The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Division of Powers: Considering Federal and Provincial Authority in Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the federal and some provincial governments committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, questions have largely shifted from whether the Declaration should be implemented to the mechanics of implementation. This paper enters into this discussion by analyzing the impact of the constitutional division of powers on implementation efforts. In this, it seeks to provide some clarity about what the federal and provincial governments can hope to achieve in respect of implementation in light of the ambit of their respective constitutional authority. This will provide some insight, it is hoped, into what can reasonably be expected of implementation at the federal and provincial levels. Three preliminary questions give shape to this inquiry: why is there a need for both federal and provincial implementing legislation? What can legislation from each level of government hope to achieve? What will happen if federal and provincial implementation legislation conflict? Part 1 provides a brief account of the legal parameters of UNDRIP implementation. Part 2 addresses issues raised by implementation in a federal state. Part 3 considers the scope of federal and provincial jurisdiction in detail. Parts 4 and 5 look at potential conflicts that may arise; the former considers scenarios in which the federal government seeks to exercise its jurisdiction to impose implementation standards on reluctant provinces, while the latter considers a scenario wherein a province pursues implementation at odds with federal legislation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".