Aboriginal Self-Government

Aboriginal self-government is a long standing issue that continues to be a struggle for the First Nations People. To truly understand the scope of Aboriginal self-government within First Nations communities, more effort is needed to understand the legislative system that runs Canada. This issue of self-governance has been very destructive in First Nations communities. After signing the Treaties, First Nations People was stripped of their livelihood and from that point on to abide by the Dominion of Canadas legislative policies. One current issue that would be a perfect example is the Nisga People in British Columbia who is no longer under the protection of the

Aboriginal persons in Canada have been facing oppression ever since colonization began. Even when Canada gained independence from the British Empire, the oppression continued and still goes on today. One major contributing factor to the oppression of Aboriginal people in Canada is the actions taken by the Government. The Government of Canada has in fact mistreated and found to be partaking in wrongdoing when dealing with the Aboriginal population in this country. With this ugly truth being revealed, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had to be tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past. (cite)

Since the colonization of Canada First Nations people have been discriminated against and assimilated into the new culture of Canada through policies created by the government. Policies created had the intentions of improving the Aboriginal people’s standard of living and increasing their opportunities. Mainly in the past hundred years in Canadian Society, policies and government implemented actions such as; Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reserve systems have resulted in extinguishing native culture, teachings, and pride. Policies towards the treatment of Aboriginal Canadians has decreased their opportunities and standard of living because of policies specified previously (Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reservation systems).

Nobody deserves to be a ‘nobody’: unrecognized and unappreciated for their uniqueness. This is the reason why throughout history, Canada has been working to make sure that the Métis are not ‘nobodies’. Canada has provided enough recognition for Métis culture and rights through existing legislation. Historically, the Canadian government, or Dominion of Canada, has acted upon efforts to protect Métis land through legislation. Furthermore, Métis inherent rights to land, hunting, fishing and autonomy have been met with current and improved legislation. The Métis are now recognized as Aboriginal peoples and share the same rights through Section 35 of the Constitution. These pieces of legislation make it possible

In 1976 the Fraser government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Several state governments passed their own Land Rights Acts, which recognised aboriginal and Torres Strait islander claims to land and guaranteed them royalty payments from mining companies working there. Some laws enforced by the government became challenging for most indigenous people to abide by. Through the analysis of this information we understand the impacts the government and its laws had towards the indigenous society of

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

Second, Canada’s First Nations’ plight can be improved through self-governance. According to Pocklington, “For several years, Canadian aboriginal leaders have been demanding the recognition of a right of Native self-determination and thereby, for the aboriginal collectivities that choose it a right of self-government” (102). Aboriginal self-governance is a controversial issue in Canada. Before researching the issue I believed that self-governance would deter national unity, after further investigation, I presently believe that the claim for Aboriginal self-governance is justifiable. Although, according to Blakeney, “It will be a real challenge to make effective

My first reason to support the fact that Canada hasn’t affirmed collective rights for the Aboriginal group is the Indian Act and how poorly it treated the Aboriginals. The Indian Act is a federal legislation that is related to the rights and status of First Nations peoples (“status Indians”), which was first passed in 1867. During this time, the government thought that is was appropriate/acceptable to make laws for the First Nations peoples without consulting them. This move connected to Canada’s colonial past, the part where people of European descent strongly believed that their culture and way of life was way more superior to any other culture existing. In other words, they were ethnocentric. Within the Indian Act, it defied who may be registered as a “status Indian” with treaty rights. This meant that the Federal government were the ones who mostly made

Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the

To many people, Canada exemplifies a country that fulfills human rights and equality being the country of ‘freedom’. However, the Canadian government has distorted certain information including poverty that impacts many Aboriginal individuals daily. In theory, it is impossible to effectively analysis the impact that the past has imposed on Aboriginal people in Canada today. With this being said addressed below are several important historical government actions and legislations such as the Indian Act, Royal Proclamation, force segregation on reserves, and residential schooling impacting Aboriginal Canadians social conditions today. Fundamentally my goal is to address the idea that historical events are a crucial factor impacting Aboriginal

Each example given has also shown how self-determination was and continues to be a major struggle for Aboriginal people. Beginning with the Whitlam government, the Land Rights Act was going to be the national recognition that Aboriginal people had been waiting for, however the swift dismissal of the government and subsequent changes to the bill meant that an uninformed government would dictate claims of Aboriginal land rights. This was continued in the Heritage Protection Act for Western Australia in which no monitoring of abuses of power within the authoritative ministry was assessed; hence damage to heritage sites for the development of industries occurred. Finally the Racial Discrimination Act although making racial discrimination illegal has clearly been violated by the government in the Northern Territory interventions and hence is not valued by Australia despite the international commitments made to recognising Indigenous rights. Although legislation has been introduced to recognise Indigenous rights, there seems to always be a catch. A final reoccurring theme in the legislation discussed is the uninformed views of the non-Indigenous government as decisions are made on behalf of Aboriginal people; hence two major statements were discussed that precisely define Aboriginal self-determination by Aboriginal

Townshend describes how Aboriginals view the Canadian government as a foreign government. Furthermore, Townshend disputes the process of assimilation, integrating Aboriginals to the modern Canadian society. The solution is to create a third tier government that would work in cohesion with the Federal and Provincial levels. Different levels of government and the “…sharing of jurisdictional powers between government institutions is already part of the essence of the Canadian state,” (Townshend 39). If Canada is able to increase globalization and trade agreements on an international level, than Canada should not be so unwilling to share jurisdiction with an Aboriginal government.

These ‘White Papers’ focused on the social and economic problems that were rampant within the First Nation communities and was considered to be humane because of the fact that Native peoples were integrated within mainstream society [pp.6]. These problems were ‘highlighted’ through the result of various studies conducted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from 1966 to 1969 and became the basis of the ‘White Paper’. Although the paper was ultimately defeated, these beliefs were brought into mainstream society and became a more idolized form of modernizing the Aboriginal peoples. This form of ‘helping’ the First Nations peoples was the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development [D.I.A.N.D] way of dissolving the First Nations reservations. These institutionalized ideologies were masked as social and economic reforms that addressed the First Nation communities [pp.5-6]. Such reforms include the state of welfare on First Nation communities, re-educating the youth, and the identification of a First Nations person according to the government, which also includes the apology that Prime Minister Harper spoke on June 11th, 2008. These ideals have become the driving force behind the United Nation’s ‘Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights’. This declaration has yet to be signed by Canada for a variety of reasons, one of them being that it is in direct violation of Article 25, which is a right to social services and health

The Attawaspiskat Cree and Ojibwa are a first nations group living in parts of Canada, mainly northern Ontario. The main languages spoken by these first nation groups are Mushkegowuk Cree and Ojibway. I will compare and contrast the experience of the Attawapiskat Cree to Ojibwa in relation to the Canadian Government. This will include analyzing the treaties introduced by the government towards the Cree and the Ojibwa: in particular, treaty 9 will be discussed. In addition, to these treaties the government has divided the first nation community into two different groups: status-Indians and non-status Indians. Within these two groups further division has been accomplished by the allocation of lands know as reserves to status-Indians and

Those who are critical of current forms of aboriginal self-government view them as little more than convenient arrangements that allow aboriginal people administrative responsibility for services which are ultimately controlled by the federal or provincial government.3 They argue that self-government is essentially glorified municipal government; arrangements which are far from the ideal of a third level of government equal in legislative and financial authority to the federal and provincial governments.4