Over The Past Years, Canadian Courts Have Repeatedly Urged

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 law reform process has been effective to a certain extent in achieving just outcomes in regards to native title. This can be seen through both the Eddie Mabo case [1992] and the Yorta Yorta case [2002] as although the cases had been concluded with final decisions, there were still measures that could have been taken, and areas where it could have been improved to achieve a just outcome.

The lengthy period, undertaken by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, shows the resource inefficiency in relation to the Native title law reform. The Mabo V Queensland began in 1985 and concluded in 1992 where the High Court ruled the Australia was not terra nullius, reinstating the original Indigenous Australians with native title over the land. This case lead to the Mabo V Queensland (no 2) which resulted in the legislation Native Title Act 1993. This case took place in the High court of Australia proving very inefficient in the way of time and money, due to the high costs and long trial period. This legislation met

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 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.

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)

Indigenous Australians have been fighting for their civil rights since European colonisation in 1788, in particular, for their rights to land ownership. Prior to the Mabo land rights case, there was very little success when it came to indigenous Australians making claims. The Mabo case took land rights to the highest court in Australia. It succeeded in achieving land rights and overturning Terra Nullius. The Mabo case helped to continue to chip away at the barriers of civil rights. The Mabo Case was a step towards Indigenous equality.

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

Throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s Canada achieves it’s ‘just society” by developing equal and fair rights through collective rights for some of its most affected groups. Canada achieved its goal in becoming a just society by amending the collective rights of the Aboriginals. Since Confederation the Federal

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

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

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

The native title act inspired by the mambo case enabled and encouraged the aboriginal people in the past, present and future to stand up for their culture, community and land. The mambo case allows me to understand the fight the aboriginal people fought for. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished (HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,2017).

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.