To what extent has Canada affirmed collective rights? Chapter Four

Definitions Collective Rights – rights guaranteed to specific groups in Canadian society for historical and constitutional reasons. These groups are: Aboriginal peoples, including First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples; and Francophones and Anglophones Collective Identity – the shared identity of a group of people, especially because of a common language and culture

Difference between Rights This may appear as a question on your test….. Difference between Rights Every citizen has rights in Canada, not everyone has collective rights You only get collective rights if you belong to one of several groups which we will be discussing People who have collective rights are recognized and protected under the constitution

Collective Rights Groups in Canada Aboriginal Peoples First Nations Métis Inuit Francophones Anglophones Represents the founding peoples of Canada

What laws recognize the collective rights of First Nations peoples? Treaties, the Indian Act, and the Constitution oh my!

The Numbered Treaties Started from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 Recognized First Nations rights to land Make treaties through peaceful negotiation They affect the rights/identity of some first nations (depending on whether they were part of a signing) There are 11 Numbered Treaties FN would share their lands/resources for education, reserves, annuity (annual payment), hunting/fishing rights, farming assistance, etc. Number treaties are sacred for First Nations, cannot be changed without their agreement

Why Sign the Treaties? Avoid war FN wanted to secure THEIR future In the USA, FN and US were fighting for land Many were dying Canada wanted to link BC with rest of Canada FN wanted to secure THEIR future Smallpox Buffalo gone Fur trade done European settlements Things weren’t going well……

Perspectives on the Treaties FN feel that land is not something people can own/give up and that the land is part of their culture FN recorded treaties in their oral histories (not written down) Government recorded treaties in English The oral/written records disagree on aspects: Why do you think this would be?

1876 The Indian Act Made rules about the FN’s lives (without consulting them) Parliament thought the FN needed guidance Ethnocentric View – felt that their culture (European) was superior to the FN’s culture Indian Agents were created Have status Indians so the government can give treaty rights to whom they feel is a treaty person Originally tried to assimilate FN people The Act has been revised many times Still is in place today

A snowmobile race was sponsored by the Inuit (Eskimo) community council in a village on the Hudson's Bay in the Canadian Arctic, Christmas 1969. Inuit friends urged me to join in a snowshoe race across the river ice, but, knowing I was inexperienced at this, I was reluctant to participate. They persisted, however, and, recognizing that they wanted me to be involved, I agreed. Of course, I was the last one to return, way behind everyone else in the race. I was very embarrassed, but to my surprise, people came up to me and congratulated me, saying, "You really tried!" A month later, when I was on a caribou hunting trip with three Inuit men in a remote area, we got trapped by a winter storm and had to go several days without food. This was when I learned that trying was much more important than winning. While the Inuit like to win, their greater value on trying has a distinct adaptive function. One way anthropologists learn about other cultures is "participant observation," being involved in their daily life, watching what they do, and doing what they do. We seek to learn the meanings and (more important) the functions of their ways. We Are also involved in "cross-cultural comparison," comparing their life experiences with other groups (mostly our own). In the case of the snowshoe race, I learned about Inuit values on trying, but I also learned about American values on competition and winning.

What does this situation imply as to what should have been done? Do you think ethnocentrism still plays a part?

What does this show about Residential Schools? I think I have seen this picture before…. Maybe on your test?!?!?!?!

1879 Residential Schools Meant to educate FN and assimilate them at the same time Removed children from their families Took away their language, culture, and identities Government is now compensating former students for trauma they suffered

1939 Indian Association of Alberta Made to: Maintain treaty rights Increase social/economic welfare of its peoples Obtain better education/opportunities Cooperate with federal/provincial/local governments for their benefit

There have been times…. (1970) The government has wanted to get rid of the treaties Have said that it is discriminatory legislation FN’s did not support this (lots of protest) Treaties are considered legal obligations

Entrenchment 1980 FN wanted their rights entrenched (fixed firmly within) in the constitution Their rights were put in the constitution in 1980 before it was patriated Section 35, Canada’s constitution recognizes First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples as Aboriginal peoples, and recognizes their existing Treaty and Aboriginal rights Constitution was patriated in 1982

Action Now First Nations look to be recognized as a diverse peoples Still have modern treaties (establish new land claims mostly) Make sure that the treaties are being followed Both the government and FN agree things need to be updated but must work together to change things

What does this say about our constitution? Indian Act: Federal Legislation related to the rights and status of First Nations peoples, first passed in 1876 and amended several times. What does this say about our constitution? Could it be…… another great question?!?!?!?!

What collective rights do official language groups have under the Charter?

Official Language Minorities A group that speaks one of Canada’s official languages (English or French) but does not live in an area where the majority of the population speaks their language Section 23- Schools need to exist so that one can practice their language if they are in a minority language setting (Francophone/Anglophone schools) (is publically funded)

Official Languages Section 16-20 of the Charter English and French are the official languages Makes New Brunswick the only official bilingual province

1890 Manitoba Schools Act Manitoba was a bilingual province (Catholic French people, Protestant English people) With the Act, public funding was abolished for Catholic schools Act made Manitoba an English-speaking province only

Charte de la Langue Française Law which was established in Quebec from 1977 Made French people distinct people and who should be able to express their own identity Made French the language of government, everyday language/work, education, and business

Why do you think this happened? In 2001, Rhéal Mathieu, a member of Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ), was convicted of firebombing three Second Cup locations in Montreal. Mathieu targeted them because of the company's use of its incorporated English name "Second Cup." After the media coverage of the firebombings, many Second Cup locations in Quebec changed their signs to "Les cafés Second Cup." Why do you think this happened? Wow this is really interesting… I hope I see this again…..

What laws recognize the collective rights of the Métis? Yes their rights are different from First Nations…

Red River Rebellion Led to the establishment of the Manitoba Act Gave the Métis land rights along the Red River Showed that the government needed to negotiate with them to get things done (government didn’t feel that was necessary before) The government had to take them seriously Might be a good question….

Scrip A document that could be exchanged for land and that was offered to the Métis at the time the Numbered Treaties were negotiated Métis either received scrips or became a Treaty Indian Government felt that the Métis did not have the same land rights as FN

1885 Northwest Resistance Métis wanted to protect their land in Saskatchewan Riel and the Métis led a resistance against the government Fighting ensued and Riel was hung for treason Riel is now considered a hero by some

L’association des Métis de l’Alberta et des Territoires du Nord-Ouest Established in 1938 Lobbied the government for land Enabled the Alberta government to pass the Métis Betterment Act Made for 12 temporary Métis settlements Métis did not have control of the land If land was deemed unsuitable for farming/fishing it was given back to the government

1982 into the Constitution Métis lobbied for recognition in the constitution Got Section 35 in the constitution Recognized the Métis as one of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples with rights

1990 Alberta Government gave Métis a permanent land base Constitution of Alberta Amendment Act Métis Settlements Accord Implementation Act Métis Settlements Act Métis Settlements Land Protection Act Also made it so they could develop oil/gas resources on settlement lands Gave the Métis autonomy (authority to make decisions)

2003 Supreme Court approved the Métis right to hunt and fish as one of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples Métis have the same relationship to the land as the FN Changed in 2007 without agreement from the Métis organizations because the government felt that everyone in Alberta should have the same rights Might be an answer to a question…

Knowing that our Constitution changes over time, do you think that any other groups should be given collective rights? Why or why not?