Ron Sparrow Treaty Rights In 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.

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

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.

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

Throughout history, First Nations rights and privileges has been a highly controversial subject in Canada, and remains a debatable topic in society, even in the present-day. Whether it has been the controversies surrounding the missing and murdered Indigenous women or the funding of First Nation’s education, concrete results have yet to be achieved. Consequently, the above forces have delayed the restorative process for the First Nations People. That said, the Canadian Government, whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals, have attempted to take an active approach to aid the Aboriginal community in their healing process. While the Conservative government failed to address the concerns of the First Nations community such as launching a public inquiry for the missing and murdered Indigenous women and raising funds to increase the literacy rate within the Aboriginal community, the Liberal government has acted in accordance with the above requests from the First Nations community. Although the Liberal government has agreed to provide proper funding to further Indigenous education and to launch a public inquiry for missing and murdered Indigenous women, the federal government has failed to acknowledge that to achieve a sense of reconciliation, the First Nations community requires complete self-government.

Joffe, P., Hartley, J., & Preston, J. (2010). Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, hope, and action. Saskatoon: Purich Pub.

Since the beginning of colonization, indigenous people of Canada have been repressed in many ways by the Westerners. Aboriginal women have been having a really hard time, being not only aboriginal, but also women in a male-dominated society where women are seen as secondary and don’t have all the rights and privileges that men have. We will focus here on the legal discrimination against indigenous women in Canada that came with the Indian Act of 1876 and the amendment of 1985, how those two events influenced women. We will first study why indigenous women have been more discriminated than indigenous men, then how the Indian Act reinforced this inequity. Then we will see how the 1985 amendment came to be, a century later and what are the consequences of legal discrimination for indigenous women in Canada. We will conclude that, in a context of discrimination against natives with colonization, the Indian Act made legal injustices in detriment of indigenous women, and that after years of favouritism against them they finally gained a bit of justice through the amendment of 1985.

In this article, Heuser discusses one of the main issues with Aboriginal Land Claims today, and how the government handles them. One of the main issues mentioned was the time it takes to fulfill Aboriginal Land Claims. For example, the Algonquins of Ontario launched a land claim against the provincial and federal government in the 1980s, and it is still being discussed today. Heuser is a journalist for several newspapers including the National Post. Heuser has graduated from the University of Toronto with a J.D. in the faculty of law, as well as receiving her B.A., making her qualified to form valid opinions on government issues. The arguments presented in this article are well stated, and proved with recent government land-claims to back them

However, these people are getting cheated over and over by the government. They were manipulated and fooled. Aboriginal people want their way of life to be recognized, their values and their beliefs, rather than the European’s way of life. Each time they sign a treaty they face a disappointment, in other words, they were betrayed by the state. The government of Canada downplayed consistently the significance of Indigenous rights claims and failed to think about the grievances left in the long term. Even to say that the Canadian criminal justice system has abandoned the aboriginal people on a massive scale. It is not only that the justice system has failed Aboriginal people, but also the government was opposed to them. The rights of Indigenous people have been ignored and slowly deprived. This resulted in an injustice towards the Indian bands. People who once ruled their own business independently ended up in poverty and without power. The years go on and these people realize the unfairness about how they were treated by the justice system and the authority. Even if they get their rights back, at the end of the day, whatever rights they may have has no value compared to the state. The authority suppresses their rights. (Asch, M., 2014, Chap. 2)

“The fear I carry and the aversion I feel towards governmental departments is due entirely to inter-generational trauma. My mother carries this fear, my grandmother carried this fear, and my great-grandmother carried this fear,” (Quotation mark) said Kelly Briggs. Aboriginal Canadians are still instilled with dread and animosity from the negligence of human rights that they were deprived from. Aboriginal Canadians do not receive the respect, impartiality or justice they deserved. Many rights of the Aboriginal Canadians were neglected. Canada prides itself on, the great variety of cultures, ethnicities, races and religions, which occupies this country. However, the Canadian government and society did not acknowledge the Aboriginals or the

Throughout the years, there have been many fights for Aboriginal land claims and treaties. As the English settlers didn’t see the First Nations people as ‘people’, they were usually overlooked when treaties were being signed, or when decisions were being made about them.

Canada has acknowledged First Nations hardships and history by giving them collective rights that include education, reserves, annuities, and health care. Legislation has restricted First Nations to develop their culture by establishing the Indian Act. There was plenty of misunderstanding towards the Indian Act because the government recorded treaties by hand, while the First Nations recorded treaties orally. The government first established the Indian Act to assimilate the First Nations by making it illegal to wear traditional dress, or have ceremonies without first consulting the government. Canada's governing bodies made laws for the First Nations, without negotiating with them beforehand.

Aboriginal land claims in Canada are often a topic that while commonly debated, is not often seen at the forefront of politics. This was seen in the recent election, as Justin Trudeau was being sure not to make Aboriginal land claims an election issue, in an attempt to keep the public opinion neutral. Recently, however, more is being said about the land claims. Promises are on the line from our leaders in politics, policies are being reviewed, and the public have a lot to say in regards to how the policies for Aboriginal land claims work currently. Due to the politics, policy, and public opinion stream all having been recently opened up, the window of opportunity to make policy changes on Aboriginal land claims has now opened.

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.