findings:
Pillar 5: Recognition of Indigenous Rights
Rethinking Municipal Policy Responses to Encampments: Building a Human Rights Approach in Ontario
Exploratory Questions:
- Is there acknowledgement of Indigenous Rights in the protocol?
- Is there recognition of the need to consult with Indigenous people and/or Indigenous service providers in the protocol?
Is there acknowledgement of Indigenous Rights in the protocol?
Our final pillar is the recognition of Indigenous rights through encampment responses, an issue discussed in all the human rights documents we reviewed. This is important especially within the settler colonial context both because Indigenous people are over-represented among people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Canada, and because the Canadian state has unique obligations towards responsibilities and reconciliation towards Indigenous peoples, especially concerning public lands. Despite the importance of recognizing Indigenous rights as part of an encampment response, there was no mention of Indigenous rights in the documents we reviewed, and this is a key gap in municipal encampment responses. Overlooking the foundational reality that encampments sit on territories governed by Indigenous laws, relationships to land, and treaty obligations fails to build frameworks of reconciliation in mutual partnership with Indigenous nations and erases the jurisdictional and relational context in which decisions are being made.
Our final pillar is the recognition of Indigenous rights through encampment responses, an issue discussed in all the human rights documents we reviewed. This is important especially within the settler colonial context both because Indigenous people are over-represented among people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Canada, and because the Canadian state has unique obligations towards responsibilities and reconciliation towards Indigenous peoples, especially concerning public lands. Despite the importance of recognizing Indigenous rights as part of an encampment response, there was no mention of Indigenous rights in the documents we reviewed, and this is a key gap in municipal encampment responses. Overlooking the foundational reality that encampments sit on territories governed by Indigenous laws, relationships to land, and treaty obligations fails to build frameworks of reconciliation in mutual partnership with Indigenous nations and erases the jurisdictional and relational context in which decisions are being made.
Is there recognition of the need to consult with Indigenous people and/or Indigenous service providers in the protocol?
Some protocols did discuss Indigenous service responses. For example, the City of London’s protocol references, “Culturally appropriate responses….informed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action and the Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People” and suggests cultural reconnection is an important component of encampment outreach services. The City of Greater Sudbury also discusses culturally appropriate services, referencing Jesse Thistle’s “12 Dimensions of Indigenous Homelessness” as important in acknowledging different aspects of homelessness for Indigenous people. Similarly, the City of Toronto’s protocol discusses using Indigenous communities and service providers to better support Indigenous people living in encampments and explicitly states a commitment to “supporting and advancing Indigenous-led solutions to unsheltered homelessness in Toronto.” However, these examples were the exception rather than the norm; most municipal protocols offered little or no recognition of Indigenous-led service approaches. Furthermore, outside of the City of Toronto’s protocol, no other protocol mentioned the importance of leading with Indigenous solutions with respect to the appropriate use and access to land, highlighting a substantial gap between stated commitments to reconciliation and the policies guiding encampment responses.
Some protocols did discuss Indigenous service responses. For example, the City of London’s protocol references, “Culturally appropriate responses….informed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action and the Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People” and suggests cultural reconnection is an important component of encampment outreach services. The City of Greater Sudbury also discusses culturally appropriate services, referencing Jesse Thistle’s “12 Dimensions of Indigenous Homelessness” as important in acknowledging different aspects of homelessness for Indigenous people. Similarly, the City of Toronto’s protocol discusses using Indigenous communities and service providers to better support Indigenous people living in encampments and explicitly states a commitment to “supporting and advancing Indigenous-led solutions to unsheltered homelessness in Toronto.” However, these examples were the exception rather than the norm; most municipal protocols offered little or no recognition of Indigenous-led service approaches. Furthermore, outside of the City of Toronto’s protocol, no other protocol mentioned the importance of leading with Indigenous solutions with respect to the appropriate use and access to land, highlighting a substantial gap between stated commitments to reconciliation and the policies guiding encampment responses.
