DOCSLIB.ORG

This Paper Provides an Overview of a Perspective on Treaties First Nations As Conveyed by the Relationship to Territories Lands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
This Paper Provides an Overview of a Perspective on Treaties First Nations As Conveyed by the Relationship to Territories Lands Treaty Reconciliation - Kiiway-Dibamahdiiwin1 Introduction: In this paper I hope to convey some understandings of Treaty as regarded by First Nations.2 And it is daunting to attempt to bring discussion to the Treaties which is acknowledged to rest between the First Nations peoples’ signatory to Treaty and the Crown as parties to Treaty. This presentation3 is not based solely on one Nations’ legal traditions and seeks to provide a discussion of the complexity of Treaty as promises – “for as long as the Sun shines, the Grass grows, and the Waters flow.” The Indigenous peoples’ perspective is often stated to be a Treaty relationship founded on a nation to nation basis and by its “consensual treaty relationship”4 obligates mutual responsibility and respect. Wahbung Our Tomorrows, 1971 5 said it best: “We would emphasize for the purpose of clarity and to avoid any misunderstanding that the Indian tribes of Manitoba are committed to the belief that our rights, both aboriginal and treaty, emanate from our sovereignty as a nation of people. Our relationships with the state have their roots in negotiation between two sovereign peoples. “There can be no delegation of authority or responsibility by the federal state to the province without our consent. There can be no deviation or alteration in this relationship without mutual consent. The Indian people enjoy “special status” conferred by recognition of our historic title that cannot be impaired, altered or compromised by federal-provincial collusion or consent. We regard this relationship as sacred and inviolate.” 1 Treaty: settlement of debt obligation, interpretation of Pikangikum /Little Grand Rapids Anishinaabeg. 2 The constitutional/legal term “Aboriginal” or “Indian” is used in reference to Statutes, Court cases or reference sources. Indigenous peoples, First Nations and Anishinaabeg are applied interchangeably. 3By Irene Linklater, B.A., LL.B, Executive Director/in-house legal advisor Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Secretariat Inc., for CBA-National Aboriginal Law Conference “Perspectives on Treaties between Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown”, April 28-29, 2011, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. 4See James (Sa’ke’j) Youngblood Henderson, “Indigenous Diplomacy and the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN Recognition” (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing Ltd., 2008). 5 Wahbung Our Tomorows: By the Indian Tribes of Manitoba, (Winnipeg:1971, Manitoba Indian Brotherhood; Reprinted , Manitoba Indigenous Cultural Education Centre, 2011) response to the Government of Canada’s “White Paper 1969, to eliminate Treaties, at 40. 1 I will be presenting the approach that Treaty reconciliation is achieving understandings to interpretations and implementation of Treaties, rights and obligation, with acknowledgment, respect and good faith, to learn from past mistakes. Above all, it must uphold the Original relationship and promise for regeneration of the relationship on an annual basis for future generations and for all time. The approach proposed to getting to this goal is to follow a negotiated process that would incorporate both Crown laws and Indigenous law traditions based on consensual relations. It is well documented and known to oral tradition and history that immediate challenges to interpretation and implementation of the Treaties arose by surrounding political, legal and societal developments leading to breaches of Treaty, with some either still to be acknowledged or at implementation stages. From 1871 to 1906, the Crown and the First Nations entered into Treaties that encompassed territories within the current boundaries of the Province of Manitoba. Treaty 1, was entered into in 1871, as the first of the Numbered Treaties with Treaty 2, in 1872, Treaty 3, in 1873, Treaty 4, in 1874, Treaty 5, in 1875 Treaty 6, in 1876 and Treaty 10, in 1906. Several Government mandated Commissions have studied and made recommendations to address the Treaty based grievances of First Nations to the injustices experienced including more recently the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in Manitoba (1991)6 on the “administration of justice and Aboriginal people” and the Report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996)7 concerning “government policy with respect to original historic nations in this country.” 6 Report on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, 2 Volumes (1991), under the Public Inquiry of the Manitoba Government into the administration of justice and Aboriginal people in response to the trial of two men in 1987 on the 1971 murder of Helen Betty Osborne citizen of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation in The Pas, and the death of J.J. Harper Executive Director of the Island Lake Tribal Council in Winnipeg by a police officer. In 1999 the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission was established to review the AJI recommendations tabled its Final Report 9June 2001) noting ten priority areas around three themes in Aboriginal rights, reform of the justice system and the need for preventative measures. 7 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP Report, Vol. 1, Looking Forward, Looking Back (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1996) 2 With the spread of Newcomer settlements across the territories the Crown entered into Treaties with the original inhabitants occupying these lands now named Canada. The written terms of the Treaties speak of the Indigenous peoples ‘surrendering lands’ to the Crown, and this has been interpreted to have freed up of surrendered lands for New comer settlement and development, the people of the Settler nation. The St. Catherine’s Milling case8 addressed this matter which had a major impact on all Treaties, and all without the participation of the First Nations of Treaty where the dispute raged between the Federal government and the Province of Ontario. The Privy Council decided in favour of the Province ruling it held exclusive jurisdiction over resources based on an interpretation of section 109 of the British North America Act, 1867.9 The interpretation and implementation of British legal traditions have been challenged by the First Nations dating as far back as to colonial times well before western situated Treaties. The Crown governments and Courts have relied on a literal interpretation of the written version of the Treaty and related documents denying any commitments to Treaty obligations beyond the express wording. The principles for any acquisition of Indian lands provided only the Crown could acquire Indian lands and only by voluntary cession made by the Indians by consent. The insistence of a consensual transaction10 on the part of the Crown at the time was due to the recognition of the military strength of the Indian and the security of the colony necessitated fair dealing. A point of clarification here is that the “reserved lands” recognized by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (any unceded lands in Indian possession) 8 St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.) at 652 states “By the treaty of 1873 the Indian inhabitants ceded and released the territory in dispute, in order that it might be opened up for settlement, immigration, and such other purposes as to Her Majesty might seem fit, “to the Government of the Dominion of Canada.” for the Queen and Her successors for ever….and the surrender is in n substance made to the Crown….it is abundantly clear that the commissioners who represented Her Majesty, whilst they had full authority to accept a surrender to the Crown, had neither authority nor power to take away from Ontario the interest which had been assigned to that province by the Imperial Statute of 1867.” 9 British North America Act, 1967 (Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict. C.3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II No. 5. 10 See Darlene Johnston, The Taking of Indian Lands in Canada: Consent or Coercion? (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1989): and RCAP Supra Note 6, 119-79. 3 are not the same as the meaning of “reserves” in the Indian Act11. The Proclamation recognized all unceded Indian lands as being reserved for Indian use and possession. Alexander Morris, Treaty Commissioner who negotiated several of the numbered Treaties writes: “One of the gravest of the questions presented for solution by the Dominion of Canada, when the enormous region of the country formerly known as the North West Territories and Rupert’s Land, was entrusted … to her rule, was securing the alliance of the Indian tribes, and maintaining friendly relations with them.” It is no longer disputed by the successors of the colonial governments or countries of the United Nations that Indigenous nations existed on the lands and territories now referred to in the international world as Canada. Further more, it is recognized that Treaties existed amongst and between the First Nations peoples prior to the arrival of the Settler nation from Great Britain, during the colonial settlement and to present times. In R. v. Sioui 12Justice Lamer in his judgment citing Worcester v. Georgia13, reconciled that the Royal Proclamation of 176314 established the acknowledgment of the nation to nation relations between the Crown and First Nations. The ruling confirmed that the period prior to the proclamation: “… [B]oth Great Britain and France felt that the Indian nations had sufficient independence and played a large enough role in North America for it to be good policy to maintain relations with them very close to those maintained between sovereign nations. The mother countries did everything in their power to secure the alliance of each Indian nation and to encourage nations allied with the enemy to change sides. When these efforts met with success, they were incorporated 11 Ibid, Darlene Johnston. 12 R. v. Sioui,[1990] 1. S.C.R. 1025 13 Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) 14 Issued on October 7, 1763, by King George III, and reproduced in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1. [Royal Proclamation] 4 in treaties of alliance or neutrality.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights
    M10_TELF6850_01_SE_C10.indd Page 185 22/04/14 7:24 PM user /206/PHC00138/9780132546850_PHC00138/PHC00138_AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_CANADIAN_POLITIC ... Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights Key Points n The rules of the game have always been different for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. n Aboriginal peoples constituted self-governing communities in North America before the arrival of Europeans, and they entered into treaty arrangements with the Crown in many parts of Canada, although not everywhere (particularly British Columbia). n Treaty arrangements with Aboriginal peoples were frequently ignored, and at Confederation Aboriginal peoples were subjected to a form of internal colonialism. n In light of important court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act 1982. n But the governments of Canada have been reluctant to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with Aboriginal peoples, so it has fallen to the Supreme Court to define the scope and meaning of Aboriginal rights, including self-government. n The constitutional promises of 1982 are still not fulfilled, but it is clear that Aboriginal peoples constitute unique citizens in Canada. n While Aboriginal rights are now constitutionally protected, many Aboriginal communities are still mired in poverty. For many Canadians, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of the ­Constitution Act 1982, but Part II of the new constitution is potentially even more signifi- cant. Here we find, in one very brief section, the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights. Section 35 was an afterthought for Pierre Trudeau and the provincial premiers, and it reads more like a promissory note than a plan for a new order of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act As a Means To
    Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act as a Means to Promote Economic Participation and Treaty Implementation by Myra J Tait A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF LAWS Faculty of Law University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2017 by Myra J Tait ii ABSTRACT Canadian courts, despite recognition in the Canadian Constitution, 1982 that treaties are to govern the Crown-Aboriginal relationship, continue to develop principles of interpretation that narrow Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the taxation provisions of the Indian Act. In Robertson, the Federal Court of Appeal, building on Mitchell v Peguis, articulated a “historic and purposive” analysis, by reliance on a distinctive culture test and an ascribed protection rationale, thereby abrogating the fundamental treaty relationship. As a means to fuller implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaties, taxation provisions must be interpreted in a treaty-compliant manner. The potential for economic participation through a proposed “urban reserve” on the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Manitoba, as part of a Treaty 1 settlement, is discussed as a case study, and compared with similar developments in New Zealand, under a Waitangi Tribunal settlement, as an example of treaty compliance in economic development. Key words: Indian Act s87; Economic development; Historic and purposive; Tax exemption; Numbered Treaties; Treaty interpretation; Treaty implementation; Urban reserves; Native Leasing Services, Kapyong; Waitangi Tribunal. iii Acknowledgements Ehara taku toa, he takitahi, he toa takitini—Success is not the work of one, but of many.
    [Show full text]
  • Cluster 2: a Profound Ambivalence: First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Relations with Government
    A Profound Ambivalence: First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Relations with Government by Ted Longbottom C urrent t opiCs in F irst n ations , M étis , and i nuit s tudies Cluster 2: a profound ambivalence: First nations, Métis, and inuit relations with Government Setting the Stage: Economics and Politics by Ted Longbottom L earninG e xperienCe 2.1: s ettinG the s taGe : e ConoMiCs and p oLitiCs enduring understandings q First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples share a traditional worldview of harmony and balance with nature, one another, and oneself. q First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples represent a diversity of cultures, each expressed in a unique way. q Understanding and respect for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples begin with knowledge of their pasts. q Current issues are really unresolved historical issues. q First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples want to be recognized for their contributions to Canadian society and to share in its successes. essential Questions Big Question How would you describe the relationship that existed among Indigenous nations and between Indigenous nations and the European newcomers in the era of the fur trade and the pre-Confederation treaties? Focus Questions 1. How did Indigenous nations interact? 2. How did First Nations’ understandings of treaties differ from that of the Europeans? 3. What were the principles and protocols that characterized trade between Indigenous nations and the traders of the Hudson’s Bay Company? 4. What role did Indigenous nations play in conflicts between Europeans on Turtle Island? Cluster 2: a profound ambivalence 2­7 Background Before the arrival of the Europeans, First Peoples were self-determining nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 71 (2015) Article 5 Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Borrows, John. "Aboriginal Title and Private Property." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 71. (2015). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows* Q: What did Indigenous Peoples call this land before Europeans arrived? A: “OURS.”1 I. INTRODUCTION In the ground-breaking case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia2 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.3 It held that the Tsilhqot’in Nation possess constitutionally protected rights to certain lands in central British Columbia.4 In drawing this conclusion the Tsilhqot’in secured a declaration of “ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple, including: the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land”.5 These are wide-ranging rights.
    [Show full text]
  • R. V. Van Der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R
    R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 Dorothy Marie Van der Peet Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) and The Attorney General of Quebec, the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition and the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the First Nations Summit, Delgamuukw et al., Howard Pamajewon, Roger Jones, Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Van der Peet File No.: 23803. 1995: November 27, 28, 29; 1996: August 21. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Constitutional law -- Aboriginal rights -- Right to sell fish on non-commercial basis -- Fish caught under native food fish licence -- Regulations - 2 - prohibiting sale or barter of fish caught under that licence -- Fish sold to non-aboriginal and charges laid -- Definition of "existing aboriginal rights" as used in s. 35 of Constitution Act, 1982 -- Whether an aboriginal right being exercised in the circumstances -- Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) -- Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, s. 61(1) -- British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, SOR/84-248, s. 27(5). The appellant, a native, was charged with selling 10 salmon caught under the 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) authority of an Indian food fish licence, contrary to s. 27(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, which prohibited the sale or barter of fish caught under such a licence. The restrictions imposed by s.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaties in Canada, Education Guide
    TREATIES IN CANADA EDUCATION GUIDE A project of Cover: Map showing treaties in Ontario, c. 1931 (courtesy of Archives of Ontario/I0022329/J.L. Morris Fonds/F 1060-1-0-51, Folder 1, Map 14, 13356 [63/5]). Chiefs of the Six Nations reading Wampum belts, 1871 (courtesy of Library and Archives Canada/Electric Studio/C-085137). “The words ‘as long as the sun shines, as long as the waters flow Message to teachers Activities and discussions related to Indigenous peoples’ Key Terms and Definitions downhill, and as long as the grass grows green’ can be found in many history in Canada may evoke an emotional response from treaties after the 1613 treaty. It set a relationship of equity and peace.” some students. The subject of treaties can bring out strong Aboriginal Title: the inherent right of Indigenous peoples — Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation’s Turtle Clan opinions and feelings, as it includes two worldviews. It is to land or territory; the Canadian legal system recognizes title as a collective right to the use of and jurisdiction over critical to acknowledge that Indigenous worldviews and a group’s ancestral lands Table of Contents Introduction: understandings of relationships have continually been marginalized. This does not make them less valid, and Assimilation: the process by which a person or persons Introduction: Treaties between Treaties between Canada and Indigenous peoples acquire the social and psychological characteristics of another Canada and Indigenous peoples 2 students need to understand why different peoples in Canada group; to cause a person or group to become part of a Beginning in the early 1600s, the British Crown (later the Government of Canada) entered into might have different outlooks and interpretations of treaties.
    [Show full text]
  • "It Was Only a Treaty"
    "IT WAS ONLY A TREATY" TREATY 11 ACCORDING TO THE DENE OF THE MACKENZIE VALLEY Revised for The Dene Nation and The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Rene M.J. Lamothe April, 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "It Was Only A Treaty" provides some basic concepts about Treaty 11 from a Dene perspective. The paper sets out cultural parameters of Dene life by providing information on key social, economic, political and spiritual aspects of Dene life with the intention of providing readers with the historical and legal context in which the Dene live. Through the presentation of the context of Dene life, the paper sets the parameters which limit Dene decision making with regards to the land and relationships with non-Dene. Some of the information may be viewed by academic interests to be outside the scope of what they consider "sound knowledge" about the Dene. The information, however, is provided from within the context of Dene experience, much of which, being of a spiritual nature, is not readily available to the "outside" academic. This information is also intended, in part, to set the stage for the non-Dene to better understand the social, political and economic conditions in play in Dene society in 1921. Understanding the context from which the Dene approached the Crown's Treaty Party is fundamental to understanding the Dene version of Treaty 11. The paper explores government interests in the territory covered by Treaty 11. Although this section is very limited in its' scope and does not provide conclusive evidence about the motives of government, it provides information on land surveys which took place in Dene territory before Treaty was made, as well as bringing to light some of the political and economic pressures which have been at play within the Euro-Canadian/American public since contact.
    [Show full text]
  • From Calder to Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders? Peter W
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 16 (2002) Article 8 From Calder To Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders? Peter W. Hutchins Anjali Choksi Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Hutchins, Peter W. and Choksi, Anjali. "From Calder To Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders?." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 16. (2002). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol16/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. FROM CALDER TO MITCHELL: SHOULD THE COURTS PATROL CULTURAL BORDERS? Peter W. Hutchins* Anjali Choksi** In what sense is an era ever truly finished — who sets the boundaries and how are they patrolled. Do we not have overwhelming evidence, in our time and in every period we study of an odd interlayering of cultural perspectives and a mixing of peoples, so that nothing is ever truly complete or unitary.1 The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.2 ... Constitutional protection of indigenous difference ought to extend beyond pro- tection of certain customs, practices, and traditions integral to Aboriginal cultures to include protection of interests associated with territory, sovereignty, and the treaty process.3 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty Boundaries Map for Saskatchewan
    Treaty Boundaries, Location of First Nations, and Treaty Sites in Saskatchewan VARIATIONS IN DEPICTED TREATY BOUNDARIES Canada Indian Treaties. Wall map. The National Atlas of Canada, 5th Edition. Energy, Mines and 229 Fond du Lac Resources Canada, 1991. 227 General Location of Indian Reserves, 225 226 Saskatchewan. Wall Map. Prepared for the 233 228 Department of Indian and Northern Affairs by Prairie 231 224 Mapping Ltd., Regina. 1978, updated 1981. 232 Map of the Dominion of Canada, 1908. Department of the Interior, 1908. Map Shewing Mounted Police Stations...during the Year 1888 also Boundaries of Indian Treaties... Dominion of Canada, 1888. Map of Part of the North West Territory. Department of the Interior, 31st December, 1877. 220 TREATY SITES RESERVE INDEX NO. NAME FIRST NATION 20 Cumberland Cumberland House 20 A Pine Bluff Cumberland House 20 B Pine Bluff Cumberland House 20 C Muskeg River Cumberland House 20 D Budd's Point Cumberland House 192G 27 A Carrot River The Pas 28 A Shoal Lake Shoal Lake 29 Red Earth Red Earth 29 A Carrot River Red Earth 64 Cote Cote 65 The Key Key 66 Keeseekoose Keeseekoose 66 A Keeseekoose Keeseekoose 68 Pheasant Rump Pheasant Rump Nakota 69 Ocean Man Ocean Man 69 A-I Ocean Man Ocean Man 70 White Bear White Bear 71 Ochapowace Ochapowace 222 72 Kahkewistahaw Kahkewistahaw 73 Cowessess Cowessess 74 B Little Bone Sakimay 74 Sakimay Sakimay 74 A Shesheep Sakimay 221 193B 74 C Minoahchak Sakimay 200 75 Piapot Piapot TREATY 10 76 Assiniboine Carry the Kettle 78 Standing Buffalo Standing Buffalo 79 Pasqua
    [Show full text]
  • NATION to NATION and INDIGENOUS WOMEN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 21St – 23Rd Reports of Canada
    NATION TO NATION AND INDIGENOUS WOMEN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 21st – 23rd Reports of Canada ALTERNATIVE REPORT Submitted on 21 July 2017 by: The Native Women’s Association of Canada 1 Nicholas Street, Ottawa ON K1N 7B7 www.nwac.ca | 613.722.3033 ​ TABLE OF CONTENTS About NWAC . 2 Indigenous Peoples - Federal Strategies (Article IV) . 3 ​ ​ Traditional Governance & the Canadian Constitution . 5 NWAC’s Historical Inclusion in National Discussions . 7 ​ ​ Recommendation . 7 Impacts of “Nation-to-Nation” on Indigenous Women . 8 Recommendation . 9 Concluding Remarks . 10 1 Introduction The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) welcomes the opportunity to provide perspectives on Canada’s Twenty-first to Twenty-third Periodic Reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Committee). NWAC acknowledges the collaborative report prepared in conjunction with the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) made to the Committee. NWAC fully endorses all recommendations made in the aforementioned report and has prepared the following report to further articulate our concerns with the actions of the Government of Canada that have specific impact on Indigenous women and girls and NWAC’s ability to advance the wellbeing of Indigenous women and girls. About the Native Women’s Association of Canada NWAC is a national non-profit Indigenous organization representing the political voice of Indigenous1 women throughout Canada. It was incorporated in 1974 as a result of the activities of local and regional grassroots Native Women’s Associations over many years. NWAC was formed to promote the wellbeing of Indigenous women within Indigenous and Canadian societies and works to end sex-based discrimination against Indigenous women.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing an Aboriginal Rights Case: an Overview for Defence Counsel
    Acknowledgements © 2012 Legal Services Society Writers: Anja P. Brown and Bruce Stadfeld McIvor, PhD Editor: Jay Istvanffy Designer: Dan Daulby Legal reviewers: Anja P. Brown; Pamela Shields; Bruce Stadfeld McIvor, PhD This booklet may not be commercially reproduced, but copying for other purposes, with credit, is encouraged. Preparing an Aboriginal Rights Case: An Overview for Defence Counsel is a publication of the Legal Services Society (LSS), a non-government organization that provides legal aid to British Columbians. LSS is funded primarily by the provincial government and also receives grants from the Law Foundation and the Notary Foundation. This booklet explains the law in general. It is not intended to give your clients legal advice on their particular problem. Because each person’s case is different, he or she may need to get legal help. Preparing an Aboriginal Rights Case — An Overview for Defence Counsel is up to date as of May 2011. How to get Preparing an Aboriginal Rights Case — An Overview for Defence Counsel Read online at www.legalaid.bc.ca (under Lawyers, click Practice resources). Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Who this booklet is for .............................................................................. 1 The purpose of section 35 ............................................................................. 2 Preliminary matters ...................................................................................... 3
    [Show full text]
  • Listening for a Change: the Courts and Oral Tradition
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 39 Issue 1 Volume 39, Number 1 (Spring 2001) Article 1 1-1-2001 Listening for a Change: The Courts and Oral Tradition John Borrows Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Borrows, John. "Listening for a Change: The Courts and Oral Tradition." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 39.1 (2001) : 1-38. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol39/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Listening for a Change: The Courts and Oral Tradition Abstract Aboriginal oral history is a valuable source of information about a people's past. It can constitute important evidence as proof of prior events, and/or it can shed light on meanings groups give to their past. Despite its value, however, oral tradition presents particular challenges of admissibility and interpretation because of its unique source and transmission. This article outlines and discuses these challenges and suggests various approaches to better understand the insights contained within aboriginal history. Keywords Indigenous peoples; Canada--History; Admissible evidence; Canada Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This article is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol39/iss1/1 LISTENING FOR A CHANGE: THE COURTS AND ORAL TRADITION BY JOHN BORROWS* Aboriginal oral history is a valuable source of Le r,ctcral ab zrZnecmt une-ource -.Iab2 qut information about a people's past.
    [Show full text]