The Hawthorn-Tremblay Report

This enables the federal government to assume full responsibility over the entire First Nations population. In A People’s Dream Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada, by Dan Russell, 2000, he brings up issues about the federal government making policies that have direct affect on First Nations People and they have no knowledge or say of what happens regarding decision about their people[4]. The federal government has a great deal of power that will ultimately alter how First Nations are dealt with. Dan Russell discuses both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlotte Town Accord that would have had a major impact on how “Indians” were handled he states “Canadian history and laws, since shortly after initial contact with Europeans settlers, have limited the possibilities of easily exercising Aboriginal self-government in Canada”[5]. Once the first wave of settles arrived in North America, the Dominion of Canada created the power to control how settlers and resources were handled which left them also having to deal with the original inhabitants by means isolation in reserves. To look back into history even in the earliest stages of civilization First Nations People were only “interpreters and clerks, but none at the policy-making level”[6], in order to create change they need to be where these policies are being made. In making these policies and procedures there has been little to no

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

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)

The Indian Act was an attempt by the Canadian government to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society through means such as Enfranchisement, the creation of elective band councils, the banning of aboriginals seeking legal help, and through the process of providing the Superintendent General of the Indian Affairs extreme control over the aboriginals, such as allowing the Superintendent to decide who receives certain benefits, during the earlier stages of the Canadian-Indigenous' political interaction. The failure of the Indian Act though only led to more confusion regarding the interaction of Canada and the aboriginals, giving birth to the failed White Paper and the unconstitutional Bill C-31,

During the Multiculturalism act, aboriginals occupancy and experience was contributed and cultural identity was established in Canada. Many non-aboriginals started writing about native elements. Human rights were

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

The Indian Act was a challenge by the Canadian government to adjust the aboriginals into the Canadian culture including bring in residential schools, separating every First Nations in trying to “improve”, and practice them for standard society (Emberley, 2009). First Nations people were also not allowed to possess any land or offer the land that used to be theirs before the Indian act as this segregation put limits maintaining or even owning anything (Emberley, 2009). This lead to the point on everything being restricted for the First Nations including losing history, practicing

For several hundreds of years, Aboriginals have been impacted by the Indian Act in many ways. They have dealt with numerous challenges that have changed their lives forever. Laws were created by the Canadian government with the purpose of controlling Natives and assimilating them into Canadian culture.For multiple years,

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

all who reside on the reserves. It was then that the distinction between Status Indians and

Confederation, also known as the Constitution Act of 1867, served as a political purpose and alliance in which made it particularly difficult for European settlers to coexist with preindustrial societies; hence, the years after confederation resulted in confusion about how Canadian government policies would address and affect Aboriginal populations. In contrast to the spiritual and traditional lives of the Aboriginal people, the new European settlers sought to conquer nature and shed traditional values in order to contrive industrialization in Canada; hence, post-confederation policies were largely based on the upper Canadian model. Furthermore, the failure of European settlers to coexist with the Aboriginal populations led to several attempts at civilizing the indigenous people; in other words, the federal government attempted to solve the Indian problem by assuming complete dominance over the Aboriginal populations of Canada. Having said that, the Canadian government’s harsh, prejudiced and paternalistic view of the indigenous people began a cycle of social, physical and spiritual destruction in which fundamentally resulted to economic, social, health and gender inequality. With that being said, the following paper will examine the long, and often bitter series of cultural encounters and exchanges that took place after confederation, such as the brutality of residential schools, health inequality and the Oka crisis dispute.

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.

In recent decades of Canadian history, Canada’s social and political change has rapidly formed visible minority and majority groups- Canada has had formally entrenched a constitution, withstood two attempts by the Quebec’s provincial government to secede from the federation, and undertaken a radical shift in immigration policy that tripled the visible minority population. These changes were accompanied by a policy agenda that defined Canadian society as a bilingual and multicultural and by legal frameworks that ensure all individuals are treated equally before the law. A fundamental issue infringing Canadian society has been the protecting the rights of minorities of a democracy. I believe that a nation have equal treatment and opportunity under the law and that minority rights must be protected to ensure that all citizens are able to fully participate in the country 's democratic institutions. However, this is true to a certain extent, in some cases it is inappropriate to have excessive rights as “a visible minority” as such. This will be investigated through three examples of minority groups: religious/cultural individuals, aboriginals and French language speakers by answering the question “How far can the rights of minorities be protected in Canada before they infringe on the rights of the majority?”

To undertake a critical analysis of the Canadian approach, specifically the consideration of systemic disadvantage of First Nations individuals and make comparisons to the Australian system.

In the peer-reviewed journal, “Indigenous Peoples and Multicultural Citizenship: Bridging Collective and Individual Rights,” Cindy L. Holder and Jeff J. Corntassel discuss the revaluation, problems, and restrictions of existing human rights instruments while examining the liberal-individualist and corporatist perspectives. This journal was written in response to the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was “ …. a milestone for universal legal protection of individuals” (Holder and Corntassel 126). When the existing human right means were reexamined due to the anniversary, there were several problems that arose. First, there is the absence of promoting universal acceptance of group rights when compared to