I find the context of the question to be a little difficult to understand in referring to indigenous people in the context of Rwanda or some other country in a different part of the world. Certainly a unique context results out of treaty. Many great leaders and people I've learned from have tried and pushed and dedicated their life's work to creating certainty for indigenous people in Canada's Constitution.
I have brought to the crown-first nations gathering the concept of a constitutional meeting on first nations issues not to make or propose amendments to the Constitution, but to help create understanding about where the boundaries between decision-making exist in a treaty context. Certainly, as indigenous people, we did not sign away our decision-making at the governance levels of our people. We did not include that in treaty and what was left silent in treaty remains vested in indigenous people.
At times it might be difficult to reconcile that with the good intentions of people who have become prosperous on the wealth of the resources of the ancestral lands of our people, but the truth is we still need to be recognized for who we are, the original people here. There are jurisdictions intact that need to be revitalized, that need to be renewed in a post-residential school era, because that's what we're in now.