C1. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Rights
Specific Expectations
C1.1
describe inherent First Nations, Métis, and Inuit rights in Canada and how they are connected to traditional territories and cultures
- How and why is the fact that First Nations and Inuit have lived on specific lands since ‘time immemorial’ relevant to modern-day land claims?
- How and why is it relevant to modern-day land claims that Métis ancestors lived on specific lands ever since the early years of the fur trade?
- What is the legal significance of the term terra nullius with respect to traditional territories of First Nations?
- How has Canada recognized and affirmed the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples?
- Where are inherent rights of Indigenous peoples defined in Canada’s legal system? How are inherent rights perceived in Canadian courts?
- What is the significance of the 1973 Calder decision with respect to traditional lands and inherent rights?
- In the 1996 case R. v. Van der Peet, how did the Supreme Court of Canada interpret the relationship between traditional culture and inherent rights?
C1.2
describe circumstances in which individual and/or group rights and freedoms of various Indigenous peoples in Canada have been threatened, limited, and/or violated since the 1980s (e.g., through categorization as “status Indians” and/or loss of status, loss of treaty rights, lack of recognition of hunting/fishing rights, practices that degrade the environment, failure to recognize tax exemptions for goods and services), and explain the impact of these threats, limitations, and/or violations
- Why do you think that government-issued Secure Certificate of Indian Status cards are sometimes scrutinized at the Canada–U.S. border? What is the legal significance of such scrutiny?
- What is the difference between a Métis Nation of Ontario citizenship card and a Certificate of Indian Status?
- In what ways are the First Nations rights that were included in the Jay Treaty of 1794 threatened or limited by present-day immigration and security issues?
- What impact have limitations on traditional use of lands had on the lives of First Nations, Métis, and/or Inuit individuals and/or communities?
- Why did Inuit of Nunavut have to extinguish their Indigenous rights to become beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement?
C1.3
explain, with reference to some key decisions (e.g., R. v. Moosehunter, 1981; R. v. Badger, 1996; R. v. Marshall, 1999; R. v. Powley, 2003; Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada, 2005; Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario, 2014), how historical treaty rights have been interpreted by the courts since the 1980s
- What approach did the Supreme Court take in the Badger decision with respect to treaty rights? What are the implications of this judgement for the interpretation of historical treaties?
- What are some court decisions that have found infringements of existing treaty rights? What is the legal significance of these decisions?
- What are the main similarities and differences between the Van der Peet test and the Powley test with respect to Métis rights?
C1.4
assess various ways in which First Nations, Métis, and Inuit individuals and communities in Canada have acted to protect treaty rights and/or land claim agreements since the 1980s (e.g., through complaints to the ombudsman or to the United Nations [UN], litigation before courts or tribunals, testimony before inquiries or commissions, petitions, voting, pressure groups, media campaigns)
- What role did the Assembly of First Nations and Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (now Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami) play in entrenching Aboriginal rights in the Canadian constitution?
- How and why did James Matthew Simon use the courts to recognize and protect his treaty rights?
