In order to understand present day aboriginal rights in Canada it is necessary to understand some background information in the context of early European contact. A good example of how aboriginals were treated can be seen with the explorations of Sieur de Monts of France. In 1603 the king of France gave de Monts the authority to represent the royal interest in a vast territory, a territory that stretched from present day New Jersey north to Cape Breton Island and indef

Some clarity did fallow in fallowing years. Two cases provided some guidance into how the Canadian government would handle Native sovereignty and land rights. One such case was Baker Lake vs. Canada. In the late 1970’s the Inuit people of Baker Lake area of the Northwest Territories sought aboriginal rights to Baker Lake based on occupancy and use of the land. Federal Court Judge Mahoney J. had to take in many factors when ruling on the Baker Lake trial. Mahoney J. had to determine if the Royal Proclamation applied to the Baker Lake area or if aboriginal rights could exist apart from the royal Proclamation, as was suggest in the Calder case. In addition Mahoney J. had to determine what criteria were necessary to claim aboriginal title to land.5 Mahoney J. created four criteria to determine right to title that would be widely used for many years after the case. (1) That the plaintiff (Aboriginals) and their ancestors were members of an organized society. (2) That the organized society occupied the specific territory over which they assert the aboriginal title. (3) That the occupation was the exclusion of other organized societies. (4) That the occupation was an established fact at the time sovereignty was asserted by England. In addition to the Calder case the Baker Lake case gave clear guidelines to lawmakers and future court justices when it came to the claim of land rights and aboriginals.6 The Calder case and court decisions of the time are considered the modern age of Aboriginal land rights laws.

The Constitution Act of 1982 set aside three sections that pertain to aboriginals. Section 25, provides the Charter guarantee of rights and freedoms should not be construed as derogation from rights relating to aboriginal peoples. Section 35 recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada who include the Indian, metis and inuit peoples of Canada. Subsections of 35 also state that, for greater certainty, “treaty rights” which include present and future land claims agreements. In addition 35 gives gender equality with respect to rights and provides the obligation that governments consult with aboriginal peoples before amending constitutional provisions that directly affected them.7 Section 35 pertains to our observations most directly. Section 35 guaranteed aboriginal rights but in addition guaranteed and recognized existing aboriginal rights. Especially pertaining to treaties. As we can recall there was an abundance of reference to treaties in the wording of section 35. This is important to aboriginal land rights due to the fact that it would give aboriginals the upper hand when it came to honoring former treaties and comfort in future treaties that may be made. The times loosing land and rights due to interpretation in the courts seemed to be over for aboriginals in Canada. The Constitution Act is still a very young document and time will tell the effectiveness of the Act on future aboriginal rights but it is a good start. It is important to restate that the Constitution Act is

Some topics in this essay:
Constitution Act, Proclamation Act, Baker Lake, Royal Proclamation, Canada Subsections, French Due, British Columbia, France Canada, Political Social, Supreme Court, aboriginal rights, land rights, royal proclamation, constitution act, baker lake, proclamation act, judicial decision, de monts, aboriginal land rights, aboriginal land, native tribes, constitution act 1982, royal proclamation 1763, lessee vs m’intosh, proclamation act 1763,