Analyzing Government Relations with First Nations in Canada

This essay explores the complex relationship between the Canadian government and First Nations people, highlighting the historical context of treaty development and the ongoing challenges related to land claims and resource extraction. It examines the differing perspectives on treaties, with the government viewing them as legal devices surrendering Aboriginal rights, while First Nations perceive them as tools authorizing their rights to self-governance. The essay also addresses the role of litigation in resolving disputes and emphasizes the need for alternative approaches to state Indigenous claims. It further discusses the limitations of inclusive land claims policies and the importance of economic reasons in providing housing for indigenous people. The essay concludes by underscoring the necessity for bridging the gap between the two perspectives on treaties to foster better relations and policies in Canada.

Running head: ESSAY 0
government relations
DECEMBER 5, 2018
STUDENT DETAILS:

ESSAY 1
First Nations people are alert that various governments and residents struggle to move
beyond viciousness and dysfunction that describes certain people, families, and groups. All
across the nation, this critical co-operative work is taking place in fields as diverse as First
Nations economies, teaching, power, social services, human rights, values, and the resolution
of outstanding land claims. Conflict may occur between individuals, families, and interest
groups within the community, between communities, and surely between First Nations, the
government framework and the governments of Canada. The difficulty of the condition, in
concert with resolution that itself has various faces, may appear to be overpowering.
However, it shows not only the requirement for planned interferences, but also the world of
chances within First Nations looking for assignments for the groups (Taras & Ganguly,
2015).
The clash between resource extraction and aboriginal rights is probable to become
more noticeable in the upcoming period as aboriginal persons progressively see the rights
preserved at state level and global level and apply them more efficiently. Similarly, the
lessening number of accessible resources findings means corporations are forceful in more
remote areas and Aboriginal land. The moral authoritative alone has not been effective in
compelling corporations and government to admire aboriginal rights. The group aims to show
companies that there are decent economic reason to provide housing indigenous people,
specifically ignoring protest 1and legal fights (Durante, et. al, 2017).
In year 1973, Canada recreated the policy of treaty developing in response to
persevering claim of unextinguished indigenous rights to land. Complete claims contracts are
the modern equivalent of historic treaties. They are shaped to give certainty and
predictableness over the resources. The slender opinion of treaties has produced the big
division between the perspective of government of Canada and that of aboriginal persons. On
one hand is the opinion of treaties of government as permissible devices that capitulated

ESSAY 2
aboriginal rights. Other is the aboriginal opinion of treaties as tools of the relations between
independent persons who decide to share the Canadian land and Canadian resources.
Understood from Aboriginal viewpoint, treaties cannot submit rights; somewhat, they
authorise Aboriginal rights. It is recognised by the treaties that Aboriginal persons have the
ability to self-govern. Connecting the gap between the two opinions of treaties stances the big
issue to persons and policymakers or legislators in Canada (Routh, 2017).
Further, the parties often depend on the litigation to resolve the clashes about
Indigenous and treaty rights. As per the consequence, the judges has been mainly accountable
for the policies creation in this field. Legal proceedings are not an effective dispute resolution
device. The parties require establishing alternate approaches to state Indigenous claim when
they rise. The inclusive land claims policies have limited access. This does not state the
interest of Indigenous communities not pursuing new treaties, the Metis, or the recipients of
important treaties (Brown, et. al, 2016).

ESSAY 3
References
Brown, B., Wachowiak-Smolíková, R., Spence, N. D., Wachowiak, M. P., & Walters, D. F.
(2016). Why do some first nations communities have safe water and others not?
Socioeconomic determinants of drinking water risk. Global journal of health
science, 8(9), 99.
Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Gelfand, M. J., Crippa, F., Suttora, C., Stillwell, A., & Björklund, F.
(2017). Ambivalent stereotypes link to peace, conflict, and inequality across 38
nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(4), 669-674.
Routh, D. K. (2017). The first new nation: The United States in historical and comparative
perspective. New York: Routledge.
Taras, R., & Ganguly, R. (2015). Understanding ethnic conflict. New York: Routledge.