Misplaced Pages

#670329

78-524: The elective council system was adopted at Pictou Landing in 1951. Incumbent Chief Andrea Paul was re-elected for her third term as chief in November 2015 using the Indian Act election system. Six councillors were elected at the same time, three of them having served previously. 71 per cent of the 393 eligible voters cast ballots. Elections are held every two years. Pictou Landing First Nation has five reserves,

156-710: A decision in the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, Honourable Judge Del W. Atwood stated: The undeniable truth is that the experience of the Pictou Landing First Nation has been one of subjugation and suppression under the Canadian federation. It shares this history with the other First Nations of Canada, as described succinctly in the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada . An instance of that injustice

234-611: A greater quality of status than women. Under Bill C-31, this system became known as the second generation cut-off. Bill C-31 amendments create a new system for classifying status Indians that maintains gender discrimination. Indigenous women's movements expressed that Bill C-31 failed to eliminate all gender discrimination from the Indian Act , and in 2010 the Canadian government introduced Bill C-3 (the Act to Promote Gender Equality in Indian Registration ). Bill C-31 attempts to recognise

312-479: A husband with status. In Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell (1974), these laws were upheld despite arguments made under the Canadian Bill of Rights . The act was amended in 1985 (Bill C-31) to restore status to people who had lost it in one of these ways, and to their children. Though people accepted into band membership under band rules may not be status Indians, Bill C-31 clarified that various sections of

390-421: A lawyer for the purpose of making a claim against Canada, and further forbade them from raising money to retain a lawyer, on punishment of imprisonment. Section 87 exempts Indians from paying taxes on two types of property: (a) the interest of an Indian or a band in reserve lands or surrendered lands; and (b) the personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve. The rights exclusive to Indians in

468-764: A new round of treaty-making between the federal government of Canada and First Nations and Inuit groups, ans well as between individual provinces and First Nations and Inuit peoples, beginning with the landmark James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975 between the province of Quebec and the Cree and Inuit. When a self-government treaty is implemented many of the restrictions of the Indian Act are lifted, allowing Indigenous communities different freedoms and forms of community-based control that were previously regulated. Treaty provisions may include control over education , healthcare institutions, administration, land development for revenue, and decision-making authority. In 1969,

546-408: A reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band. Marginal note: Use of reserves for schools, etc. 18. (2) The Minister may authorize the use of lands in a reserve for the purpose of Indian schools, the administration of Indian affairs, Indian burial grounds, Indian health projects or, with the consent of the council of the band, for any other purpose for the general welfare of

624-550: A reserve were subject to a different set of rights and obligations. One needed to descend from an Indian to be allowed to live on a reserve. The tenure of land in a reserve was limited to the collective, or tribe, by virtue of a Crown protectorate . Interactions between enfranchised citizens and Indians were subject to strict controls; for example, the enfranchised were forbidden by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to traffic in alcohol or land with Indians. The Crown (in this case

702-705: Is a Canadian Act of Parliament that concerns registered Indians , their bands , and the system of Indian reserves . First passed in 1876 and still in force with amendments, it is the primary document that defines how the Government of Canada interacts with the 614 First Nation bands in Canada and their members. Throughout its long history, the act has been a subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians. The legislation has been amended many times, including "over five major changes" made in 2002. The act

780-813: Is governed by a 'financial transfer agreement.' The agreement establishes a five-year joint financial understanding between the Federal government, Provincial/Territorial government, and Indigenous government. These agreements are grounded in Canada’s collaborative self-government fiscal policy, which tries to promote a respectful, co-operative partnership with Indigenous governments and communities. Indigenous self-government treaties also establish which laws are under or shared between levels of governance (Federal, Provincial, or First Nations jurisdictions). A Government of Canada 2019 Indigenous Self-Government Report outlines, although specific laws may be split up differently depending on

858-447: Is the question of defining who they are (e.g. who are the "Indians" of the Indian Act ?), and this aspect of the legislation has been an ongoing source of controversy throughout its history. Not all people who self-identify as "Aboriginal" are considered "Indians" under the terms of the act. Only those on the official Indian Register maintained by the federal government (or a local "band list" in some cases) are Status Indians, subject to

SECTION 10

#1733093260671

936-486: Is very wide-ranging in scope, covering governance , land use , healthcare , education , and more on Indian reserves. Notably, the original Indian Act defines two elements that affect all Indigenous Canadians : The act was passed because the Crown relates differently to First Nations (historically called "Indians") than to other ethnic groups because of their previous history on the land. When Canada confederated in 1867

1014-606: The Constitution Act, 1982 as Indians , Inuit and Métis . Prior to the acquisition of the land by European empires or the Canadian state after 1867, First Nations (Indian), Inuit, and Métis peoples had a wide variety of polities within their countries, from band societies , to tribal chiefdoms , multinational confederacies , to representative democracies (in the case of the Métis-led Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia ). These were ignored or suppressed by

1092-872: The Government of Canada (federal government). For the Métis and Inuit, self-government was replaced by integration into the Canadian polity: these people could vote in the standard municipal, provincial, and federal elections as citizens of Canada. For the First Nations, the Government of Canada created the band system under the Indian Act , which allowed First Nations people to vote in band elections but they could not vote in federal elections before 1960 unless they renounced their status as Registered Indians (a process referred to as enfranchisement ). Band governments had very little authority, however; they exercised only whatever power

1170-656: The Indian Act are beyond legal challenge under the Constitution Act, 1982 . Section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall not be interpreted as negating Aboriginal, treaty or other rights of Canada's Aboriginal peoples. Section 88 of the act states that provincial laws may affect Aboriginals if they are of "general application", meaning that they affect other people as well as Aboriginals. Hence, provincial laws are incorporated into federal law, since otherwise

1248-686: The Indian Act or the band system. Instead they are represented by the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) or GCCEI and governed by the closely linked Cree Regional Authority . The GCCEI signed an agreement in 2012 with the province of Quebec that would abolish the municipalities in the region and merge them with the Cree Regional Authority in a new regional government called the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory . As of 2014

1326-458: The Indian Act without success. Those changes that have been made have been piecemeal reforms, rather than sweeping revisions. Since the 1990s, several pieces of legislation have been passed allowing individual bands to opt out of a particular section of the Indian Act if an agreement is signed between the band and the government putting alternative measures in place. These are called "Sectoral Legislative Arrangements". The band remains subject to

1404-439: The Indian Act would apply to such members. The sections in question are those relating to community life (e.g., landholdings). Sections relating to Indians (Aboriginal people) as individuals (in this case, wills and taxation of personal property) were not included. Bonita Lawrence (2003) discusses a feminist position on the relationship between federal definition and Indian identity in Canada. Until 1985, subsection 12(1)(b) of

1482-507: The Indian Act " on a community-by-community basis. In 1995 the Liberal government issued the Inherent Right of Self-Government Policy which recognized that self-government was an inherent right, but limited its implementation to a model which resembles delegation of authority from the Crown to the communities. It requires that individual bands or groups of bands sign modern treaties with

1560-628: The Indian Act , updated to April 2013, the term "band" means a body of Indians (a) for whose use and benefit in common, lands, the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty, have been set apart before, on or after September 4, 1951, (b) for whose use and benefit in common, moneys are held by Her Majesty, or (c) declared by the Governor in Council to be a band for the purposes of this Act. Fundamental to Canada's ability to interact with First Nations peoples

1638-588: The Indian Department ) hoped, by means of fiduciary duty that it voluntarily took on, to preserve Indian identity. But later the government of the Province of Canada conceived of the compulsory enfranchisement scheme of the Gradual Civilization Act . The 1985 amendment to the Indian Act extinguished the idea of enfranchisement, although by then Status Indians were Canadian citizens by birth . Under

SECTION 20

#1733093260671

1716-487: The Indigenous peoples in Canada greater powers of government. These proposals range from giving Aboriginal governments powers similar to that of local governments in Canada to demands that Indigenous governments be recognized as sovereign , and capable of "nation-to-nation" negotiations as legal equals to the Crown (i.e. the Canadian state), as well as many other variations. Aboriginal peoples in Canada are defined in

1794-609: The Parliament of the Province of Canada in 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. The act was passed by the Parliament of Canada under the provisions of Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 , which provides Canada's federal government exclusive authority to govern in relation to "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians". It was an attempt to codify rights promised to Native peoples by King George III in

1872-403: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 while at the same time enforcing Euro-Canadian standards of "civilization" . The purpose of the act, as stated by its drafters, was to administer Indian affairs in such a way that Indian people would feel compelled to renounce their Indian status and join Canadian civilization as full members: a process called enfranchisement. The idea of enfranchisement predated

1950-612: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Indian Act was not discriminatory, as the pair gained the legal rights of white women at the same time they lost the status of Indian women, in a parallel to R. v. Drybones . In 1981, Sandra Lovelace , a Maliseet woman from western New Brunswick , forced the issue by taking her case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee , contending that she should not have to lose her own status by her marriage. The Canadian law

2028-468: The White Paper on Indian Policy proposed abolishing band governments and transferring the delivery of social programs on reserves to the provincial governments (as the provinces already run these services for non-Indigenous people). Opposition to this proposal helped to galvanize the creation of national political organizations among Aboriginal peoples, bringing the concept of Indigenous self-government to

2106-421: The matrilineal cultures of many First Nations, whereby children were born to the mother's clan and people gained their belonging in the clan from her family. Often property and hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line. In addition, the 1876 Indian Act maintained that Indigenous women with status who married status Indigenous men would, in the event of divorce, be unable to regain their status to

2184-485: The "double mother" clause, "removed status from children when they reached the age of 21 if their mother and paternal grandmother did not have status before marriage." Much of the discrimination stems from the Indian Act amendments and modifications in 1951. Lawrence discusses the struggles of Jeannette Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bédard in the early 1970s, two Indigenous women who had both lost their Indian status for marrying white men. Lavell , whose activism helped create

2262-773: The "grass dance". The dance ceremony involved the giving away and exchange of blankets and horses; thus it breached Section 114 of the Indian Act. As a result, Wanduta, an elder of the Dakota community, was sentenced to four months of hard labour and imprisonment on January 26, 1903. According to Canadian historian Constance Backhouse, the Aboriginal "give-away dances" were ceremonies more commonly known as potlatches that connected entire communities politically, economically and socially. These dances affirmed kinship ties, provided elders with opportunities to pass on insight, legends and history to

2340-512: The 1876 version of the act and survived in some form until 1985. From the introduction in 1857 by the Taché - Macdonald administration of the Gradual Civilization Act until 1961, the enfranchisement process was optional for men of age 21 able to read and write English or French. The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with

2418-548: The 1980s, as prison wardens often denied Indigenous peoples access to materials used for prayer. Starting in the early 1900s, the Nisga'a First Nation started or attempted to start several legal proceedings to take control of their traditional territory. A series of attempts were denied by the B.C. government or not pursued by the Canadian Government. A 1927 amendment (Section 141) forbade any First Nation or band from retaining

Pictou Landing First Nation - Misplaced Pages Continue

2496-577: The British still recognized as sovereign, like the " Peace and Friendship Treaties " with the Mi'kmaq and the Upper Canada treaties. During the negotiations around Canadian Confederation , the framers of Canada's constitution wanted the new federal government to inherit Britain's former role in treaty-making and land acquisition, and specifically assigned responsibility for "Indians and lands reserved for Indians" to

2574-727: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . In Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), the majority found that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 's determination that the Indian Act did not violate the Canadian Human Rights Act was reasonable due to judicial deference . Indigenous self-government in Canada Indigenous or Aboriginal self-government refers to proposals to give governments representing

2652-534: The Canadian government, in contrast to the treaties, which were negotiated. This aspect was resented and resisted by many Indigenous peoples in Canada. The act was introduced in 1875 by the Liberal government as a consolidation of various laws concerning Indigenous peoples enacted by the separate colonies of British North America prior to Confederation , most notably the Gradual Civilization Act passed by

2730-514: The Department of Indian Affairs. Consequently, the reality of scarce access to essential services and resources amongst Indigenous communities became a primary factor driving the membership process and its outcomes. As stated in Bill C-31, women who lost their status as a result of marrying a man who was not a status Indian can apply for reinstatement and regain status under subsection 6(1). However,

2808-619: The GCCEI are in talks with the federal government on a Cree Nation Governance Agreement to refine the new structure's relationship to the federal authorities. The Anishinabek Education Agreement is another self-governance model. It occurred in 2017 and was the first case of an agreement regarding Indigenous self-governance over education in Ontario. As of 2017, it was also the largest number of First Nations included in an education self- governance agreement in Canada. The suggested purpose of this agreement

2886-644: The Government of Canada (and sometimes a provincial government) to be removed from the structures of the Indian Act . As of 2016 , twenty-two comprehensive self-government agreements had been signed by the federal government. Of those, eighteen were part of a comprehensive land claim agreement or modern treaty. Those numbers included the Yale Final Agreement and the Sioux Valley Final Agreement which have been signed, but have not yet been brought into effect through legislation. In addition to

2964-596: The International Covenant, in concurrence of Article 27. As well, In Article 2(3)(a) of the decision, the Government of Canada must provide effective remedy. Under the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of Canada is required in 180 days to fulfill these requirements: to ensuring that paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act is understood in a way that allows registration of those who were not previously registered under

3042-566: The Inuit, and any Canadian can move there and vote in its elections. However the strong Inuit majority is reflected in the governance of the territory and Inuktitut and Inuinnaq are two of the territory's official languages (alongside English and French). Another model is the Cree of northern Quebec . Since the passage of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act in 1984, nine Cree communities are not subject to

3120-835: The Nation and the agreement, "the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the Canadian Human Rights Act and other general laws such as the Criminal Code continue to apply." Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all peoples and governments in Canada, any person living on First Nations land, including non-Indigenous, can challenge First Nations Governance if they feel their rights are being infringed upon. The Federal Government has also taken steps to include non-Indigenous individuals who live on First Nations land in

3198-524: The Ontario Native Women's Association and also held the position of vice president of the Native Women's Association of Canada , and other Indigenous women were key actors in generating public awareness of gender discrimination in Canadian law and paving the way for later amendments to the Indian Act that allowed some women and their children to regain and/or attain status under Bill-C31. Meanwhile,

Pictou Landing First Nation - Misplaced Pages Continue

3276-649: The Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)" addresses gender-based inequalities in the Indian Act . Bill S-3 received royal assent in December 2017 and came in to full effect in August 2019. In 1894 amendments to the Indian Act made school attendance compulsory for Indigenous children between 7 and 16 years of age. The changes included a series of exemptions regarding school location,

3354-518: The United Nations' Human Rights Committee decision in the Sandra Lovelace case and Charter compliance issues. However, under Bill C-31, women who regain status fall under 6(1) and her children fall under 6(1) status. However, anybody who loses and regains status that is not from marriage falls under 6(2) and cannot gain status [like 6(1)]. This action has ultimately violated the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through

3432-451: The act "discriminated against Indian women by stripping them and their descendants of their Indian status if they married a man without Indian status." Under subsection 12(2) of the act, "'illegitimate' children of status Indian women could also lose status if the alleged father was known not to be a status Indian and if the child's status as an Indian was "protested" by the Indian agent." Further, subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iv), which Lawrence calls

3510-609: The act except for the section in question. The 1895 amendment of the Indian Act (Section 114) criminalized many Aboriginal ceremonies, which resulted in the arrest and conviction of numerous Aboriginal people for practising their basic traditions. These arrests were based on Aboriginal participation in festivals, dances and ceremonies that involved the wounding of animals or humans, or the giving away of money or goods. The Dakota people (Sioux) who settled in Oak River, Manitoba, in 1875 were known to conduct "give-away dances", also known as

3588-415: The act worked to disadvantage the position of Aboriginal women and can be considered an attempt to demolish Aboriginal families and alienate Aboriginal women from their land. Inflicting gender discriminatory laws, the Canadian government marginalized and disadvantaged Aboriginal women. Section 12 gained the attention of female movements contributing to a variety of proposals for reform. Amended in 1985 through

3666-415: The agreement and saw Manitoban MLA Elijah Harper , a Registered Cree Indian, help to defeat the accord. The follow-up Charlottetown Accord (1992) included recognition of an inherent Aboriginal right of self-government, but this package also failed though not because of Aboriginal resistance: in fact self-government was unpopular with many non-Aboriginal voters and may have been a factor in its defeat in

3744-448: The band they were originally registered in. This occurred as a result of the act's enforcement of the patrilineal descent principle required to determine an individual's eligibility for Indian status. As individuals, Indigenous women were not eligible for status or able to transfer status to their children in their own right. Indian status could only be reacquired or transferred legally by proof of an Indigenous father or through marriage to

3822-452: The band, and may take any lands in a reserve required for those purposes, but where an individual Indian, immediately prior to the taking, was entitled to the possession of those lands, compensation for that use shall be paid to the Indian, in such amount as may be agreed between the Indian and the Minister, or, failing agreement, as may be determined in such manner as the Minister may direct. In

3900-454: The basis of the right of self-determination as understood in international law generally or as specifically enumerated in the United Nations' Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Self-government arose in the later twentieth century as a proposed solution to the constraints of the longstanding Indian Act , first passed in 1878. Instances of self-government began with

3978-447: The children of reinstated women are subject to registration under subsection 6(2). Aboriginal people registered under section 6(2) are unable to transmit status to future generations. Thus, by reinstating women under section 6 of the act, the Canadian government failed to completely remove gender discrimination from its legislation, as the children of reinstated women have restrictions on their status, and status Indian men continue to hold

SECTION 50

#1733093260671

4056-561: The comprehensive agreements with Indian bands mentioned above, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 with the Inuit of the eastern Arctic, pursued a different model of governance. A new federal territory, Nunavut was created in 1999 where the Inuit were the majority, separate from the North West Territories where more First Nations, Métis, and non-Aboriginal people lived. Nunavut is not reserved exclusively for

4134-606: The constitution and the Indian Act . The case involved whether Aboriginals were subject to provincial game laws when hunting on Indian reserves. The act was at the centre of the 1969 Supreme Court case R. v. Drybones , regarding the conflict of a clause forbidding Indians to be drunk off the reserve with the Bill of Rights. The case is remembered for having been one of the few in which the Bill of Rights prevailed in application to Indian rights. In Corbiere v. Canada (1999), voting rights on reserves were extended under Section Fifteen of

4212-458: The discriminatory practices of the Indian Act ; that this law discriminates against Indigenous women and her descendants and their right to express their culture. In addition, this decision was also made based on the 2007 Supreme Court of British Columbia case of Sharon McIvor and her son, Jacob Grisner, that have been waiting over a decade of a verdict of their case. The UNHRC's decision has determined that Bill C-31 has violated Articles 3 and 26 of

4290-644: The distinction of paragraph 6(1)(a) on the basis of sex and gender, account for the ongoing discrimination of Indigenous peoples in Canada of gender and sex in the Indian Act and to avoid future discrimination similar to this Bill. Bill C-3 amendments to the act ( Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act —GEIRA) permitted Aboriginal women reinstated under subsection 6(2) to be eligible for 6(1) status. Creating paragraph 6(1)(c.1) registration, reinstated Aboriginal women could only be eligible for registration under 6(1) if they had non-status children. Since it

4368-440: The federal government (rather than the provinces ), by the terms of Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 . The Indian Act replaced any laws on the topic passed by a local legislature before a province joined Canadian Confederation, creating a definitive national policy. The act is not a treaty; it is Canada's legal response to the treaties. The act's unilateral nature was imposed on Indigenous peoples after passage by

4446-457: The federal government recognize First Nations as a distinct order of government within the Canadian federation and begin to negotiate self-government agreements with Indian bands. An attempt was made by Indigenous leaders to have the concept of Indigenous self-government enshrined via the 1987 Meech Lake package of constitutional amendments , but they failed to convince the premiers to include such provisions. This led to Aboriginal hostility to

4524-442: The full legal benefits and restrictions of the act. Notably this excludes Métis , Inuit , and so-called Non-Status Indians . Various amendments and court decisions have repeatedly altered the rules regarding who is eligible for Indian Status. Many bands now maintain their own band lists. Prior to 1985, Indigenous persons could lose status under the act in a variety of ways, including the following: These provisions interfered with

4602-614: The government of Canada apologized. In 1885, an amendment to the act banned the Potlatch ceremony of the West Coast peoples. The Potlatch ban drove traditional ceremonies underground. A similar amendment in 1895 banned the Sun Dance of the Plains peoples, which was not lifted until 1951. Although lifted in 1951, repression of Indigenous spiritual practices continued in Canadian prisons through to

4680-553: The health of the children and their prior completion of school examinations. The Canadian Indian residential school system subjected children to forced conversions, sickness, abuse and what has been described as an attempt at cultural genocide by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission . The residential school system severed family ties and diminished the transmission of traditional culture, in an attempt to assimilate Indigenous peoples into broader Canadian society for which on June 11, 2008,

4758-594: The idea that they must negotiate with the Government of Canada in order to exercise their right to self-government, have acted unilaterally. In January 2014, the Nipissing First Nation adopted what is believed to be the first constitution for a First Nation in Ontario. It is supposed to replace the Indian Act as the supreme law which regulates the governance of the First Nation, but has not been tested in court. Funding for Indigenous self-governing communities

SECTION 60

#1733093260671

4836-425: The introduction of Bill C-31, section 12 was removed and status was reinstated to those affected. The 1985 amendments led to the repatriation of status for many Indigenous women and their children but did not guarantee acceptance into an Indian band. A decade later, nearly 100,000 people had their status' reinstated while bands had newly gained control of membership responsibilities which was previously administrated by

4914-589: The national political consciousness for the first time. The constitutional amendments of 1982 included Section 35 of the Constitution Act which recognized Aboriginal rights and treaty rights but did not define these. In 1983, the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Self-Government, released its report (also called the Penner Report after committee chair Keith Penner ). It recommended that

4992-667: The national referendum which followed. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued its final report in 1996, which recommended that Indigenous governments become recognized as the third order of government in Canada (alongside the federal government and the provinces) and that Indigenous peoples receive special representation in Parliament. After this time, however, the emphasis shifted away from constitutional entrenchment towards negotiations with individual communities. The Conservative government announced its Community-Based Self-Government (CBSG) policy in 1986, to "enable negotiation of new Crown - Aboriginal relationships outside of

5070-409: The new state inherited legal responsibilities from the colonial periods under France and Great Britain , most notably the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which made it illegal for British subjects to buy land directly from Indian nations, because only the Crown could add land to the British Empire from other sovereign nations through treaties. This led to early treaties between Britain and nations

5148-496: The next generation, and were a core part of Aboriginal resistance to assimilation. It is estimated that between 1900 and 1904, 50 Aboriginal people were arrested and 20 were convicted for their involvement in such dances. The Indian Act was amended in 1951 to allow religious ceremonies, including the "give-away dance". In R. v. Jim (1915), the British Columbia Supreme Court found that Aboriginal hunting on Indian reserves should be considered under federal jurisdiction under both

5226-488: The only populated one being Fisher's Grant 24 at the mouth of Pictou Harbour and adjacent to Boat Harbour , a former tidal lake now part of the effluent treatment system for the pulp mill at Abercrombie Point. Facilities on this reserve include the band's administrative offices, fire hall, training centre, and P–6 school. The health centre was built in 2007 and its construction was inspired by traditional techniques used in longhouses and birch bark canoes . The truss system

5304-546: The other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change. Reserves, under this legislation, were islands within Canada to which were attached a different set of Indigenous rights. "Enfranchisement" derives from the idea of "franchise", which has gradually been degraded as "vote". Indigenous people with the franchise became official citizens of Canada (or British subjects before 1947), were allowed to vote for representatives, were expected to pay taxes, and lived "off-reserve". By contrast, groups of people who lived on

5382-626: The provincial laws would be unconstitutional. In Kruger and al. v. The Queen (1978), the Supreme Court found that provincial laws with a more significant impact on Aboriginals than other people can be upheld, as "There are few laws which have a uniform impact." Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg argues that in Dick v. The Queen (1985), the Supreme Court "changed its mind about the scope of s. 88." Section 88 could now protect provincial laws relating to primary Aboriginal issues and even limiting Aboriginal rights. Numerous failed attempts have been made by Canadian parliamentarians to repeal or replace

5460-629: The reserve. In December 2019 Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil turned down the pulp mill's request for an extension of the deadline to cease polluting the harbor. "The company has had five years and any number of opportunities," he said. "Cleaning up Boat Harbor is all my people have ever wanted," said Pictou Landing chief Andrea Paul. "Premier Stephen McNeil kept his promise and, on behalf of my community, we are thankful." 45°40′30″N 62°39′00″W  /  45.67500°N 62.65000°W  / 45.67500; -62.65000 Indian Act The Indian Act ( French : Loi sur les Indiens )

5538-406: The section entitled "Reserves" in the Indian Act , reserves are said "to be held for use and benefit of Indians. 18. (1) Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which lands in

5616-874: Was amended in 1985. The Canadian government applied gender bias requirements to the legal status of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. First passed as part of the Gradual Enfranchisement Act , a status Indian woman who married a man who was not a status Indian became non-status. Without legal status, Aboriginal women are unable to access treaty benefits, practice inherent rights to live on their reserve, inherit family property or be buried on reserve with ancestors. Restricted from access to their native community, Aboriginal women without legal status were unable to participate in ceremonies and rituals on their traditional land. However, these conditions did not apply to status Indian men who married non-status women; these men were able to keep their status. Section 12, paragraph 1(b) of

5694-405: Was built using long, slender greenwood trees lashed together with metal strapping. The exterior is clad with large spruce shingles. Boat Harbour is a body of water formerly used by the First Nation. In the 1960s it was taken over by the Province of Nova Scotia for use as a settling pond for effluent from the nearby pulp mill. It quickly became polluted with heavy metals and organic chemicals and

5772-745: Was delegated to them by the Minister of Indian Affairs , and only had authority on the Indian reserves which represented a tiny proportion of their traditional territories. Indigenous people may claim an "inherent right to self-government" either because it is seen as a natural right emanating from prior occupation of the land or because of a gift from or covenant with the Creator . In this case, Indigenous people do not seek to be "granted" self-government, but simply to have their pre-existing right recognized in law. As well, an argument for self-government can be made on

5850-402: Was the children of Aboriginal women who had been affected by restrictions under subsection 6(2) legal registration, only women who had children were eligible to be registered under subsection 6(1) of the act. Continuing to place restrictions on the status of reinstated women, Bill C-3 does not remove all gender bias provisions from the act. Bill S-3, "An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to

5928-558: Was the manner in which a pulp mill came to [be] located at Abercrombie Point in Pictou County fifty years ago; along with the mill was built an effluent-treatment plant in Boat Harbour. A 2013 study found that pollution, from both Boat Harbour and the exhaust stacks at the mill, has compromised access to traditional foods such as game, fish and berries, and dissuaded residents from growing gardens. This negatively impacted food security on

6006-402: Was the source of ongoing disputes between the First Nation and governments. The Boat Harbour Act 2015 set a deadline for closing the treatment facility no later than January 31, 2020, after which the site was to be cleaned up. This will involve removing an estimated 350,000 cubic metres (12 million cu ft) of contaminated material and returning the lagoon to a tidal estuary . In

6084-418: Was to further “academic excellence” and to push outside the bounds of the Indian Act by developing authority over their community's education. As of 2019, there have been twenty-five comprehensive self-government agreements signed by the federal government , involving forty-three Indigenous communities. There are a further 50 agreements being negotiated across Canada in 2019 as well. Some bands, rejecting

#670329