter Statements to accompany each piece of government
legislation, and repealed a number of redundant provisions of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-60 – Passed the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (the 12th of its kind), an Act
to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-
controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain Acts and
provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
Bill C-75 (currently before the Senate) – Our government’s legislative response to the Supreme
Court of Canada’s decision in Jordan. It contains a comprehensive package of criminal justice
system reforms and is the outcome of a review of the changes in our criminal justice system and
sentencing reforms over the past decade. It also implements our platform commitments to
toughen criminal laws and bail conditions in cases of domestic assault, in consultation with
stakeholders and with the goal of keeping survivors and children safe.
As well, Bill C-75 reintroduces legislative amendments from the following four bills:
Bill C-28: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge);
Bill C-38: An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in
persons); and
Bill C-39: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts (this bill also included Bill C-32, An Act related to the
repeal of section 159 (anal intercourse) of the Criminal Code).
Bill C-78 (currently before the Senate) – The first substantial update of Canada’s federal family
laws in over 20 years, which will put the best interests of children first, address family violence,
reduce child poverty, and make Canada’s family justice system more accessible and efficient.
Bill C-84 (currently in the House of Commons) – Strengthens the law on bestiality and animal
cruelty, and responds to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v. D.L.W.
For each piece of Justice legislation, as well as some other Government bills, introduced in the
House of Commons an accompanying Charter Statement outlining how the bill potentially
engages Canadians’ Charter rights.
NON-LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS:
Overhauled the federal judicial appointments process, including the process of appointing
Supreme Court Justices, to ensure that it is transparent, inclusive and accountable to Canadians.
As a result of that process, appointed 250 judges across Canada including a record number of
104 appointments in 2018. Of those, more than 56% are women, eight are Indigenous, twenty-
two are members of visible minority communities, twelve identify as LGBTQ2S, and three
identify as persons with disabilities. Created 75 new judicial positions across Canada responding
to the needs of Canadians and the courts.
Expanded Unified Family Courts in Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Conducted a Criminal Justice System Review that included diverse consultations and round-
tables across Canada.
Invested in victim’s services and access to justice for victims and families through the Victim’s
Fund.
Reviewed our government’s litigation strategy, ending appeals, changing positions or settling
cases where it was appropriate to do so.
Issued a prosecutorial directive on HIV non-disclosure cases to the Public Prosecution Service of
Canada, to make our justice system fairer and to reduce the stigmatization of Canadians living
with HIV.
Issued Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.
For the first time, published an annual Litigation Year in Review document in 2016, 2017 and
2018.
Issued a Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples, which will guide Canada’s
legal approaches, positions and decisions taken in civil litigation involving Aboriginal and treaty
rights and the Crown’s obligation towards Indigenous peoples.
Supported the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the restoration of a modern Court Challenges
Program.
Led delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s third Universal Periodic Review
in Geneva, a review of Canada’s human rights record by United Nations member states. Was the
first time Canada sent a cabinet-level head-of-delegation.
Initiated the first meetings of federal-provincial-territorial Ministers responsible for human rights
in nearly 30 years.
Spoke to the UK House of Lords, with an introduction by the Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell.
Delivered the Annual Reconciliation Lecture at the Australian National University in 2016, the
first non-Australian to do so.
Opened the 15th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2016,
with a speech on Canada’s relationship with Indigenous Peoples, the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the need for free, prior and informed consent.
Delivered the annual Campagnolo Lecture on Restorative Justice, 2018.

Jody Wilson Raybould Speeches

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Jody Wilson Raybould Speeches

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Address by the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, PC, QC, MP to the

BC Leaders Gathering (Premier, BC Cabinet, and Chiefs of BC)

Notes for an address by

Check against delivery

Gilakas'la. Good morning.

And on that note. Where do we go from here?

Forward, of course. We move forward without repeating mistakes. Even if recent.

Date modified: 2018-12-01

From: Department of Justice Canada

Notes for an address by

Check against delivery

Gilakas’la. Good evening.

Reconciliation and Empowerment of Indigenous Peoples

So how do we truly overcome this imbalance – and advance true reconciliation?

Let me be candid for a few minutes.

The statistics are bleak.

In 2015-16, despite representing approximately 5 percent of Canada’s total female population,

In 2016-17, Indigenous youth accounted for 46 percent of admissions to correctional services,

There are also proposed changes to how juries are selected.

Thank you very much.

Notes for an address by

Check against delivery

Gilakas’la. Good evening.

I worked as a prosecutor in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, before turning my focus

• the rebuilding of Indigenous nations and governments in Canada, and;

Reconciliation and Indigenous Rights

So let me pause for second on this term “recognition of rights”.

• Harmony between the laws of Canada and UNDRIP;

Indigenous Overrepresentation in Criminal Justice System

According to Statistics Canada, Indigenous adults comprised 4.1 percent of Canada’s

In 2015-16, despite representing approximately 5 percent of Canada’s total female population,

In 2016-17, Indigenous youth accounted for 46 percent of admissions to correctional services,

It is in such a context that disempowerment, hopelessness, cycles of violence, and desperation

Indigenous Specific Sentencing Courts

Bail Breaches (Bill C-75)

Jury Selection (Bill C-75)

There are also proposed changes to how juries are selected.

Gilakas’la. Thank you very much.

Date modified: 2018-09-18

From: Department of Justice Canada

Notes for an address by:

National Family Law Program

Check against delivery

It is my pleasure to be here today, and to participate in this important dialogue. In particular, I

Second, I will discuss changes to address family violence.

Promoting the Best Interests of the Child

Changes in Terminology (Parenting Language)

Proposed Amendments to Federal Enforcement Legislation

Making the Family Justice System More Accessible, Streamlining

And with your support and continued guidance we will.

Thank you again for all that you do. Gilakas’la.

From: Department of Justice Canada

Notes for an address by

Check against delivery

Thank you for that very kind introduction.

So let us dive in by addressing the issue of “certainty”. I think it is important to provide a

So why is certainty – which we all desire – so rare and elusive?

We experience the effects of this denial every day.

The costs of denial have been immense.

So what does it take to actually build certainty?

The promise of section 35 of our Constitution is rights recognition. It is through rights

From: Department of Justice Canada

Check against delivery

I am honoured to be in this position, to be able to be the champion of the Charter, to be able to

From: Department of Justice Canada

Notes for an address by

Check against delivery