Aboriginal communities have practiced self-government long before the first Europeans explored, settled, and colonized the region known as Canada. The Canadian Federal Government has upheld these practices by acknowledging the inherent right of self-government through treaties and documents over the course of history. There are various forms of self-government such as municipal, territorial, and treaty models. In this paper, I will argue that aboriginal self-government is an important right that must be upheld and respected in Canadian law and society. However, self-governance, in the context of the treaty model, has become problematic as it has created more problems than it has solved. Aboriginal self- government has led to a lack of accountability, …show more content…
poverty, human rights violations and in the unique case of the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a have been granting rights and legal power through treaty that question the Canadian Constitution. These are complex issues that must be addressed predominantly by aboriginal communities. Though the Canadian government has played a role in some of the grievances, the self-determination aspect of self-government forces aboriginal communities to solve these issues of their own volition. Aboriginal self- government is a system that allows aboriginal communities to control administrative and bureaucratic institutions focused on land, resources, people and policy. Agreements with federal and provincial governments have allowed for self-government to be protected and enacted in areas of law, policy, and public relations (Indigenous Foundations 2009) Historically, the first document that dictated the guidelines for self-government were declared by King George III in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The decree states that aboriginal right and title has existed prior to British ownership of North America and will be upheld in the future proceedings (Indigenous Foundations 2009). It also states that aboriginal land can only be ceded through treaty only to the Crown. Settlers cannot lay claim to land used by Aboriginal people unless it has been bought by the Crown and sold to settlers (Indigenous Foundations 2009).This is the first document to settle the legal terms of right and title as well as self- determination. In 1876, nearly ten years after the confederation of Canada, the Indian Act was drafted in order to remove this self-determining government from the Aboriginal people due to colonial interest. Controls such as Indian Agents, defining status and non-status Indians through blood quantum, Department of Indian Affairs , and even treaties themselves acted as ways to oversee, control, and restrict the aboriginal population and work towards assimilative policies (Henderson 2006). These policies were brought to attention during the Civil Rights movements in the 1960's and 1970's and led to activism and outrage . This paved the way for affirmation of aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act of 1982 (Henderson 2006). In the twenty first century, Aboriginal self-government is proclaimed an inherent right under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 (Dyck and Cochrane 2014, 82), therefore these unique forms rights given under treaty terms are recognized and affirmed under the Canadian Constitution.
The limits of self-government are also defined within the document, stating that the sovereignty of aboriginal nations exists solely within Canada and does not extend to international provisions (Dyck and Cochrane 2014, 83). The treaty model of aboriginal government is a closed model, meaning that only those who are part of a particular group or reside on a certain area of land can participate in the benefits of the treaty. Within this model, members have more control over healthcare, education and policing powers (Dyck and Cochrane 2014, 70). This model also acts as an extension of existing reserve land and policy. A few examples of aboriginal groups that utilize this model are the Nisga'a ,Tlicho, Nunatsiavut, Tsawwassen First Nation, and the Maa-nulth First Nation (Aboriginal Affairs …show more content…
2012). Some may argue that aboriginal self-government under the treaty model has lead to significantly more advantages than disadvantages.
One of the key points of this argument is that Aboriginal self government has helped solve issues regarding poverty, education and health. However in reality the inverse holds true. aboriginal communities rank approximately 68th out of 174 nations on the UN Development Index, way further behind than the non-aboriginal Canadian population (Dyck and Cochrane 2014, 77). There are high levels of poverty, infant mortality, unemployment, and suicides within in these communities. Rates of incarceration, domestic violence, and murder are all significantly higher than the Canadian average as well (Aboriginal Affairs 2012). These social and economic challenges lay a heavy burden on governments due to immense costs to implement and run social programs. According to the National Post article " Real Warriors Hold Jobs " by Kevin Libin, the Canadian Federal Government spends nine point-one billion dollars annually on programs and services for aboriginals. Though, there is a large sum of money being pumped into aboriginal communities it is difficult to ensure that the funds are being allocated appropriately and that communities mobilize capable individuals to ensure that public services function
properly. Aboriginal self-government has continuously proved to hold a lack of accountability for the management of funds. Self-government should allow for the Band Council to determine how funding is spent and in theory lead to less monetary abuse. Lack of oversight has led to an increase in human rights violations and conditions of poverty within reserves whilst chiefs become incredibly wealthy. In 2010, The data from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation compiled documents from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and found that some Aboriginal leaders earn '"an exorbitant amount [ of money] that outpace the Prime Minister" (CTV News 2010). The report found that 82 aboriginal reserve politicians were paid more that Prime Minister Harper, 222 First Nations politicians earned more than the premiers of their provinces and many more chiefs and councillors abuse funds for 'travel expenses' and 'other remuneration' (CTV News 2010). Another infamous case was Chief Ron Giesbrecht of the Kwikwetlam First Nation who earned more than nearly a million dollars in 2014. His reserve had a registered total of 81 residents whilst only 35 people reside there, which means that the government provided more money for the Kwikwetlam than they needed (Global News 2014). The falsifying of documents and misallocation of funds have proven not to be unique cases. These are a few examples that represent of the lack of accountability and transparency in self-government spending that create unfair, impoverished and corrupt aboriginal societies. The Nisga'a Treaty, which came into effect in May 11, 2000 and was the first treaty to be negotiated with the B.C government and the fourteenth under the federal government. The significance of the negotiations to act as a reconciliatory symbol between aboriginal and non -aboriginal peoples of Canada as well as recognition aboriginal sovereignty (Understanding the Treaty 2013) .This negotiation was seen as a "sacred instrument" to the Nisga'a in the legal framework of self-reliance and self-actualization and self-determination. (Understanding the Treaty 2013).The negotiations permitted an over extensive amount of power to the group and unconstitutionally deemed them a third, aboriginal order, of the Canadian government. In 2011 the legality of these terms were called into question. Defining the Nisga'a treaty under section 35 of the Constitution is considered to be unconstitutional as their sovereign power legally was not defined under aboriginal rights. Under the current conditions, Canada and British Columbia cannot revoke Nisga'a governing powers. The territories power supersedes the power of British Columbia and Canada opening the doors for Charter Rights and democratic rights of non-Nisga’a citizens to be ignored and denied. (Martin 2011) Treaty model self-government is messy and there is a back logged waiting list for Aboriginal nations to receive treaty right and without proper oversight on behalf of the federal government, messy situations like this occur. Aboriginal self-government is an inherent right, affirmed in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 prior to the Confederation of Canada and once again in the Constitution Act of 1982. These rights are crucial in acknowledging Aboriginal sovereignty prior to Confederation. Despite the right to self-determination, treaty model self-government however has led to massive socio-economic challenges on levels not seen within the non-aboriginal Canadian community. Much of these transgressions can be blamed on lack of transparency of self-government budgets as well as the lack of accountability of the chiefs within tribes. Treaty negotiation between provincial, federal and aboriginal governments have also created even larger problems, as seen in the Nisga'a case, where the level sovereign power awarded via treaty has given the group a legal basis to act unconstitutionally. These are issues in which the aboriginal community must take accountability and responsibility for as the nature of self-government exists to uphold aboriginal self-determination without federal oversight. Aboriginal people must take the initiative and work together, not just as individual tribes and bands, but as a unified aboriginal body to push for accountability of their leaders and work towards development and economic prosperity in their communities.
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.
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...
The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second largest country in the world the geographical constraints on uniting Aboriginal people living across the country plays a significant factor. Flanagan also points to the diversity within this group; there are over six hundred bands across the ten provinces in Canada in more than 2,200 reserves. Compounding the geographical constraints facing their unity, Aboriginal bands in Canada often differ from each other significantly in their culture including language religion/customs (Flanagan 71). Many Aboriginal people now choose to live off reserve which further complicates their unity (Flanagan 73). Flanagan highlights that as many small bodies they would not be able to survive in the competition of the international community. Current international governance is extremely complex and Flanagan argues it is unlikely for poor isolated people to succeed (73). One united aboriginal voice is also highly unlikely according to Flanagan; having been freed of one power most bands would not choose to become conne...
Fleras, Augie. “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Repairing the Relationship.” Chapter 7 of Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada. 6th ed. Toronto: Pearson, 2010. 162-210. Print.
LaPrairie, C. (1995). Community justice or just communities? Aboriginal communities in search of justice. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 37 (4), 521-535.
In this proposal our team seeks to explore the injustices within the Indian Act. To achieve this our proposed research will examine the target population being the aboriginal woman. The paper will further explore the oppressions faced by the aboriginal women within the Indian Act. In conclusion, this proposal will sum up the negative impact that the Indian Act had on aboriginal women and how it continues to oppress this population within the Canadian National discourse.
While efforts are made to recognize aboriginals in the present day such as National Aboriginal Day (June 21) and gaining the right to vote, it can never erase the permanent scars Canadian society has caused to aboriginals. Most of the First Nations people today are living in poverty and are suffering from bad health. "Why do you allow the first people of this land to endure and live in Third World conditions?" a indigenous, female student from Saskatoon asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau answered, "Quite frankly ... this is a stain and a scar upon, not just our sense of who we are and our morality as Canadians, but on the kind of country we need to be building," (Justin
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
Systems: The canadian Future in light of the American Past.” Ontario native Council on Justice. Toronto, Ontario.
Self-government gives greater control to and law-making authority over a complete range of control including governance and social and economic development. Self-government provisions may include health care and social services, police services, housing property rights, and children warfare. Unconditional support, meeting the diverse economic conditions of Aboriginal communities, encouragement of taxation and many other provisions for equity among Aboriginal governments and adjustment to fit the range of powers exercised and services delivered all help Aboriginals. The more the organizations of administration match the social originations of their constituent groups, the more noteworthy their authenticity and viability. Living conditions were raised to much higher standards when the Aboriginal self-government formed. It provided great help in the lives of Canada’s Aboriginal
Despite the decreasing inequalities between men and women in both private and public spheres, aboriginal women continue to be oppressed and discriminated against in both. Aboriginal people in Canada are the indigenous group of people that were residing in Canada prior to the European colonization. The term First Nations, Indian and indigenous are used interchangeably when referring to aboriginal people. Prior to the colonization, aboriginal communities used to be matrilineal and the power between men and women were equally balanced. When the European came in contact with the aboriginal, there came a shift in gender role and power control leading towards discrimination against the women. As a consequence of the colonization, the aboriginal women are a dominant group that are constantly subordinated and ignored by the government system of Canada. Thus today, aboriginal women experiences double jeopardy as they belong to more than one disadvantaged group i.e. being women and belonging to aboriginal group. In contemporary world, there are not much of a difference between Aboriginal people and the other minority groups as they face the similar challenges such as gender discrimination, victimization, and experiences injustice towards them. Although aboriginal people are not considered as visible minorities, this population continues to struggle for their existence like any other visible minorities group. Although both aboriginal men and women are being discriminated in our society, the women tends to experience more discrimination in public and private sphere and are constantly the targeted for violence, abuse and are victimized. In addition, many of the problems and violence faced by aborigin...
With the increase in funding, Canadian poverty within Aboriginal society would greatly decrease. The Government should be “proactive in giving aboriginal people in remote communities the support they need to move to areas where they can find jobs and education” (End First). That way, adults would be able to increase their income in order to have a much more fulfilling lifestyle. It is not only adults who need the financial aid, but also the community and children. In order to help, the Canadian Government should make sure more money is being made available for the First Nation education, social interactions such as community centres, and way of living including: housing, roads and availability of healthy food items. “...The poverty rate of status First Nations children living on reserves was triple that of non-indigenous children” (Hildebrandt). Aboriginal children across Canada need the help of Canadian Government in order to lose this poverty and be able to move ahead. “Persistent disadvantages faced by Canada’s aboriginal peoples in regard to education, employment, health and housing are well-documented/the staggering poverty faced by indigenous children is preventable” (Hildebrandt). With enough Government funding, Native children would be able to get better education, social skills and understanding of their traditions and culture. Schools, community centres
Aboriginal people groups depended on an assortment of unmistakable approaches to sort out their political frameworks and establishments prior to contact with Europeans. Later, a considerable amount of these establishments were overlooked or legitimately stifled while the national government endeavored to force a uniform arrangement of limitlessly distinctive Euro-Canadian political goals on Aboriginal social orders. For some Aboriginal people groups, self-government is seen as an approach to recover control over the administration of matters that straightforwardly influence them and to safeguard their social characters. Self-government is alluded to as an inherent right, a previous right established in Aboriginal people groups' long occupation
The over-representation of Aboriginal children in the Canadian Child Welfare system is a growing and multifaceted issue rooted in a pervasive history of racism and colonization in Canada. Residential schools were established with the intent to force assimilation of Aboriginal people in Canada into European-Canadian society (Reimer, 2010, p. 22). Many Aboriginal children’s lives have been changed adversely by the development of residential schools, even for those who did not attend them. It is estimated that Aboriginal children “are 6-8 times more likely to be placed in foster care than non-Aboriginal children (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, 2010, p. 2).” Reports have also indicated that First Nations registered Indian children make up the largest proportion of Aboriginal children entering child welfare care across Canada (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, p. 2). Consequently, this has negatively impacted Aboriginal communities experience of and relationship with child welfare services across the country. It is visible that the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system in Canada lies in the impact of the Canadian policy for Indian residential schools, which will be described throughout this paper.
The Indian Act is a combination of multiple legislations regarding the Aboriginal people who reside across Canada, such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Civilization Act was the Canadian government's attempt to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society in a passive manner, through a method they encouraged called Enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is basically a legal process that allows aboriginals to give up their aboriginal status and accept a Canadian status (Crey, n.p.). This process, while under the Gradual Civilization Act, was still voluntary, but became a forced process when the Indian Act was consolidated in 1876 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Enfranchisement Act introduced in 1869 was a major legislation that intruded with the private lives of the aboriginals. First, it established the “elective band council system” (Hanson, n.p.) that grants th...