C4. Changing Political Relations
Specific Expectations
C4.1
analyse key factors, including specific policies (e.g., requirements relating to consultation and accommodation; increasing education and activism among Indigenous individuals; the process involved in modern-day comprehensive land claims; legal concepts such as the doctrine of discovery, sui generis, the honour of the Crown), that since the 1980s have affected and/or continue to affect the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Canadian governments
- What is the principle behind the ‘honour of the Crown’ in the context of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Canadian governments? What is the significance of this principle? How has it affected relationships between Indigenous peoples and Canadian governments?
- How did the 2016 decision in Daniels v. Canada clarify ways in which legislative authority applies to Métis and non-status Indians? Why did Métis want the court in Daniels to rule that they were ‘Indians’?
- What is the legal definition of the Métis Nation in Canada? In Ontario?
C4.2
explain the Supreme Court of Canada’s finding (in Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2004, and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, 2004) that the federal government has a duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples, and analyse the impact of this finding on the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Canadian governments
- How did the failure to consult with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit partners affect the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the federal and/or provincial governments? Do you think the Haida Nation and Taku River Tlingit First Nation rulings have resulted in significant changes in the consultation process? Why, or why not?
C4.3
explain the Crown’s fiduciary obligation towards Indigenous peoples, with specific reference to Guerin v. Queen, 1984
- What is meant by the term ‘fiduciary duty’?
- What was the background of the Guerin case? What led the court to conclude that the Crown had breached a fiduciary duty in this case? What implications did this ruling have for relationships between Canadian governments and Indigenous peoples?
- How is the honour of the Crown at stake in the Crown’s fiduciary relationship with Indigenous peoples?
- How has the 2016 decision in Daniels v. Canada affected the Crown’s fiduciary duty towards Métis?
C4.4
explain how various First Nations, Métis, and/or Inuit political organizations (e.g., the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, the Native Women’s Association of Canada) interact with federal, provincial, and/or territorial governments, and assess the effectiveness of these interactions
- What are some criteria you might use to assess the productiveness of the relationship between the federal government, or provincial governments, and Indigenous organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and/or the Métis National Council?
- What are the goals of the Restoration of Jurisdiction Department of the Anishinabek Nation / Union of Ontario Indians, as mandated by the Anishinabek Grand Council Chiefs-in-Assembly? How do these goals affect its relationship with the provincial government?
