Daniel's Case: Three Declarations Granting Indigenous Rights

Introduction

A declaration is granted if it will have significance in terms of use in practice mostly in an instance where it will settle an issue of current controversy in the parties present. Daniel's case had three declarations that were being sought which were; that the Metis and non-status Indians to be termed as all Indians according to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, the federal crown owed a fiduciary duty to the Metis and non-status Indians. Finally, the Metis and non-status Indians have a right to be consulted and negotiated with. According to the judge in the matter, he considered that the term Indians was an inclusive term that referred to all indigenous people in Canada. The trial judge agreed with the first declaration, and this will have a significant impact on the lives of the Metis. This paper seeks to discuss how the determination of this matter will affect the Metis community.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

An essential factor to consider about a declaration is that it has a guarantee that there will be certainty and accountability in the matter being sought to be discussed. The fact that the provincial and federal governments denied the communities claimed not to have any legislative authority over the villages. The two of these communities, as a result, end up being in a jurisdictional wilderness where their needs are not catered, and they end up being disadvantaged than any other community. The reason is that no government body wants to take responsibility for the communities just because they are aboriginal. The leading section also provides that Metis and non-status Indians are all Indians and therefore there would be no need to separate them. Separating them tends to increase the problem of distinguishing the communities if relied on most of the time raises the challenge being dealt with other than dealing with the issue at stake at that time.

The judge stated that there was no need to distinguish between the Metis and no-status Indians. That section 91(24) of the Constitutional Act they are all termed to be aboriginal people. Het the term Indians was majorly used to refer to all indigenous persons who also included the mixed ancestry communities. There was no other name for the aboriginal persons apart from Indians. The court's opinion regarding this matter will have a significant change especially in terms of how these communities live. The reason is that having a generic name for all the aboriginal persons will ensure that they are also considered as citizens and their rights will also be given priority also to ensure that they too are treated like the other people. The terms were made very clear that Indians were all aboriginal persons including the Metis.

The rights of the aboriginal communities were also enshrined in the Canadian constitution under section 35, but still, the provincial and federal governments are reluctant to exercise the needful actions to make them feel like they are also citizens. This resulted in the Metis going to court to seek recognition, and the analytical review of the rights of the Metis was stipulated in the Powley Case. In the case, the court decided that the rights of the Metis were for the persons with mixed ancestry and the persons who could trace their origins to the Metis community. The various factors that influence the classification regarding whether a person is part of a particular group are influenced by the language that this person speaks, the behavior of the person, the skin color and other factors that are relevant to distinguish and are identical. When there is a large number of people who are well distributed and are aware of the traits that identify the specific characteristics of that particular group, then there is a general conclusion that the group can be declared to exist. Therefore the Metis should be granted right in Canadian rights under this rule since they are identifiable since one can tell who is an Indian and another is European.

Characterization of an ethnic group usually arises based on unequal relationships in terms of power. This, as a result, ends up making one community feel inferior to another based on one community feeling that they are being undermined and treated unequally from others. This is also the reason that forced the Metis to seek redress from the courts. Based on the first issue the court was in favor of the Metis community, the factors contributing to them being termed as a group that would be identified as belonging to a particular group. The various visible traits are considered, and if they are well known then the community is deemed to form part of the society, their rights should be recognized just like those of other citizens in that country. The fact that the judges were in favor of the first declaration and recognized it backed by section 91(24) of the Constitutional Act and the Powley case. It is clear that it will turn out that the Metis community is also part of Canadian Citizens and are therefore entitled to having rights that all citizens are entitled to. Being an aboriginal community does not pose a hindrance to them being treated differently from the rest of the people.

The legislation and legislative making bodies play a significant role in the determination of the boundary between two different groups. The organization should end up creating rules also to protect the communities and ensuring that bot is granted equal rights as natural persons to ensure that they both live in peace being well aware of the things that they are required to do and those that they should not do based on the particular standard of behavior set. In both cases an issue regarding how the governmental and legislative bodies have been reluctant to define the boundaries of the Metis community and the other original persons. This has resulted in the Metis community being disadvantaged; therefore they end up feeling that they are not being granted equal rights. In the Powley case, the legislative and federal authorities left the matter for discussion the courts while on the other hand; the courts thought that it was the role of the authorities to define the issue. It is evident that the court already played its role and what is left is that of the federal and legislative authorities. Following the declaration of the court regarding the first issue, the authorities should now proceed to ensure that they define clearly the boundary rules. This will significantly help the Merit community to come out from the hole of darkness full of many challenges that makes life hard for them.

There is also an issue where the Metis community includes even people of diverse communities even those who are not from the Metis community. The term in Canada is used to include all the groups and therefore may be used in favorable advantage to some because they may be granted rights of the persons who are not aboriginal. It concerns the actual group within which the person belongs. The court can decide not to identify the group that they belong on the basis that any community that is not part of the first community also forms part of the Metis community. This includes those persons who know that they have no bloodline from the said community but also are being covered by the rights of the said community.

Having regard to the matters discussed above, if only the legislative and federal authorities took to their roles just like the court takes up its role to ensure that justice is served upon all those who need it, then the rights of the Metis community would be fully enforced on them. The first declaration was in favor of them, and the court was able to determine who the Metis communities are. This fact only is an important one since it will help them to move on with their practices and to engage in activities that they were in fear of engaging in. It will also help them to have their rights and privileges. They will no longer live a life of disadvantage as they used to live before the judgment as they are recognized in the Canadian government.

References

Grammond and Groulx (2012) "Finding" Metis Communities retrieved from https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwCgLxCHxrWTqNXScltJZskzWxH?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) [2016] 1 SCR 99 retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15858/index.do