Treaty-Making Period Protecting Our Rights By David Perley.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mi’kmaq Treaties, 1713 to 1760.
Advertisements

Provincial Policies, Aboriginal Rights & Forest Management Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith Presented to National Aboriginal Forestry Association Meeting Forest.
Land into Federal Trust For Alaska Tribes Tribal Transportation Conference September 2014 Prepared by Lisa Jaeger Tribal Government Specialist Tanana Chiefs.
 Collective rights are the rights that belong to groups of people and are entrenched (fixed) in Canada’s constitution  Collective rights are different.
WABANAKI ABORIGINAL RIGHTS... we reserve as formerly.
First Nation Consultation and the Aboriginal Reconciliation Process in New Brunswick Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat March 26, 2014.
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 7, 2013.
By % of Quebec’s population was made up of British Loyalists (that’s a substantial amount!) How will this affect Quebec? tensions rise Loyalists.
What’s the Deal with Treaties. What does Equality mean to you? Does Equality mean treating everyone the same?
NOTES FOR PRESENTATION Rick Hatchette
Chapter 10: Challenging Liberalism
Legal Considerations in Inland Fisheries Management Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 Focus Question: To what extent has Canada affirmed collective rights?
Key Historical & Modern Treaties. What are treaties? The Government of Canada and the courts understand treaties between the Crown and Aboriginal people.
Treaties, Treaties, and More Treaties Understanding Current FNMI Issues.
Treaties in Canada Background.
“Treaty Rights and How they Apply to Lake Nipissing” Lake Nipissing Summit, Canadore College, April 3 & Fred Bellefeuille Barrister & Solicitor.
Human Rights in Canada Chapter 6. Common Law  A system of legal principles based on custom and past legal decisions, also called “judge-made law” or.
Treaties in Canada  North America, prior to newcomers, was populated by many nations of people with different languages, cultures, religions, ways of.
THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA AN OUTLINE. Introduction  Canada is a democracy; specifically, a constitutional monarchy  Our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth.
By Stephanie Cran. In the 1820s and 1830s, Georgia conducted a relentless campaign to remove Cherokees who held territory within the boundaries of Georgia,
Naiomi Metallic Different theories of First Nations governance Naiomi Metallic CESD 3216 – CESD and the Law January 25-26, 2010 Part 3.
 Aboriginal peoples are the first people to live in any nation (in Canada, this includes Inuit, Metis and First Nations people and non-Status Indians.
First Marshall Decision,  Europeans and Aboriginal peoples used treaties to secure relations (i.e. Trade, relations and military alliances)  Once.
Mi’kmaq Studies Citizens PlusThe White Paper Centralization Policy Indian Act
# 1. Define bureaucracy (page 205): # 1. Define bureaucracy (page 205): Answer: The department and workers that make up the government. Answer: The department.
Supreme Court Cases Jackson and the Native Americans.
RIGHTS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IN CANADA. Social and Economic Conditions Approximately 1.2 million aboriginal people Different groups –Status and non-status.
Mi’kmaq Treaties Information from
SELF-GOVERNMENT AND TREATIES
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831 John Ross- Cherokee Chief John Marshall- Chief Justice The Cherokee Nation wanted a federal injunction against laws passed.
3.3 Native Peoples Historic Barriers Native Leaders and Lobby Groups Landmark Decisions Native Rights and Canada’s Constitution Into the 21 st Century.
Balancing minority and majority rights CLN4U. Solutions to Inequality As court cases have been decided and governments have passed legislation, there.
Internal-Colonial Model Age of Destruction by David Perley.
Treaties in Canada  Before newcomers arrived in North America, many nations of people already lived here.  They had different languages, cultures, religions,
Decolonization of Maliseet/Mi’kmaq Education By David Perley.
Economies in History Chapter 2 The chapter focus will be “What economic changes happened when Europeans came to North America?” Economic empowerment/security.
Colonial Education Federal Government By David Perley.
2/19/2016. In a 2003 survey only 50% of Canadians believed that land claims made by Aboriginal people in Canada were not valid. Since then little has.
Understanding the Treaties A Legal Guide to understanding the Land Claim Issues in BC and Canada.
Economic Empowerment Pre-industrial (Canada). Economics (Pre-industrial Aboriginal) Needs & Wants Homes made with blocks of snow. Homes made of whale.
Treaty Break Down. Concordat of 1610 Signatories: Who are the nations and individuals? Why do they have to represent their side Chief Membourtou, Grand.
By Pamela D. Palmater, LL.M.
C HAPTER 10: C HALLENGING L IBERALISM So chapter 10 notes.
Supreme Court Cases. In your group, you will.. Read your court case individually Examine the case as a group Present your findings to the class.
Principles of Government Chapter 1.  What would your lives be like if you had been free to do whatever you wanted without any parental oversight?  How.
Affirmation  What is affirmation? What does it mean to affirm somebody?  Have collective rights of Anglophones, Francophone, First Nations, Métis and.
What is a Treaty?. A treaty is a formal agreement between two or more nations which recognizes specific rights and obligations set out within the context.
Indian Act “Destroyed everything that was Maliseet; language, culture, traditions, and worldviews”
Naiomi Metallic Introduction to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Naiomi Metallic CESD 3216 – CESD and the Law January 25-26, 2010 Part 6.
COLLECTIVE RIGHTS Chapter 4 Review. Rights guaranteed to specific groups in Canadian society for historical and constitutional reasons.
UNDERSTANDING ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT Karin Buss, Boughton Law U. of A. May,
Collective Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms SS9 Sections that deal with collective Rights 1.
Two World Views in Law Historical and Contemporary Legal Decisions Surrounding Aboriginal Title and Rights.
Facing War and Making Peace:
EVOLUTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION
Chapter 6 The United States Breaks Away
Loss of First Nations LAND and Right to Self-Govern
The Treaty of Portsmouth Signed July 13, 1713
Indian Removal Acts.
Metis Collective Rights
The Study of First Nations
Treaties and What They Mean Today
Geopolitics of Armed Conflicts
Majority and Minority Rights
CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In what ways can a democratic government enhance liberal values?
Native Studies 120 The Land.
Presentation transcript:

Treaty-Making Period Protecting Our Rights By David Perley

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty-Making Period (1693 – 1794)  Aboriginal Rights: Rights of Native people arising from their Aboriginal use and occupation of a territory  Aboriginal Title: An Aboriginal people’s right to ownership of their territory  Inherent Rights: Rights specific to you because of your ancestry; rights that are not given to you by an external government  Treaty Rights: Rights explicitly affirmed in a treaty; a treaty is a formal agreement between two or more nations relating to peace, alliance, trade, etc

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty-Making Period (1693 – 1794)  Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot societies were considered as sovereign nations  “Nation” is defined as a “stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture, and language in common; people of a territory united under a single government”

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty-Making Period ( 1693 – 1794)  Treaties with Wabanaki nations were entered into by the English in the name of their King  Treaty interpretations need to consider the individual treaties as well as minutes of the treaty conferences  The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favor of Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, and Passamaquoddy First Nations

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty-Making Period ( 1693 – 1794)  Wabanaki nations take the position that the following treaty rights were recognized by the crown: –land rights –Hunting, fishing, and fowling –Harvesting rights –Self-government –Economic development –Religious freedom –Social support

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty-Making Period ( 1693 – 1794) “…we know that a king’s word is a king’s word; a man’s word is his word for ever and ever….” (taken from a petition of Noel Thomas Conish, a Mi’kmaq, on behalf of the Mi’kmaqs of Burnt Church, N.B., March 10 th, 1862)

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty Rights Court Cases Syliboy, 1828: Chief Syliboy, a Mi’kmaq from Nova Scotia, was charged with and convicted of possessing pelts in contravention of the Lands and Forests Act. Syliboy argued that, as an Aboriginal person, he was exempt from the provisions of the act and he had by treaty the right to hunt and trap at all times. The court rejected Syliboy’s argument that First Nations rights under treaty superseded provincial regulations.

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty Rights Court Cases Simon, 1985: James Simon, a member of the Shubenacadie First Nation, had been arrested for possession of a rifle and ammunition. He argued that the Treaty of 1752, which stated that the Mi’kmaq should have “free liberty of hunting and fishing as usual,” provided him with immunity from provincial hunting regulations. Simon lost in the lower courts but obtained a favorable decision in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Simon case recognized the Treaty of 1752 and related only to subsistence harvesting rights.

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty Rights Court Cases Denny, Paul, and Syliboy, 1990: Mi’kmaq members from Eskasoni and Afton River were charged for fishing without a licence for cod and salmon. They argued that their Aboriginal right to fish for food had not been extinguished through treaty, other agreement or competent legislation”. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the Mi’kmaq food fishing rights were recognized and took precedence over commercial or sport fishing.

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty Rights Court Cases Donald Marshall Jr., 1999: A Mi’kmaq from Membertou First Nation, Cape Breton Island was charged with 3 offences set out in the federal fishery regulations (selling of eels without a licence, fishing without a licence and fishing during closed season with illegal nets). He argued that the Treaties of 1760 and 1761 guaranteed Mi’kmaq the right to fish for commercial purposes and to benefit from their resource activities. Marshall lost in the lower courts but won at the Supreme Court level.

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty Rights Court Cases Bernard, 2005: Joshua Bernard, a Mi’kmaq was charged with possession of logs that were cut from Crown Lands. He argued that his status as “Indian” gave him the right to log on Crown land for commercial purposes as granted by the Treaties of Peace and Friendship. The Supreme Court held that there was no right to commercial logging granted in the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760.

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty Rights Court Cases Gray/Sappier/Polchies, 2007: Darrell Gray, a Mi’kmaq of the Pabineau First Nation, was charged with illegally harvesting 4 bird’s eye maple trees from Crown land. Dale Sappier and Clark Polchies, both members of the Maliseet Nation at Woodstock, were charged with unlawful possession of timber from Crown lands. All three argued that they had an Aboriginal right and a treaty right to harvest wood for personal use. The Supreme Court agreed that they have an Aboriginal right to harvest wood for domestic use.

David Perley, Tobique First Nation Treaty Rights Court Cases in N.B. Thomas Peter Paul Case, 1997: A member of Pabineau First Nation who was charged for harvesting bird’s eye maple on land licenced to Stone Consolidated (Canada) Inc. with the intent of selling it at a profit. Paul argued that he a had a treaty right to harvest trees for commercial purposes. The lower courts agreed with his argument but the N.B. Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.