Aboriginal Self Government : Aboriginal People

the land they claim, it simply gives them the right to a say in the

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

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

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

Hello and welcome to ST Leo’s justice group my name is charbel saliba and I will be talking to you about aboriginal dreaming and land rights. The quote I said earlier was a spiritual view of life based on the dreaming which cannot be separated from the land; that is why the aboriginal people’s connection towards the land is inexorable. The two are intertwined; to separate them would be impossible, one would not work without the other thus they are just as important. The land is used as a physical link between human beings and all that is unseen and eternal. It creates a

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

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginal people have changed significantly during the 20th century after facing many years of neglect and inequalities. In that time, change in indigenous rights and freedoms was brought about as a result of government policies, political activism and legal changes.

The term ‘Native Title’ refers to the right of Indigenous people to their traditional land. In Australia it has a legal significance of the right to an area of land, claimed by people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of the land before European settlement. Also who can prove that they have had a continuous connection with the land. Native Title is the term given by the High Court to Indigenous land rights by the Court in Mabo and others v State of Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. The case required

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.

The first paper by Ladner and Orsini, (2003) gives a detailed account, review and analysis of the First nations governance act. The paper reflects on the act and provides arguments supporting the fact that it is an example of a gentler, subtle form of colonialism that is still in practice today. It argues that although the government has well researched the problems affecting the first nations, it has not efficiently advocated the involvement of these people in their own welfare and improvement.

The substance of this paper will be to discuss the discourse regarding the inequalities facing aboriginal peoples living on reserves in the northwestern corner of Ontario. Inequality is not naturally occurring; poverty is not an innate cultural trait that accumulates at the feet of the marginalized (Schick & St.Denis, 2005, p.304). Stephens, Nettleton and Porter stated in the Lancet (2005) “Aboriginal people in Canada suffer enormous inequalities in health and in accessibility to health

As far as legislative authority every aboriginal self-government would respond to different priorities of first nations. It is believed that most needs and matters that are exclusive to their jurisdiction. The best example of this is that childcare, education and health care are matters that are exclusively the issues of the First Nations people. For two long non First Nations have taken unlawful authority of these issues without the consent of the Aboriginal. To achieve proper recognition of self-governance there must be proper authority allocated with Aboriginals to deal with their own matters.

Section 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution of 1982, states that “the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed”. However, it fails to define what these rights include and the boundaries and limitations of said rights. The emerging forms of self governance to be mentioned later attempt to practice some form of self governance and to act on s.35.1. However, none of the forms fully establish a well balanced self-government that would fulfil

Canada has signed 22 self-government agreements recognizing a wide range of Aboriginal jurisdictions that involve 36 Aboriginal communities across Canada (Self-Government, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015), one example being the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. There are many advantages of recognizing the right to self-governance within Indigenous communities, which can be seen throughout the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. One advantage of Indigenous self-government, as stated by Canadian Indigenous law expert, John Borrows (2016), is that “if Indigenous peoples were recognized as having the right to self-governance, they’d be able to get away from Indian Act” (CBC News). The contemporary version of the Indian Act still outlines various rules around reserves, management of band resources, elections, and other aspects of life on a reserve (Henderson, 2006). However, if Indigenous

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