A/HRC/27/52/Add.2 some of them are buried in unidentified graves. Generations of those who survived grew up estranged from their cultures and languages, with debilitating effects on the maintenance of their indigenous identity. That estrangement was heightened during the “sixties scoop”, when indigenous children were fostered and adopted into non-aboriginal homes, including outside Canada. The residential school period continues to cast a long shadow of despair on indigenous communities, and many of the dire social and economic problems faced by aboriginal peoples are linked to that experience. III. Legal, institutional and policy framework 6. Canada’s relationship with the indigenous peoples within its borders is governed by a well-developed legal framework that in many respects is protective of indigenous peoples’ rights. Building upon the protections in the British Crown’s Royal Proclamation of 1763, Canada’s 1982 Constitution was one of the first in the world to enshrine indigenous peoples’ rights, recognizing and affirming the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Métis people of Canada.2 Those provisions protect aboriginal title arising from historical occupation, treaty rights and culturally important activities. 7. Since 1982, Canada’s courts have developed a significant body of jurisprudence concerning aboriginal and treaty rights. In 1997, the seminal case of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia established aboriginal title as a proprietary right to land, grounded in occupation at the time of British assertion of sovereignty, which may only be infringed for public purposes with fair compensation and consultation,3 although in neither that nor any subsequent case has a declaration of aboriginal title been granted. Numerous cases have affirmed aboriginal rights to fish,, to hunt and to access lands for cultural and economic purposes. Furthermore, since the Haida Nation v. British Columbia case in 2004,4 federal and provincial governments have been subject to a formal duty to consult indigenous peoples and accommodate their interests whenever their asserted or established aboriginal or treaty rights may be affected by government conduct. Further jurisprudence confirms that treaties reached cannot be unilaterally abrogated and must be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the indigenous parties.5 8. The general statute governing registered Indians/First Nations is the Indian Act, which regulates most aspects of aboriginal life and governance on Indian reserves. There are numerous complementary statutes regulating specific subject areas and claims processes, as well as others that give effect to modern treaties and self-government agreements. 9. Notably, Canada recognizes that the inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal right under the Constitution which includes the right of indigenous peoples to govern themselves in matters that are internal to their communities or integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and in respect to their special relationship with their land and their resources. This right of self-government includes jurisdiction over the definition of governance structures, First Nation membership, family matters, education, health and property rights, among other subjects; however, in order to exercise this jurisdiction, agreements must be negotiated with the federal Government. Concerns related to this are discussed in section IV.C below. 2 3 4 5 Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s. 35. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (Supreme Court of Canada). Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 (Supreme Court of Canada). See R. v. Sioui, 1990 CanLII 103 (Supreme Court of Canada). 5