Seite - 51 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

51COVID-19 and First Nations’ Responses be understood within a broader context of historical and ongoing colonialism, which has disrupted and undermined the health and well-being of Indigenous people. In sum, the relationship is primarily governed through the Crown’s unilateral creation of laws and poli- cies, formed and deformed over centuries, and which aim to position Crown interests above those of Indigenous people, especially in rela- tion to lands and resources. The Supreme Court of Canada refers to this relationship structure as the reconciliation of asserted/affirmed Crown sovereignty with the “prior occupation by Aboriginal people.”1 Both prior to and since confederation, Canada adopted a fed- eral project to assimilate Indigenous people into the citizenry, which continues today in a variety of forms, including chronic underfund- ing of essential services, leaving Indigenous people vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indigenous people score far worse on virtually all indicators of health than the general public,2 a situation that has been directly attributed to historical and ongoing processes of colo- nization.3 Further, Indigenous communities currently face multiple health crises and have already experienced devastating pandem- ics with disastrous and ongoing impacts. The broader context for Indigenous people is characterized by increased risk and vulnerabil- ity, yet a capacity for resilience. This chapter is not the place to recount the long, hostile, and vio- lent history of Indigenous/Crown relations in Canada, but it is a place for attempting to offer a contemporary picture of some of the ways in which the long-standing federal approach has impacted COVID-19 responses for Indigenous people. We have scaled down our discussion to consider only federal COVID-19 responses in a First Nations context and the assertion of jurisdiction by First Nations in relation to their own people and territories. We have not captured Métis or Inuit responses, nor have we canvassed provincial responses. If we had taken on each of 1. R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507, 137 DLR (4th) 289. 2. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Canada’s  Residential  Schools:  The  Legacy  (The  Final  Report),  vol 5 (Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). See also First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, “Victory for First Nations Children: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Finds Discrimination Against First Nations Children Living On-Reserve” (26 January 2016), online (pdf): First  Nations  Child  and  Family  Caring  Society  of  Canada <https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Information%20 Sheet%20re%20CHRT%20Decision.pdf>. 3. James Anaya, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (2014), online: United Nations <https://undocs.org/A/HRC/27/52/AdFREEd.2>.