Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aboriginal rights in canada essay
Indigenous people in canada history
Jens Korff, C. (2016). Aboriginal land rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aboriginal rights in canada essay
The journey for the Aboriginals to receive the right to keep and negotiate land claims with the Canadian government was long but prosperous. Before the 1970's the federal government chose not to preform their responsibilities involving Aboriginal issues, this created an extremely inefficient way for the Aboriginals to deal with their land right problems. The land claims created by the Canadian government benefited the aboriginals as shown through the Calder Case, the creation of the Office of Native Claims and the policy of Outstanding Business. The Calder Case was the spark that led to the Canadian government recognizing Aboriginals and their rights. Firstly, the aboriginals used the Calder Case to inform the government that they were taking away their rights. The Calder Case was launched after the Attorney General of British Columbia declared “that the Aboriginal Title, other wise known as the Indian Title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory...has never been lawfully extinguished.”1 The statement made by the government claimed that the Aboriginal Title did not exist in the eyes of the law and before the Calder Case, it allowed them to ignore Aboriginal land rights all over the country. In addition, The Calder brought the issues the Aboriginals were facing with land claims to the attention of the Canadian government. “According to Kainai Board of Education The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court ended up rejecting the native's claims after being split on it's validity. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition required new respect for Aboriginal land claims.”2 The Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of the Calder Case benefited the Aboriginals as the government was... ... middle of paper ... ...t led to their rights being acknowledged in the Canadian law. Their rights including land claims could no longer be repelled or ignored by the federal government. The Policy of Outstanding Business was a huge breakthrough for Aboriginals as they were able to have their needs taken care of, receive full benefits in claims and became recognized in the Court of law. The conclude, the government of Canada finally recognized the concerns of the Aboriginals during the Calder Case, created more efficient negotiation of land claims by creating the Office of Native Claims and creating a clear process on dealing with land claims thr9ough the Policy on Outstanding Business. Through the Calder Case, the creation of the Office of Native Claims, and the policy of Outstanding Business, the Aboriginals in Canada benefited greatly through the land claims set by the government.
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, and the conflict still is left unresolved until this day.
The next policy brought in was the policy of self determination this, was very welcomed by the aboriginal community, as it gave the aboriginals back some of their rights. As the relationship between non-indigenous Australians and indigenous Australians improved, there was a high demand for reconciliation. With many opinions including why the people of today should say sorry for the past Australians injustices. The affects from reconciliation were caused by the controversial approach; there have been numerous speeches, activities and ‘sorry days’. The affects from all the policies varied greatly, due to the differences in the policies. The affects caused change the path of history and have gotten us where we are today.
Members of the Canadian government and the Indigenous people signed Treaty 6 in 1876. Treaty 6 was “a formal and binding contract between two nations” that would help deal with important matters. Treaty negotiations included land, education, healthcare, government funding, and more. The treaty was created to help benefit both parties – the Canadian government, and the Indigenous people. However, the Canadian government broke this treaty many times. In the mid 1880’s there w...
To begin Sprague argues that the Canadian Government disingenuously mismanaged Metis land organization. Sprague states that evidence of this can be seen in the Canadian government not allowing the Lieutenant Governor Adams G. Archibald to make changes to Section 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act. Archibald proposed the government grant outlined in Section 31 should allocate each person of Aboriginal ancestry an allotment of “140 acres” (pg.75) of land. Archibald also suggested that the location of these allotments be in close proximity so as to “not disperse families throughout the province” (Pg. 75). Lastly Archibald proposed a suggestion in carrying out Section 32 which insured that land owned was not jeopardized during the process of confederacy. He recommended that Manitoba be recognized as an independent province such that affairs including land ownership would be dealt with on a provincial level. Therefore as Sprague argues Archibald’s words were not taken into consideration by both the governments of John A. Macdonald and Alexa...
#8 I think the main goal of this act was to control Natives and assimilate them into Canada, and to bring First Nations’ status to an end. The act brought together all of Canada’s legislation governing First Nation people, which defined who Aboriginals were under Canadian law and set out the process by which people would cease to be Aboriginals. Under the act, the Canadian government assumed control of First Nation people’s governments, economy, religion, land, education, and even their personal lives.
Indigenous People. In evaluating the Legal System’s response to Indigenous People and it’s achieving of justice, an outline of the history of Indigenous Australians - before and during settlement - as well as their status in Australian society today must be made. The dispossession of their land and culture has deprived Indigenous People of economic revenue that the land would have provided if not colonised, as well as their ... ... middle of paper ... ...
Their main vision is to empower the idea of a shared country and encourage opportunities for growth. With the perplexed requirements set out by the Native Title Act, this tribunal has helped claimants by providing legal aid to increase the chances of regaining lost land. For example, the Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 case was successful in recognising the lost land of the Wik people of Cape York. “They claimed native title over land that had previously been leased by the State Government to farmers for pastoral use” (Woodgate, Black, Biggs & Owens, 2011, p.354). The court then decided by a 4:3 majority that pastoral leases did not necessarily extinguish native title. This means that, in some cases, native title rights will co-exist with the rights of the pastoralists. Therefore, through progression and more native title cases heard, the laws surrounding the Native Title Act will adapt to further assist the Indigenous Australians in reclaiming their land. For instance, the processes surrounding Native Title issues are constantly being refined. As more and more people and political parties become aware of this process, the easier court litigation will become (Dow, 2002)
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
Systems: The canadian Future in light of the American Past.” Ontario native Council on Justice. Toronto, Ontario.
The First Nations People have had their land taken thus needing them to try and get it back after the government wouldn’t give it back. Even though these land claims caused the death of an aboriginal protester first nations land claims had a positive impact on Canada because the First Nations groups involved got their land back, compensation in money, and the respect and dignity they deserve. One example of these claims was the Ipperwash crisis. The Ipperwash crisis took place in 1995 and was in and around the Ipperwash Provincial Park in Ontario. In 1936 the Ontario government created the Ipperwash Provincial Park. In 1942 the government wanted the land back to build
The Effectiveness of Native Title The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant aspect of Australia’s common and statute law, which effectively strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992, transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in court however, despite the many disputes between opposing stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens.
“In about half of the Dominion, the aboriginal rights of Indians have arguably been extinguished by treaty” (Sanders, 13). The traditions and culture of Aboriginals are vanishing at a quick pace, and along it is their wealth. If the Canadian Government restore Native rights over resource development once again, Aboriginals would be able to gain back wealth and help with the poverty in their societies. “An influential lobby group with close ties to the federal Conservatives is recommending that Ottawa ditch the Indian Act and give First Nations more control over their land in order to end aboriginal poverty once and for all” (End First). This recommendation would increase the income within Native communities, helping them jump out of
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
L. J. 433 (1979-1980) White, G. (2002). Treaty Federalism in Northern Canada: Aboriginal Government Land Claims Board. Publius Vol. 32, No. 2 -. 3, pp.