Trudeau-Wernick National Termination AKA Reconciliation Plan

Russel Diabo

I’m afraid we’re screwed, the trend is to accept the Trudeau/Wernick Plan—they took over the band council/band office system from Ottawa at the centre of the federal government, meaning Prime Minister’s Office/Privy Council Office using the money. 

The Feds have the biggest AFN Regions (Provincial Organizations) onside like the majority of BC, they have Saskatchewan and most of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic. Of course the Yukon & NWT.

There may be pockets of resistance in those regions but the majority of band councils/band offices are ok with the Trudeau/Wernick Plan.

The pockets of resistance in Alberta are outnumbered.

Historic Treaties are being dismantled through terms and conditions of funding agreements, one off specific claims like cows & ploughs and discussions at “self-determination” tables to move from the Indian Act into full “self-government, as Trudeau told the AFN Assembly on Thursday without one Chief asking what he meant by “self-government”.

The Feds have taken advantage of the global pandemic and conducted business through zoom calls with willing partners.

However, the fix was in before the pandemic began in March 2020.

Trudeau & Wernick had already succeeded in their top down take over of AFN through the MOU’s on fiscal & shared priorities, including the Feds 10 principles for Indigenous Relationships & dissolving the Department of Indian Affairs while keeping the Indian Act in place for control and management.

Now with the two new federal departments the structure is in place to process Indian Act Bands into full “self-government” in Treaty & non-Treaty areas. That’s why the Feds came up with the term “Indigenous Governing Bodies” to process Bands into becoming “Indigenous Governments”. The definition of “Indigenous Governing Bodies” includes Band Councils, Indigenous Governments and “entities” with section 35 mandates like Child & Family Services Agencies.

I don’t hear a clamour from Bands or Band Councils to develop alternatives to Ottawa’s national plan.

There is no mass Peoples movement like Idle No More and Ottawa has indirect control of the Band Council/Band Office system through funding agreements.

It seems all I can do now is watch the Feds national plan unfold as my criticisms are ignored by most. 

Ottawa doesn’t fund the NO side only the YES side is funded to support the federal plans and the resulting agreements.

Supporting documents:

1969 White Paper Goals: Publicly Withdrawn: Secretly Implemented:

Eliminate Indian Status.

Dissolve the Department of Indian Affairs within 5 years.

Abolish the Indian Act & remove section 91.24 referring to “Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians”.

Convert reserve land to private property that can be sold by the band or its members.

Transfer responsibility for Indian Affairs from the federal government to the province and integrate these services into those provided to other Canadian citizens.

Provide funding for economic development.

Appoint a commissioner to address outstanding land claims and gradually terminate existing Treaties

See: "How It Works: Trudeau Government's Manipulation of UNDRIP (Bill C-15) to Re-Colonize First Nations," By Russ Diabo, Truth Before Reconciliation Campaign.

Putting Our Own House In Order!

Restoring Our Sovereignty From Indian Act Band Councils

Self Determination Belongs to Our People’s

UNDRIP Article 18: Right to Self‐Representation

Bringing Back the People’s Voices in Decision‐Making In Communities & Nations

A Truth Before Reconciliation Publication-Campaign 2020

 Federal Government’s Treaty Policy Is Chretien’s “Self-Government” Policy

Truth Before Recognition Campaign 2020, Russ Diabo, October 2020

Treaties (Chretien’s) ‘Inherent Right’ Policy:

The Government of Canada is prepared, where the other parties agree, to constitutionally protect rights set out in negotiated self-government agreements as treaty rights within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Implementation of the inherent right in this fashion would be a continuation of the historic relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. Self-government rights could be protected under section 35:

in new treaties;

as part of comprehensive land claim agreements; or

as additions to existing treaties.

Treaties create mutually binding obligations and commitments which are constitutionally protected. Recognizing the solemn and enduring nature of treaty rights, the Government believes that the primary criterion for determining whether or nota matter should receive constitutional protection is whether it is a fundamental element of self-government that should bind future generations. Under this approach, suitable matters for constitutional protection would include:

a listing of jurisdictions or authorities by subject matter and related arrangements;

the relationship of Aboriginal laws to federal and provincial laws;

the geographic area within which the Aboriginal government or institution will exercise its jurisdiction or authority, and the people to be affected thereby; and

matters relating to the accountability of the Aboriginal government to its members, in order to establish its legitimacy and the legitimacy of its laws within the Constitution of Canada.

It follows from this approach that matters in agreements of a technical or temporary nature would not be appropriate matters for constitutional protection as treaty rights. Arrangements that must be adaptable to changing circumstances, such as program and service delivery arrangements, and funding arrangements, would therefore not be appropriate subjects for constitutional protection as treaty rights.

SOURCE:The Government of Canada's Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government policy.

ImposedLiberal policy in 1995 under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Trudeau’s Two-Track “Reconciliation” Plan

Section 91.24

U_s_e_ _F_e_d_e_r_a_l_ _C_o_l_o_n_i_a_l_,_  A_u_t_h_o_r_i_t_y_ _&_ _C_o_n_t_r_o_l_ _o_v_e_r_ _“Indians & Lands Reserved for Indians” _t_o_ _D_i_s_s_o_l_v_e_ _D_e_p_t_._ _o_f_ _I_n_d_i_a_n_ _A_f_f_a_i_r_s_ _&_ _C_r_e_a_t_e_ _2_ _N_e_w_ _“I_n_d_i_g_e_n_o_u_s_” _D_e_p_t_’s_._

Section 35

T_o_ _I_m_p_o_s_e_ _a_ _“N_e_w_ _R_e_l_a_t_i_o_n_s_h_i_p_” _T_h_r_o_u_g_h_ _a_ _U_n_i_l_a_t_e_r_a_l_ _F_e_d_e_r_a_l_ _D_e_f_i_n_i_t_i_o_n_ _&_ _I_n_t_e_r_p_r_e_t_a_t_i_o_n_ _o_f_ _“R_e_c_o_g_n_i_t_i_o_n_” _o_f_ _“Existing Aboriginal & Treaty Rights” _

2_0_1_7_ _F_E_D_E_R_A_L_ _“1_0_ _P_R_I_N_C_I_P_L_E_S_”

The “1_0_ _P_r_i_n_c_i_p_l_e_s_” act as a proxy for the UNDRIP, with the Principles are simply a restatement of the Canadian common law limitations of section 35 rights.

Canada makes it clear under the first principle where they pretend to recognize the Indigenous right to self-determination, but their approach is still rooted in the colonial doctrines of discovery. They set out that: “C_a_n_a_d_a_’s_ _c_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _a_n_d_ _l_e_g_a_l_ _o_r_d_e_r_ _r_e_c_o_g_n_i_z_e_s_ _t_h_e_ _r_e_a_l_i_t_y_ _t_h_a_t_ _I_n_d_i_g_e_n_o_u_s_ _p_e_o_p_l_e_s_’ _a_n_c_e_s_t_o_r_s_ _o_w_n_e_d_ _a_n_d_ _g_o_v_e_r_n_e_d_ _t_h_e_ _l_a_n_d_s_ _w_h_i_c_h_ _n_o_w_ _c_o_n_s_t_i_t_u_t_e_ _C_a_n_a_d_a_ _p_r_i_o_r_ _t_o_ _t_h_e_ _C_r_o_w_n_’s_ _a_s_s_e_r_t_i_o_n_ _o_f_ _s_o_v_e_r_e_i_g_n_t_y_.” Here, Canada speaks to its assertion of sovereignty and claim to underlying title to the land, which they take as a given and do not question. If Canada was serious about meeting its international obligations it would have to move away from its reliance on the colonial doctrines of discovery. Canada should comply with the C_o_n_v_e_n_t_i_o_n_ _o_n_ _t_h_e_ _E_l_i_m_i_n_a_t_i_o_n_ _o_f_ _R_a_c_i_a_l_ _D_i_s_c_r_i_m_i_n_a_t_i_o_n_ _(C_E_R_D_’s_) rejection of the colonial doctrines of discovery as a racist basis for the claim to sovereignty, jurisdiction and title.

Dissolving INAC & Creating 2 Departments: Indigenous Crown Relations & Indigenous Services


Ensure that services are provided to Indigenous individuals who, and Indigenous governing bodies that, are eligible to receive those services.

(a) child and family services;

(b) education;

(c) health;

(d) social development;

(e) economic development;

(f) housing;

(g) infrastructure;

(h) emergency management;

(h.1) governance;


Russell Diabo




Trudeau Liberal Government’s 4th Level Ethnic Governance

Indigenous government’s are the fourth level of government in this country

– Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, 2016


The federal government continues to seek consent from First Nations (Indian Bands) to its policy definition of the “ Inherent Right to Self-Government”, in secret discussion and negotiation tables with First Nation Governments (Indian Act Band Councils) across Canada. The objective of Canada’s “ Inherent Right Policy” is to obtain final agreements using a surrender & replacement of rights technique to define Section 35 Aboriginal & Treaty Rights in legislation.

For decades the federal bureaucracy has gotten federal politicians to try and pass legislation to standardize a process for First Nations (Indian Bands) to “ go beyond” the Indian Act—as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recent told an AFN Chiefs’ Assembly—the “ path of reconciliation” is a journey into ” full self-government status”, and he noted, some First Nations (Indian Bands) have already achieved it, while others are negotiating to achieve it.

In 2018, the Trudeau Liberal government tried to pass the Rights Recognition Framework Bill, but First Nations across Canada rejected it, so the principles and objectives of the proposed Framework Bill are still being pursued by the federal government at its discussion and negotiation tables across Canada. This approach is cited in the Prime Minister’s Mandate Letters to both Indigenous Services Minister, Patty Hajdu, and Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister, Marc Miller.

first and foremost priority is to work in full partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis to continue building nation to nation relationships and support self-determination, including supporting First Nations communities as they transition to self-government and move away from the Indian Act.

The federal government has consistently used a municipal model for local “ self-government” converting Indian Act Bands into federal corporations, much like provinces do with municipalities, for example in British Colombia:

The corporate powers for municipalities are described in section 8 of the Community Charter as being “natural person powers.” Municipalities have the same rights, powers and privileges of a “natural person of full capacity”. For example, municipalities may enter into legal agreements, buy and dispose of land, hire and manage employees, and take or be subject to legal actions. These are typically referred to as "corporate powers" and are enabled through the Community CharterWhile municipal corporate powers are broad, some limitations and requirements apply. [SOURCE: Government of British Columbia]

In 1996, the Chretien Liberal government tried, but due to widespread First Nation opposition, failed to pass Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, which provided for the “ legal capacity of bands”:

16.1 A band has the capacity and, subject to this Act, the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.

In 2003, the Chretien Liberal government tried, but due to widespread First Nation opposition, failed to pass Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act ( An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts), which provided for the “ legal capacity of bands”:


15. (1) A band has the legal capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person

In 2019, the Metis Nations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario signed Recognition and Self-Government Agreements that set out the legal status and capacity of Metis government’s:


7.01 As of the Self-Government Implementation Date, the Métis Government and each of its Governance Structures will be a legal entity with the rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person at law

The federal government is using the Metis Recognition and Self-Government Agreements as a template in discussions and negotiations with First Nations (Indian Bands) using the same definition of legal status and capacity:




7.01 As of the Self-Government Implementation Date, the First Nation X Government and each of its Governance Structures will be a legal entity with the rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person at law, which includes the capacity to:

(a) enter into agreements and contracts with any person, government, organization, or other legal entity;

(b) acquire, hold, or dispose of property and any interests therein;


(c) sue or be sued and act on its behalf in legal proceedings;


(d) hold, spend, invest, or borrow money and secure or guarantee the repayment of money borrowed;


(e) create, operate, contribute to, act as trustee of, or otherwise deal with trusts;


(f) be appointed as and act as an executor, administrator, or trustee of an estate; and


(g) do other things ancillary to the exercise of its rights, powers, and privileges.

The surrender and replacement of rights technique is described by the federal government as follows:

Self-government is negotiated within the Canadian constitutional framework [federal & provincial constitutional division of powers] and federal legislation is passed before the negotiated agreement takes effect.


Truth Before Reconciliation:

The Truth Before Reconciliation Network on Education and Advocacy is a core team of people who are working to get Crown governments and Canadian society to address “ Truth Before Reconciliation”, because we believe the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its Calls to Action are not sufficient to address the colonization that First Nations have historically experienced and which continues today, particularly under the colonial policies and legislation passed under the Constitution Act 1867 and the unilaterally imposed federal policies and legislation defining Inherent & Treaty Rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982.

Dale Smith, "UNDRIP’s place in Canadian law: Passing the implementation statute was the easy part. The real test is figuring out what to do with all our other laws," CBA/ABC National, December 16, 2021,, reports, ""There is a risk of domesticating the Declaration, coming to a facile conclusion that it means the same thing as Section 35, and so we're good," says van Ert. "That's not right, and it's a danger, and we're not going to live up to the obligation that Parliament and the B.C. Legislature have now adopted if we just blithely assume that Section 35 accomplishes everything that the Declaration does. I don't think it does."

Neither UNDRIP nor Section 35 create rights, says Alexander. They merely affirm existing rights, with each amplifying different aspects of those rights in their own way."

[This is what I've been saying about BCDRIPA (Bill 41) and  CANDRIP (Bill C-15) as a policy analyst!]: Arend J.A. HoekstraGrace WuThomas Isaac, BCSC Decision Suggests Implications For UNDRIP Legislation In Canada," Cassels, January 18, 2022,, Reported, "The implications of UNDRIP legislation have been vigorously debated. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s (Court) recent decision  Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. ( Saik’uz First Nation), the defendants (Canada, the Province of British Columbia, and Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.) argued that 'the recent UNDRIP legislation has no immediate impact on existing law and is simply ‘a forward-looking’ statement of intent that contemplates an ‘action plan’ yet to be prepared and implemented by either level of government.'' 3


3. Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc, 2022 BCSC 15 at para 206."

 In its analysis, the Court recognized that it would not be able to fully adopt the principles of UNDRIP in its decision, noting 'I am still bound by precedent to apply the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada to the facts of this particular case and I will leave it to that Court to determine what effect, if any, UNDRIP legislation has on the common law.' 7


7. bid at para 212."

For additional supporting and related materials contact Russel Diabo,