Fault lines in Canadian Society Essay

There argon existing tensions or find fault lines in Canada amongst different regions. Fault lines fit to swot (2012) atomic number 18 the geological phenomenon where there are cracks on the freshness of earth due to the tectonic attracts. In relation to Canada, fault lines are political, social and economic cracks that divide pile and regions and they also threaten to destabilise the integrity of Canada as a community. According to Bone (2012), the geography of Canada is characterized by four tensional fault lines, and they include English and French Canadians, pristine and non- ancient bulk, centrist and decentrist forces, and the immigration forces. These are the forces that view ensured Canada remain a nation of regions. There are sextuplet regions in Canada and they include Quebec, Atlantic Canada, western sandwich Canada, Ontario, territorial north and British capital of S break throughh Carolina. The essay will majorly discuss the old/ non- primordial fault li ne by comparing and contrasting the constituent of their ongoing founding in current physiographic regions in Canada.The primary/no- aboriginal fault lineThe 1982 Constitutional Act referred to the indigenous people of Canada which includes Mtis, Indians and the Inuit as original peoples. This means that they are the Canadian people who trace their line of products to the native inhabitants of Canada who came from northeast the States before the Europeans came in 15th century. The non fundamental people have no ancestry or blood traffic to the primarys. Status (registered) Indians has certain ripes according to 1985 Indian Act and registered and acknowledged by the federal official reinment such as exemption from generated tax from nurses. The non-status Indians are not registered but have Indian ancestry hence has no rights according to the Indian act. Similarly, the Treaty Indians are registered Indians who can prove telephone circuit from the band that signed treat ies and hence has legal rights of living in reserves. The Inuit are located mainly in Arctic, while the Mtis are singles of North American and European Indian ancestry.Harring & OSCLH (2013) pointed break that the Aboriginal/non Aboriginal drive line in Canada is the most complex one. Its complexity is as a result of the historical relations tangled between the European conditiontlers and the Aboriginal people. The first entanglement occurred between the Aboriginal peoples and the British backsheesh and after-hoursr(prenominal) Ottawa. According to Bone (2012), the class between the settlers and the natives for let down, the federal orderments forced acculturation policies added to the complexity and further solidified the distrust of the Aboriginal people to the crown and the Canadian state. The policies which failed to create a big difference between the Aboriginal people and the other parts of Canada. The consequence later was a contingency to the Aboriginal people who were pushed to the Canadians guilds margin, faced racism, ended up dependant on Ottawa and became ignored and invincible Canadian society members. An example of their isolation as observed by Harring & OSCLH (2013) are the accordance Indians got the vote participate in federal elections only in 1960 mass of the current existence of Aboriginal people in Eastern Wood knowledge bases of southmost Ontario and Quebec in the Grand River ValleyThe Haldimand GrantIn 1763, the British organise an alliance with Pontiac, the chief of Odawa as well as other Indian leaders with an arrest of holding the Ohio valley inflicts. George III strategically issued a royal proclamation in 1763 which west of Appalachian Mountains as the lands for the Indians (Bone, 2012).However, by and by the American Revolution in which the Americans won, the proclaimed Indian lands in the Ohio valley ceased existing as umteen settlers hungry for land spread crosswise the Appalachian Mountains. More over, the de feated Indians moved to Canada where they received the first major land grant termed as the Haldimand Grant of 1784 (Harring & OSCLH, 2013). According to Bone (2012), the main tendency of the grant was to reward the Indian Iroquois who fought alongside the British during the American Revolution. Bone (2012) highlighted that lord Haldimand, the Governor of Quebec, in his proclamation prohibited the sale or lease of the land to anybody but only the political relation. The said tract of land extended from Grand River source in the present southwester Ontario to the rivers mouth at Lake Ontario. This explains the circumstances of the existence of the Aboriginal people and non existence of the non Aboriginal people around the area of the Grand River between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario. constituent of the current existence of Aboriginal people in Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Quebec ad LabradorTaking over of the Indian rights by CanadaThe 1867 British North America Act shifted the r esponsibility for the Aboriginal people from Great Britain to Canada (Harring & OSCLH, 2013). Subsequently, the government of Canada enacted the restricting Indian act. The effect of the legislation was to isolate the Indian tribes from the rest of the Canadian society, in addition to stripping them governance powers. This was based on assumptions that the Indians cannot govern themselves or manage their affairs. Therefore, the federal government through the Department of Indian Affairs was entrusted with the duty to be their guardian until they were fully integrated into the Canadian society (Harring & OSCLH, 2013). This was in contrast to the Haldimand Grant which gave the aboriginal people land, allowed them to govern themselves and did not implement restrictive laws to the Indians.Bone (2012) indicated that the federal department wherefore intervened in many issues including management of the Indian lands, band issues, money, and resources with the main aim of assimilating th em into the Canadian society. This promoted dependency and left the affairs of the bands on the give of the local agents who were Indians, hence suppressing the initiatives of the Indians (Bone, 2012). The isolation of the Indians in Canada was done by denying them citizenship rights including vote rights. In contrast, the British crown did not create dependency from the aboriginal people. Moreover, they did not manage the land on behalf of the Indians like the federal government of Canada does.As frequently as the Indians were being suppressed in reserves, the Mtis and the Inuit were not included in the Act but they also had to rattling in the Canadian society where they were not fully sure. Currently, the Inuit have homes in Nunavut, Quebec and point Labrador.Land claim treatiesWith almost the whole of the British Columbia province tied up in several land treaties, the affinity between the Aboriginal and the non Aboriginal communities are highly strained. According to Harri ng & OSCLH (2013), the Aboriginal rights are collective rights that originate from the occupation of land by the Aboriginal people before contact. These treaty rights apply mostly to the Inuit and the status Indians contrasted the Mtis who are slight protected by the rights. When the governance of the federal government and the British crown are compared, there are similarities in that both embraced treaties with the aboriginal communities on land and settlement issuesMtis RightsThe less egis of the Mtis by the Aboriginal rights stems back from 1870 when the Ottawa accepted that the Mtis has Aboriginal rights beca usage of the Indian ancestry (Bone, 2012). The government further gave individual members of the Mtis community land grants in a three dowry agreement. The first component of the agreement indicated that the occupied land before 1870 by the Mtis became private property, second the Mtis children had eligibility of 140 acres, and lastly from each one Mtis family head r eceived in scrip 160 acres which could be change or claimed in Manitoba. Furthermore, the federal government of the day set 1.4 million acres in Manitoba for the estimated 10,000 Mtis children in 1871(Bone, 2012). However, the allocation was change magnitude to 240 acres after census which found there only 5000 Mtis children (Bone, 2012). However, Harring & OSCLH (2013) pointed out that few Mtis people claimed their land allocated to them and majority sold leaving them landless. Compared to the Indians of the Grand River Valley, there is similarity because both Mtis and Indians were condition land by the authorities of the dayAs much it is a historic fact that many Mtis dispersal from the Red River Valley, the reasons for their dispersal remains a controversy with two interpretations. According to Ottawa, the rights were distinguished in accordance to Manitoba Act of 1870 by giving the scrip to the Mtis. This is supported by Harring & OSCLH (2013) who argued that the federal gove rnment of that time did not act in hazardous faith as much it was slow in settling the claims by the Mtis. In contrast, Bone (2012) argued that the Mtis communities were victims of federal governments deliberate conspiracy to pr eventidet the land of Mtis community in Manitoba. However, the matter was settled by the Supreme Court in 2013, in a case filed by Manitoba Mtis Foundation, which ruled in party favor of the Mtis.Treaty rightsThe treaties favored the Aboriginal people because they defined the reserve lands that were collectively held by the band in addition to negotiating other skillful rights for the communities. Harring & OSCLH (2013) elaborated that there were different reasons for signing treaties and it depended on the historical contexts. For instance, late 19th century treaties were signed to remove others tribes for the settlers. To the Aboriginal people, any treaty to them was a land promise as well as a shift support from hunting and nomadism to more settled farm ing. Therefore, this was a protection from the influx of the settlers during that time and a guarantee of government protection.Bone (2012) pointed out that the conflicting ideas from the crown authorities and the first nation, on the treaties significance do the relations between non Aboriginal and Aboriginal people. For instance, during the crown authorities viewed the treaties as mechanisms for extinguishing the rights of the Aboriginals and the land championships and hence opening up the lands for the settlers to do agriculture. In contrast, the Aboriginal people understood the treaties as agreements between the authorities to dowry resources and land. With the diverse perceptions, it was inevitable to have disagreements between the Aboriginal and the non Aboriginal people. mod treatiesFor many years the legal meaning of Aboriginal land title has changed until 1970, when Ottawa recognized two land rights forms, which are the reserve land and the crown land. The reserve land w as a type of ownership or right where the government of Canada held land for the Indian people. In contrast, the Indians had limitless right to use the crown land for trappings and hunting. This implies that the Indians were allowed to freely enjoy and use the crown land the crown lands without making any claims on it in form of ownership. According to (Harring & OSCLH, 2013), the crown lands included the lands where there were no settlements in Canada. However, the Aboriginals, the Mtis, Inuit and Indian families lived and used the crown lands to fish, trap and hunt. However, Bone (2012) pointed out that the provincial governments and the federal governments could sell the crown lands to corporations or individuals or even lease them for specific purposes such as logging or even mineral exploration without compensating the Aboriginal inhabitants and users of the land.As much as many groups among the Aboriginal people did not have treaties with the federal government and therefrom no control over the lands, many events changed this situation radically. To begin, the offspring of the emergence of educated leaders who understood legal and political systems who used the approachs to force the provincial and federal governments to address issues o the Aboriginals concerning land claims. For instance, the Nisgaa residing in northern British Columbia took their claim for land in court in a case known as the Calder case. As much as the Supreme Court in 1973 ruled against their favor narrowly, six out of the seven judges were in agreement that the title for Aboriginal on the land existed at the confederation time in coarse Columbia. Similarly, that same year, the federal government was in agreement that the Aboriginal people who had not signed a treaty may also have a claim on the crown lands (Bone, 2012).ConclusionIn conclusion, as Bone (2012) proposed, there exist fault lines in Canadian society. The current existence of the Aboriginal/ non Aboriginal fault line in Canada in some parts of Canada has been due to many circumstances. The Haldimand Grant occurrence see the existence of the Aboriginal people around the Grand River valley. The taking over of the Indian rights by Canadian federal governments has seen suppression, restriction and confinement of the Aboriginal people in reserves and this also explains there existences in certain parts. Moreover, the treaties signed between the Aboriginals and the crown authorities and also with the cabadian federal governments in a bid to protect their land rights have seen the existence of the Aboriginals in certain parts of the country.ReferencesBone, R. M. (2012). The Canadian north Issues and challenges. Don Mills, Ont Oxford University Press.Harring, S. L., & Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal memorial. (2013). White mans law Native people in nineteenth-century Canadian jurisprudence. Toronto, Ont Published for the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History by University of Toronto Press.Sou rce document