3.3 Native Peoples3.3 Native Peoples

Historic BarriersNative Leaders and Lobby GroupsLandmark DecisionsNative Rights and Canada’s ConstitutionInto the 21st Century

Native PeoplesNative PeoplesDonald Marshall Jr. Was a NS

Mi’kmaq who fished for a living1996 he was convicted of fishing

off-season without a licence. He appealed this conviction, because of a 1760 treaty giving him the right to fish without government interference.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Marshall

Native PeoplesNative PeoplesNative peoples have a difference

approach to human rights and equality

When they speak of rights they are referring to collective rights (the rights of a group, rather than an individual) They focus on land and the right to self-government

Historic BarriersHistoric BarriersWhen the Europeans arrived in the

1600s, they needed the help of the First Nations people for fur trade, settlement and the Seven Years War.

The present system of Native treaties came from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which gave Britain control over land transfers

The Royal Proclamation remain an important legal document, recognized in the Charter 25 (a)

Historic BarriersHistoric Barriers In 1867, Native peoples were seen as barriers to

settlement by European newcomers Between 1871 and 1921, the government made

land agreements with Native peoples, removing them from land for settlement, onto reserves to be “protected” and educated in “civilized” manner and eventually assimilated (absorbed into the prevailing culture)

In 1868, the Indian Act was passed, legalizing assimilation. It defined who was “Indian” and who was not.

It declared that Native men who married non-Native women kept their status, but Native women who married non-Native men lost theirs

It also banned cultural practices such as potlatch and sundance ceremonies

It replaced the traditional Native self-government with band councils

Historic BarriersHistoric BarriersUntil the 1960s, the federal

government gave money to Christian churches to operate residential schools for Native children.

The purpose was to assimilate them into European culture.

They were taken from their families, they faced punishment for speaking their own language and many were physically and sexually abused. This left the children with emotional scars.

Native Leaders and Lobby Native Leaders and Lobby GroupsGroups In the 1960s, Native people fought to

reverse assimilation policy and be recognized as distinct nations.

In 1951, the Native Indian Brotherhood was formed to lobby for Native rights and land claims (assertion to the right to certain lands)

In 1969, Trudeau release the White Paper.This emphasised individual rights over

collective rights It said Native peoples had no special status

and called for withdrawal of the Indian Act and existing treaties.

This only made Native peoples more determined to fight for their rights

Native Leaders and Lobby Native Leaders and Lobby GroupsGroupsIn 1982, the Native Brotherhood

became the Assembly of First Nations (AFN).

The AFN presents views on matters such as treaty rights, economic development, health, housing, justice and social development

Landmark Decisions (The Landmark Decisions (The Nisga’a)Nisga’a)The Nisga’a people claimed in court

they always held title to their ancestral lands

The BC courts ruled against them, so they went to the Supreme Court. They dismissed the appeal on a technicality, however it was still significant

The Trudeau government reversed the stance they took in the White Paper and introduced a process for negotiating land claim settlements

Landmark Decisions (The Landmark Decisions (The Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan)Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan)In 1984, 51Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan

chiefs took Canada and BC to court to gain ownership of ancestral lands

It eventually went to the Supreme Court where they defined the meaning of Native title.

The decided “a Native group has title if it can show it had exclusive occupation of the land before Britain declared sovereignty over that land”

The court also stated that Native oral histories were accepted in the court as evidence

Landmark Decisions Landmark Decisions (Developments in the (Developments in the Nisga’a Case)Nisga’a Case)In BC there are more unsettled land

claims than the rest of Canada.In 1998, a group of Nisga’a and the BC

government reached an agreement that gave the Nisga’a peoples:◦ Ownership of approximately 2000km2 of

land◦ The right to establish Nisga’a government◦ Ownership of surface and subsurface land

resources on their lands◦ A Nisga’a-only commercial fishery◦ $190 million, payable over 15 yearsIn addition the Criminal Code and Charter

still apply as for every Canadian.

Landmark Decisions Landmark Decisions (Developments in the (Developments in the Nisga’a Case)Nisga’a Case)Criticisms to this agreement

include the local non-Natives were not involved in negotiations and they could not vote for tribal members, when their decisions would affect them.

In 2001, the BC government promised to have principles changed for treaty negotiations to make them more open

Native Rights and Canada’s Native Rights and Canada’s ConstitutionConstitutionNative rights are addressed in

section 25 of the Charter and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In 1987, Mulroney and 10 Premiers, created an agreement, the Meech Lake Accord that was to reform Canada’s Constitution

In 1990, Elijah Harper, a Cree, opposed the Accord because it did not recognize the First Nations as equally founding partners in Canada

Into the 21Into the 21stst Century CenturyDespite movements in recognizing

rights, Native peoples still face major barriers to equality

Wide spread povertyLow educational achievementSerious health and social problemsSeveral Native leaders have declared

their communities to be in a state of crisis with drug abuse, alcohol abuse, suicide, low employment and terrible housing conditions

Into the 21Into the 21stst Century CenturyRacism towards Native peoples

continues to be a problemMany believe that prosperity will

come with Native self-governmentOthers believe Native peoples

have the same individual rights as other Canadians and no others and they need to give up their idea of self-government if they are to have any chance of prosperity and equality