Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article reviews the place of Indigenous politics in the last 50 years of Canadian political science. Focusing on theCJPS, it looks at broad themes and clusters in the literature over time, while also trying to explain how the roots of the discipline continue to impact the development of political science in Canada and thusCJPS. I argue that while at least 43 articles have dealt with Indigenous politics (solely or as a significant focus) and at least 18 have had some significant discussion thereof, there nonetheless remains a disconnect between Indigenous politics and the discipline. This disconnect exists because of the methodological and epistemological foundations of the discipline which have resulted in a focus limited to the Westphalian state. While the disconnect between Indigenous politics and the discipline has waned considerably (43 of 61 articles have been published since 2000) as there has been an awakening of sorts, a disconnect nevertheless still exists.

Abstract.Everyone familiar with the study of Canadian politics knows the joke about how a French national, an Englishman and a Canadian were asked to write an essay about an elephant: the French national wrote about the culinary uses of the elephant, the Englishman wrote about the elephant and imperialism, and the Canadian wrote a paper entitled, "Elephant: Federal or Provincial Responsibility?" Though simple, the joke conveys the essence of Canadian politics: always defined by jurisdictional disputes. The joke misses the boat, however, by ignoring the fact that indigenous people are now (as they always have been) engaging in jurisdictional debates in an attempt to challenge the Canadian constitutional order and to reaffirm their own constitutional order and autonomy. This paper examines one such dispute—the Mi'kmaw claim of rights and responsibilities for the salmon fishery—and presents it as a case of contested sovereignties and a resulting jurisdictional dispute. In so doing, I pose the question: Is salmon a federal, provincial or Mi'kmaq responsibility? In seeking an answer, this paper proceeds in an exploratory manner to map both constitutional orders, and the interrelation between these orders that results in the debate over responsibility for the salmon.Résumé.Dans le milieu de la science politique au Canada, tout le monde connaît la blague du Français, du Britannique et du Canadien qui doivent écrire une thèse sur l'éléphant. Le Français disserte sur les usages culinaires de l'éléphant, le Britannique traite de l'éléphant et de l'impérialisme et le Canadien écrit une thèse intitulée : "L'éléphant : responsabilité fédérale ou provinciale?" Cette blague, dans sa simplicité, évoque l'essence même de la politique au Canada, car la politique canadienne a toujours été définie par des conflits juridictionnels. Mais, si elle illustre bien la nature de la politique au Canada, elle n'est cependant pas satisfaisante parce qu'elle ignore qu'aujourd'hui (comme autrefois d'ailleurs) les peuples autochtones s'engagent dans les débats juridictionnels pour contester l'ordre constitutionnel du Canada et pour réaffirmer leur propre ordre constitutionnel et leur autonomie. Cet article examine l'un de ces conflits : la revendication par les Mi'kmaq de leurs droits et responsabilités concernant les pêcheries de saumon – et le présente comme un cas de souverainetés contestées, et, par conséquent, un exemple de conflit juridictionnel. Je pose donc la question : "Saumon : responsabilité fédérale, provinciale ou Mi'kmaq?" En répondant à cette question, l'article explore les caractéristiques des deux ordres constitutionnels et leur connexions, ce qui mène à un débat sur l'attribution des compétences dans le domaine du saumon.

In spring 2001, the Jean Chretien government undertook an important process of consultation with aboriginal communities in Canada, with a view toward modifying the Indian Act & improving governance practices & self-government within reserves. After one year of this process, the government put forward its First Nations Governance Act (Bill C-7). Though the Bill was never passed, the whole episode is quite indicative of the nature of institutional obstacles that slow down the creation of a more egalitarian relationship between the Canadian state & indigenous peoples. The article blends historical institutionalism & the concepts of target population & citizen engagement to argue that aboriginal policy formulation in Canada is essentially constrained by a colonial paradigm that has remained virtually unchanged since the 19th century. This paradigm, which continues to view aboriginal peoples as inferior, blocks any possibility of renewing aboriginal governance. Adapted from the source document.

"Surviving Canada: Indigenous Peoples Celebrate 150 Years of Betrayal is a collection of elegant, thoughtful, and powerful reflections about Indigenous Peoples' complicated, and often frustrating, relationship with Canada, and how-even 150 years after Confederation-the fight for recognition of their treaty and Aboriginal rights continues. Through essays, art, and literature, Surviving Canada examines the struggle for Indigenous Peoples to celebrate their cultures and exercise their right to control their own economic development, lands, water, and lives. The Indian Act, Idle No More, and the legacy of residential schools are just a few of the topics covered by a wide range of elders, scholars, artists, and activists. Contributors include Mary Eberts, Buffy Sainte-Marie, and Leroy Little Bear."--

AbstractThis paper examines judicial reasoning in the area of Aboriginal title, paying particular attention to the Supreme Court of Canada'sTsilhqot'in Nation(2014) decision. While the decision has been heralded as a 'game-changer' within media circles and legal commentaries for its recognition of a claim to title under section 35(1) of theConstitution Act, 1982, the authors argue that the decision does not depart substantially from prior judicial logics predicated upon the production of Crown sovereignty and the denial of Indigenous legal orders. In fact, the authors argue that the decision displays a clear judicial orientation towards the present jurisdictional divisions of Canadian federalism which not only serves to eliminate Indigenous legal orders and territorial responsibilities, but also provides federal and provincial governments with enhanced powers of 'incursion' into Aboriginal title lands.

RésuméDepuis les années 1960, les peuples autochtones du Canada essaient de reconstruire leurs nations ainsi que leurs systèmes économiques, politiques, sociaux et culturels. Ceux-ci défendent leurs revendications sur le plan domestique, à l'aide de démarches politiques et légales, tout en faisant valoir leurs demandes à l'échelle internationale. Malgré l'empiètement des droits constitutionnels des Autochtones et le choix du Canada de s'engager dans un discours sur les droits inhérents des peuples autochtones, les voies domestiques sont marquées, néanmoins, par une « paralysie des paradigmes » et les autorités canadiennes s'accrochent fermement au paradigme colonial. Par conséquent, les cours ainsi que les politiciens ont été incapables de remettre en cause l'autorité du gouvernement du Canada sur les questions touchant les Premières nations ou encore d'entériner la relation de nation à nation qui gouvernait autrefois les négociations de la couronne avec les peuples autochtones. Tandis que les démarches politiques ont abouti à la reconnaissance de formes inférieures d'autonomie gouvernementale par des gouvernements canadiens « supérieurs », les droits constitutionnels protégés des peuples autochtones ont été interprétés par la Cour suprême du Canada de la manière la plus limitée, ébranlant, par le fait même, les revendications autochtones sur la question de la souveraineté, limitant l'autonomie culturelle des peuples autochtones et empêchant la création d'économies autochtones modernes. Ainsi, on peut se poser la question suivante : les démarches globales représentent-elles de meilleurs espoirs pour les peuples autochtones et leurs aspirations? En examinant l'engagement des peuples autochtones dans des domaines touchant les mécanismes de libéralisation des échanges et les droits sur la propriété intellectuelle, les auteurs concluent que, même si l'aréna internationale et les organisations d'échange multilatéral ne cherchent certainement pas à protéger les autochtones ou leurs intérêts, ceux-ci peuvent toutefois être utilisés afin de faire avancer les aspirations politiques, sociales, culturelles et économiques des peuples autochtones.

AbstractIn Canada, Treaty 1 First Nations brought a claim against the Crown for land debt owed to them since 1871. In 2004, Crown land in Winnipeg became available that, according to the terms of the settlement, should have been offered for purchase to Treaty 1 Nations. Similarly, in New Zealand, the Waikato-Tainui claim arose from historical Crown breaches of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. In 1995, a settlement was reached to address the unjust Crown confiscation of Tainui lands. Despite being intended to facilitate the return of traditional territory, compensate for Crown breaches of historic treaties, and indirectly provide opportunity for economic development, in both cases, settlement was met with legal and political challenges. Using a comparative legal analysis, this paper examines how the state continues to use its law-making power to undermine socio-economic development of Indigenous communities in Canada and New Zealand, thereby thwarting opportunity for Indigenous self-determination.