Aboriginals

Aboriginals have been occupying the domain of Canada for many centuries. For how many years exactly; is still a number that is immeasurable and incalculable. It is for this very reason of first derivation why Aboriginals feel a need to fight for land and for treaties after they had lost their power to the Europeans. Many of these disputes over lands have lead up to the courts and eventually many also into the Supreme Court of Canada. Such cases include the St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, Calder v. British Columbia, and Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. Despite the overwhelming change those particular cases have had in future cases in this particular paper the focus will be on the Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) Supreme Court case. This case, concerning land that is claimed by the Haida people, brings up several important questions that are answered by the Supreme Court of Canada. Such questions include whether the government has a duty to consult when land has not yet been legally established? Furthermore does the government have a duty to accommodate the people in such cases where land is still being disputed upon? This paper will discuss the answer to the above questions along with the Court's reasoning for their decision. Moreover the rights of Aboriginals will be more specifically looked at as long with treaties and the fiduciary duty the crown owes to the people. As a final point the effects of this case will be discussed, this will include government procedures to be used concerning land that is legally or simply claimed to be belonging to Aboriginals, and the effects of the Haida Nation case on future and similar cases.  
This case concerns an area of land termed Block 6. In 1999 the government had approved harvesting to be done by Weyerhaeuser Co. This order, Tree Farm License 39 (T.F.L. 39) was strongly objected by the Haida people who have been claiming ownership to this land for some time. However the land in... [continues]

Read full essay