Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Federalism in Canada
Federalism, the legislative power hierarchy between country and its provinces. Environment policies are passed through the federal government in their majorities. Forestry policies or Endangered Species Act policies face many politically challenging problems from the federal government. Some of these problems revolve around the Aboriginal policies that conflict with the current policies needed to pass or confusion surrounding the multiple layers of legislation under different hierarchies that slow down the law-making process. The multiple layers of federalism that control various and certain environmental factors make it confusing when laws are trying to be passed.
Many of the forests that exist in Canada today, exist solely
…show more content…
(Andrea, Olive 726) Most forests in Canada are owned by the provincial government or federal government. (Andrea, Olive 726) The forestry sector of the government is in place to protect Canada’s forests from further damage. (Andrea, Olive 745) According to Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, The federal government has complete control over federal policies. “…the 1867 Constitution Act grants the federal government general authority to make laws for ‘peace, order and good environment of Canada’ (POGG)” (Andrea, Olive 1246) The federal government has since then, passed the responsibility down to the provincial government. Unfortunately, there is a vague line between who is responsible between the federal and provincial government surrounding environmental concerns. Certain attributes such as forestry are under provincial law but other environmental concerns such as water falls under a vague in-between. Federalism conflicts with provincial standards that cause confusion amongst the legislation hierarchy …show more content…
As briefly stated above, the Constitution says “Indians and the Land reserved for Indians” is not a concern. Andrea Olive states this because most of the land the habits the endangered species live on the indigenous reserves. The forests also lay across their land which creates conflict and tension between both sides. The Indigenous are not regarded as people and the land is not considered sacred to the government. Federalism in Canada treats the indigenous unfairly. The water on their land is not owned by them but is owned by the government even if the water flows through their reserves. This is an important matter regarding federalism in Canada because if there was not any tension between the government and the indigenous the land in Canada could be healthier than it is now. The indigenous consider the land sacred and believe that everything around them is a living and breathing being connected to all that exists around it. This belief, if carried by the government, would strengthen the communication between both the government and the indigenous people. It is well-known that the government builds upon reserves, the biggest issue today regarding indigenous property is the “Keystone Pipeline.” The indigenous actively oppose this pipeline as it is on their land and it also destroys the forests and ruins the water surrounding the reserve itself.
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.
...ereignty. As mentioned Quebec does not have complete sovereignty and it shares its powers with the federal government (Johnson). Strong words like Johnson's found in the mass media are very significant to issues such as this. As elected representatives the government will not act against the wishes of the majority of citizens. Therefore if the Canadian citizens claim that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty than it will not.
White, G. (2002). Treaty Federalism in Northern Canada: Aboriginal-Government Land Claims Board. Publius Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 89-114
The First Nations have a special connection with nature and animals. Since the beginning of their civilization the First Nations as a whole have respected, and protected nature with an unparalleled love for it. The Natural world was always co-existed with and used from only to quell needs, not wants. [1] As you can imagine, this might have caused problems when the Europeans came to North America and started to deplete all of the resources that the Aboriginals protected. Take example of the mass slaughter of bison on the Great Plains throughout the 1850’s. But, this was prior to the climax of the Fur Trade. The Europeans brought with them Guns, Alcohol and other tools that disrupted the First Nation’s natural life of hunting and fishing for only what they needed. Dependencies on alcohol started a chain of negative events for the First Nations as a whole. [2] As well as disrupting their lifestyle; the Europeans depleted the resources that the First Nations depended on most for survival. Not to mention, removing animals vital to a successful ecosystem and of spiritual importance from the area, causing European and First Nation conflict. [3]
Federalism is the principle that provincial and the federal government each have their own jurisdiction that they are responsible for (Dyck 289). Some examples would be, health care and education, which fall under the provincial government, whereas national defence and taxation, fall under the federal government (Dyck 291). Federalism ensures that all provinces and territories should be treated fairly and that the premiers of each province and territory work together with the federal government to communicate in all matters.
Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the explicit recognition of First Nations rights to their traditional lands, which have a deep societal meaning for aboriginal groups. Several issues must be discussed to understand the complex and intimate relationship all aboriginal societies have with the earth. Exploration into the effects that the absence of these rights has had the Cree of the Eastern James Bay area, will provide a more thorough understanding of the depth of the issue. Overall, the unique cultural relationship First Nations people of Canada have with Mother Earth needs to be incorporated into the documents of the Canadian Constitution to ensure the preservation and protection of Canadian First Nations cultural and heritage rights.s
Few Canadians acknowledge the Aboriginals and their land rights, and even fewer Canadians study them. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is considered one of the most important treaties in history to be made with the Native People; yet very few have even a vague idea when they hear the words “Royal Proclamation, 1763”. Even with the grounds that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 provided, Canada has repeatedly shown ill treatment towards Aboriginals in an repugnant manner. The Royal Proclamation should be respected as an official treaty, signified as a milestone, as well as to be a lesson to teach Canadians equality toward Aboriginals.
“The recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources." (Wherrett
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
“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
(Parrott, Z. 07, March 13).All of their history significantly predates the arrival of European settlers. (Parrott, Z. 07, March 13). They were severely threatened by colonial forces, Aboriginal culture, language and social systems have shaped the development of Canada. (Parrott, Z. 07, March 13). There are about 10 cultural areas in North America where the Aboriginal tribes are divided. (Parrott, Z. 07, March 13). But only six areas are found within the borders of what is now Canada. (Parrott, Z. 07, March 13).All of these tribes that are in Canada before our time has had the most major part in founding our country. (Parrott, Z. 07, March 13).Of what they have accomplished then helped us for the long run now. (Parrott, Z. 07, March 13).We should be for respectful towards them and remember what all of them had to go
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 between the years 1945 and 2010 there have been many changes involving interactions with the First Nations people. Some changes were good, but most of them were bad. Canada does not deserve to be known as a nation that demonstrates equality because it has not given the First Nations people equal rights to their land, it was discriminatory to their culture and way of life, and it has denied them of a safe and legitimate education.
July 11th 1990, marked the beginning date of the Oka Crisis in Quebec Canada. It lasted until September 26th 1990 resulting in one fatality of a local police officer. The violent clash was triggered by something as simple as a golf course extension and as complicated as native burial traditions. It had drawn world attention, catapulting native land rights into the mix. The Oka Crisis is just one of many conflicts between the Aboriginals and the Canadian government. A major issue that has been of much debate in the 20th century has been Native sovereignty. The demand sounds simple, allow Aboriginals of Canada to govern themselves; however, coexisting with the Canadian government makes this idea extremely complicated. Roger Townshend states that there is a difference in perception between Non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people about jurisdiction over Canadian territory and that is one reason Aboriginals should be governing themselves. Opposing this view, Thomas Flanagan argues against Native sovereignty for it is not a workable mechanism in Canadian politics. Native sovereignty can never coexist with Canadian sovereignty because of the complexity of having a third level of government, a resolution cannot be breached since each tribe’s traditions are different, and the idea of having a functioning conglomerate of native groups is very improbable.
In the following assignment, I will discuss the issue of native sovereignty in Canada, and address the question; "Can native sovereignty coexist with Canadian sovereignty?" To answer this question I will summarize two articles that discuss the issue. The first by John A. Olthius and Roger Townshend entitled "The Case for Native Sovereignty", and the second, by Thomas Flanagan, entitled "Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really want an Aboriginal Archipelago?" I will be taking the position against the coexistence of native sovereignty with Canadian sovereignty. These two articles will help me support my position on the issue.
This paper will critically discuss the oppression the Indigenous peoples of Canada have experienced through examining the loss of socio – economic stability and environmental spaces due to past and present actions of the Canadian government.