Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Trudeau&ChrtienLegacy
s.37FMCsonAboriginalMatters
S.35wasonlyincludedinconstitutionduetopressure
s.37FMCsonAboriginalMatters
S.37providedthatthepurposeoftheFMCwasto
s.37FMCsonAboriginalMatters
Theamendeds.37processchangedfromexplicitly
identifyinganddefiningwhatrightswouldbe includedintheconstitutiontomerelyhavingagenda mattersthatdirectlyaffecttheaboriginalpeoplesof Canada. Despitehavinganumberofagendaitems,the amendeds.37processfocusedonwhethertherightto selfgovernmentwasaninherentrightvs.acontingent right,subjecttoCrownagreement. TheFMCsendedin1987withoutanyagreement betweentheNAOsandFirstMinisters.
Chronologyofs.35Containment
1990SCCSparrow decisionsetsoutjustificationframework
forassessingassertionofs.35rights. 1992CharlottetownAccordrejectedbyreferendum. 1995federalgovernmentunilaterallyissuesanAboriginal SelfGovernmentpolicythatsetsoutthescopeand contentofnegotiatingdelegatedselfgovernment, althoughthegovernmentreferstothepolicyasan InherentRightPolicy. 1996SCCVander Peet decisionnarrowsdefinitionof Aboriginalrights"...toconstituteanancestralright,an activitymustbeanelementofacustom,practiceor traditionforminganintegralpartofadistinctcultureofthe Aboriginalgroupwhichclaimstherightinquestion
Chronologyofs.35Containment
1996FinalReport&RecommendationoftheRoyal
CommissiononAboriginalPeoples(RCAP)isreleased andsubsequentlyignoredandshelvedbythefederal government. 1997federalgovernmenttriestopassIndianAct OptionalModificationAct,itdieswhenelectionis called. 1997SCCDelgamuukw decisionsetsoutlegal principlesandtestforAboriginalTitle.Canadaignores therulingandmaintainsCCP.
Chronologyofs.35Containment
20002003CanadatriestopassFirstNations
GovernanceAct overwidespreadopposition,Billdies withprorogationofParliament. 2003CanadaproclaimstheSpecificClaims ResolutionAct. 2004SCCHaida/Taku decisionsonCrownsdutyto consultanddutytoaccommodateonassertionof AboriginalRights. 2005SCCMikisew decisionaddsTreatyRightsto Crowndutytoconsult/accommodate.
Chronologyofs.35Containment
OtherrecentlypassedfederallegislationaffectingFirst
Chronologyofs.35Containment
Througharbitraryselfgovernmentandlandclaims
Reconciliation=Surrender
TheSCChasinnumerouscasesreferredtoreconciliation
asthebasicpurposeofsection35,includingthefollowing statements: S.35(1)providestheconstitutionalframeworkthrough whichAboriginalpeopleswholivedonthelandindistinctive societieswiththeirownpractices,traditionsandcultureare acknowledgedandreconciledwiththesovereigntyofthe Crown.(Vander Peet);and, TreatiesservetoreconcilepreexistingAboriginal sovereigntywithassumedCrownsovereignty,andtodefine Aboriginalrightsguaranteedbys.35oftheConstitutionAct, 1982.Section35representsapromiseofrightsrecognition. ...Thispromiseisrealizedandsovereigntyclaimsreconciled throughtheprocessofhonourable negotiation.(Haida);
RCAPRecommendation1.16.2
TheSCCwhilenotingtheRCAPreportinsome
instancesfailstoaddresstheRCAPrecommendation regardingtheassertionofCrownsovereignty: [thatthe]Federal,provincialandterritorial governmentsfurthertheprocessofrenewalby (a)acknowledgingthatconceptssuchasterranullius andthedoctrineofdiscoveryarefactually,legallyand morallywrong; (b)declaringthatsuchconceptsnolongerformpartof lawmakingorpolicydevelopmentbyCanadian governments;
RCAPRecommendation1.16.2
(c)declaringthatsuchconceptswillnotbethebasisof
CourtsarePartoftheCrown
WhiletheSCCdecisionshavebeenmoregenerousin
Reconciliation=Surrender
IncomprehensiveclaimsagreementstheCrown
FirstNationsCrownConflicts
FirstNationshavehadavarietyofresponsestoCrown
RulesofEngagement
WhenFirstNationsasserttheyhaverightsbeyond
whatCrowngovernmentsarepreparedtonegotiate withinpolicyframeworks,thepoliceormilitaryforce hasbeenusedtoimposetheCrowngovernments interpretationofthelimitofs.35rights. SoaswehaveseentheassertionofFirstNationrights canleadtocriminalchargesandconvictionsandnot justcivilproceedings. ManyFirstNations,particularlygrassrootspeople,do notunderstandthecomplexitiesofCanadas Aboriginalconstitutionallaw.
RulesofEngagement
TheSCCdecisionsinHaida/Taku/Mikisew havenow
setoutthelegalprinciplesandguidelinesfortheduty toconsult&ifnecessaryaccommodateFirstNations whenanactivityorprojectmaypotentiallyaffectFirst Nationrights/interestsintraditionalterritory. TheSCChasplacedtheburdenofproofonFirst Nationswhoasserts.35rights. MostFirstNationshavenothadthefinancialsupport toprofessionallydocumentandsubstantiatetheir historicandcontemporaryconnectiontotheirlandsto meetthelegalstandardsofproof.
RulesofEngagement
SomeprovincialgovernmentslikeQuebecand
CapacityBuilding
FirstNation(bands)needfundingtoorganize
InformationManagement
communityknowledge reports government letters researchers maps industry databases academics stories interestgroups
decision
interpretation
Conclusion
ToreducethethreatofFirstNationsCrownconflicts
overnaturalresourcedevelopments/regionalplanning onAboriginalTitle/TreatyTerritories,FirstNations needsupportforcapacitybuildingandinformation management/interpretation. Crowngovernmentsneedtorevisepoliciesandlawsto beconsistentwiththeSCClegalprinciplesand guidelinessetoutinrecentcaselaw,including Delgamuukw andHaida/Taku/Mikisew.ThirdParties withaninterestshouldbepartoftheprocess.
Conclusion
TheconditionsforreconciliationbetweenFirst