Section 35 Legal Framework
Implications for Evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.69006Keywords:
evaluation, reconciliation, Section 35, First PeoplesAbstract
Developments in Canada’s constitutional and legal framework since 1982 set the stage for the current Liberal government’s nation-to-nation policy, which recognizes Indigenous rights and seeks to build a relationship of respect and partnership through reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. These developments have important implications for those engaged in policy and program evaluations who are now called upon—not only by their own professional ethics but by the legal principles flowing from Section 35—to reimagine their approach and work as partners with Indigenous nations based on the recognition of Indigenous rights, reconciliation, and the Crown’s duty to act honourably in all of its dealings with Indigenous peoples. There are no off-the-shelf answers for how this can be done. Evaluation professionals will need to be guided by these key legal principles and the progressive view set out in the Liberal government’s Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples.
References
Bowman, N., & Dodge-Francis, C. (2017). Culturally responsive Indigenous evaluation and tribal governments: Understanding the relationship. Asserting tribal sovereignty in evaluation and policy studies. Retrieved from https://www.ncai.org/policy-researchcenter/initiatives/tribal-leader-scholar-forum
Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General). SCR 313 (1973).
Centre for First Nations Governance. (2011). A brief history of our right to self-government: Pre-contact to present. Ottawa, ON: Author.
Cornell, S. (2008, October 30). Keynote address to British Columbia Treaty Commission Conference. Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Treaty Commission. Retrieved from http://www.bctreaty.ca/sites/default/files/Dr.%20Stephen%20Cornell%20TranscriptFINAL.pdf
Cram , F. ( 2018 ). Conclusion: Lessons about Indigenous evaluations . New Directions for Evaluations, 2018( 159 ), 121 – 133 . https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20326
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. 3 SCR 1010 (1997).
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests). 3 SCR 511 (2004).
Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage). 3 SCR 388 (2005).
Minister of Justice. (2017). Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1996). Final report. G. Erasmus & and R. Dussault, co-chairs. Ottawa, ON: Author.
R. v. Sparrow. 1 SCR 1075 (1990).
R. v. Van der Peet. 2 SCR 507 (1996).
St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen. 14 App Cas 46 (1888).
Trudeau , J. (2015). Mandate Letters to Ministers. Retrieved from https://pm.gc.ca
Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia. 2 SCR 257 (2014).
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Summary: Knowing the truth, reconciling for the future. Winnipeg, MB: Author.
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2013). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/5289e4fc4.html
Webber, J. (2017). Contending sovereignties. In P. Oliver, P. Macklem, & N. Derosier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the Canadian constitution (p. 289). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Pamela McCurry
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
