Nunavut in Canada´s Northen Territory Essay

Throughout history, the Native people of North America and the Europeans have continually had arguments and disputes over land. To this day there are still issues trying to be resolved. Twenty years ago, the beginning of one of the most violent and intense land disputes in present day Canada occurred. This event is now referred to as the Oka Crisis, named after the town Oka in Quebec. This crisis caused a confrontation involving the Quebec provincial police, the Canadian armed forces and the Mohawk people.1 The stand that the Mohawk people took in the town of Oka became a major revelation for the aboriginal people spreading awareness of aboriginal rights across Canada.

The Canadian government has great control of where the aboriginals are situated and what resources and services are made available to them. In 1876 the Indian act was created by the Canadian government (Indian Act). “The Indian act is a Canadian federal law that governs and matters pertaining to Indian statuses, bands, and Indian reserves”(Indian Act). A part of the Indian Act made the government give some crown land to the Aboriginals; the

To define the term “nation” is quite a challenging task. The Student’s Oxford Canadian Dictionary defines a nation as, “a community of people forming a state or inhabiting a territory” (Barber, et al., 2007). In contrast to many other resources, this definition is an extremely simple one. The same dictionary defines a state as “an organized political community under one government” (Barber, et al., 2007). By these definitions, Canada clearly

As most Canadians may know, the land we know now as Canada was once the property of Britain and France- the countries that originally colonized Canada. After Canada was officially formed in 1867 and even prior to that event, there was much division among the Anglophone and Francophone populations, though a strong desire for freedom from the British Empire ran on both sides.

With the proposal of the ‘Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy’ (hereafter referred to as the White Paper) in 1969 by Jean Chretien, existing tensions over the role and future of First Nations within Canadian society would finally come to a head. Prior to the introduction of this policy, government bureaucrats and missionary organizations had finally begun to realize that directed change and economic development were not taking place amongst First Nations communities as they had wanted, and decided in the favor of a change. This change in policy brought about the White Paper, which was a cleverly veiled assimilationist proposal of the Canadian government to the First Nations peoples of their country. This shift in policy

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

81). Section 35 of the constitution states the rights of Aboriginal Canadians. The specific sections that are important to this argument are Section 35(1) and 35(3) because they are the only sections in the constitution that explicitly acknowledge aboriginal treaty and land claim rights. The exact interpretation of what is encompassed as an aboriginal constitutional right has come under question in a number of cases which include Sparrow v. The Queen and where it is stated that these rights must be “interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time,” (Manus, 2006, p. 6-7). However, while flexibility is important to the interpretation of aboriginal rights it is insufficient in ensuring that protection of those rights in all cases, as the courts may chose to interpret these vague constitutional laws in various ways. This is evident in the Van der Peet Court ruling which “reduced the concept of aboriginal rights protection from one under which courts must acknowledge and protect an indigenous culture to one under which courts scrutinize individual tribal practices,” (Manus, 2006, p. 14-15). In essence, the exclusion of aboriginal rights that explicitly acknowledge the intimate relationship First Nations share with the land leave too much room for these laws to be interpreted in a manner that may work against indigenous peoples interests. Furthermore, while Canada’s constitution falls short in this respect, the United Nations

After the years of complaining and fighting, the natives got what they want. Hopefully they'll be happy with what the government gave them and not fight for any more rights, because they have enough already.As mentioned in the first paragraph, giving the natives their own government would cause the government of Canada to lose a lot of money that can be used for other useful needs, such as spending the money on something more useful, such as education, which there isn't enough spent on. Maybe the government could even think about putting some more money into health care and give the less-fortunate people a chance to receive medical help when needed instead of them not wanting to go a physician because of the amount of money needed to attend one. The Canadian government is always complaining about how they're in debt and can't afford to accomplish certain goals they promised to achieve. Well I don't see them turning down the request to give the natives their own government, which will cost the government a few dollars.

Conflict between Canada and the First Nations has been going on since the Europeans first arrived. After their arrival the First Nations way of life was hindered severely; The Europeans brought many diseases that the Aboriginal people were unfamiliar with and had no resistance to, or cure for. “By the 16th century about 80% of Canada's Native population had died from the various diseases (Renneboog, 5).” The Europeans also came to Canada with the intentions of taking all of the land for themselves, disregarding the people who occupied the land before them. Over time the Europeans had manipulated the First Nations to their will and the Aboriginals were discriminated for their different complexion, culture, customs, and way of life. But

One of Canada’s priorities in regards to Arctic Sovereignty should be to protect the Inuit people not only because they are experiencing a loss in culture, but the Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty also declares that the Inuit have rights to the resources and the land upon which they live on.

Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could

Indigenous governance is filled with legislations and amendments that began with the Royal proclamation act of 7th October 1763. Since then, there has been a massive effort to civilize the indigenous population in order to integrate them with the non-indigenous population by the government of Canada. The main purpose of such a congress is debated till date.

In 1980 The PQ government called a referendum asking weather Quebec should have a new agreement with the rest of Canada. The No side won by a slim margin. In response to the referendum Pierre Trudeau promised to reform the Constitution. "Do you want "a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations"? That was the heart of the question placed before the people of Quebec in the May 20, 1980 referendum. René Lévesque's Parti Québécois was asking Quebecers for a mandate to negotiate "sovereignty-association", an idea that inflamed federalists and separatists alike.

Over the past years, Canadian courts have repeatedly urged that aboriginal title conflicts should be resolved through negotiation, rather than litigation. The primary reason being that litigation is costly and time-consuming. For example, the decision for the Delgamuukw case took a duration of thirteen years. Furthermore, litigations that deal with the issue of aboriginal rights and title are “generally narrowly focused” and “ultimately leaves the question [posed about] how aboriginal rights and title apply unwarned.” For instance, the courts of Canada repeatedly failed to come up with a clear definition on the legal scope of Aboriginal rights despite the fact that they have several opportunities to do so. The Delgamuuku case clearly illustrates this when the Court “did not define how aboriginal title applied for the First Nations involved.” Instead, the Court came to the conclusion that a new trial was required, which ultimately will be more expensive and take longer.