First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[cybercoma]

The Quebec Act didn't eliminate the entire Royal Proclamation of 1763.

[cybercoma]

Oookay... I read the Royal Proclamation itself and, as I said, there's no mention of language or religion.

I think he's conflating the Treaty of Paris, the Royal Proclamation and other British laws. Where Quebec belonged to Britain, you could not be a part of the government if you were Roman Catholic. That's not part of the Royal Proclamation though. The Quebec Act was meant to rectify that and other things, so the Roman Catholics wouldn't slaughter the colonial government.

[prairiechickin]

The formerly singularly British Crown over its empire was divided into multiple crowns with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. However, the British Crown specifically did retain residual sovereignty over Canada by virtue of the fact that certain amendments to the Canadian constitution still required the assent of the Queen in her British parliament (only with Canadian approval) in order to become law. The patriation of the constitution (with the added amending formula) cut that last link and the Canadian and British Crowns are now entirely separate except for the fact the same individual "wears" both.

You're fucking killing me with this detail, I'm not a Constitutional Historian, but I'm pretty sure we cut the ties with England back some 70 years ago, whatever year it was. All I know is I'm not convinced that I, as a Canadian whose grandparents never showed up in this country until the 1920s, am responsible for all this convoluted crap a couple of hundred years before we ever got here. I do know my Grandfather was swindled out of his original homestead because he was an illiterate Norwegian, and ended up on a sad pile of rocks near Macoun, Saskatchewan. After being promised a homestead in Canada in the land of milk and honey he ended up on that pile of rocks in the middle of the worst Depression and drought this nation has ever seen. After too many years of that he went out to the machinery shed in October 1937 and shot himself, and I can't say I blame him. So who am I supposed to blame for this tragedy? Am I supposed to go after the Department of Immigration for luring him here, or the rotten bastard that swindled him off the land near Milestone, or the Dirty Department of Weather that eventually wiped him out? Since there was no Proclamation for the Norwegians, I guess I get nothing. And I don't want anything. I'm proud that man came here and tried to make a go of it, even though it eventually beat him. He didn't make it, but his tougher-than-nails Norwegian wife did, and she was still around when I was a kid. And so did her kids, and one of them was my Mom. So cry me a river over how tough your life was, I have my own tragedies. Difference is, I'm not looking to cash in on the tragedies of my ancestors. They are a private affair, and I'm pretty sure Grandpa Halik would haunt me if I ever tried such a stunt.

[charter.rights]

The Quebec Act didn't eliminate the entire Royal Proclamation of 1763.

The Quebec Act had no affect on the Royal Proclamation 1763.

The Quebec Act was targeted at French nationals living in Upper Canada, no one else.

It refers only to land ceded to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris 1763 which the Royal Proclamation 1763 identified as a Colony of Great Britain.

...which had been made in respect to certain Countries, Territories, and Islands in America, ceded to his Majesty by the definitive Treaty of Peace, concluded at Paris on the tenth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three:...

That all the Territories, Islands. and Countries in North America belonging to the Crown of Great Britain....

(Southern Ontario and Indian Lands did not "belong" to the Crown in 1774)

[charter.rights]

You're fucking killing me with this detail, I'm not a Constitutional Credible Historian,

There, I fixed it for ya.....

Who cares about your grandfather...it is just another of your many red herrings trying to dodge your fallacious attempts to argue history.

Canada was not independent until after 1982, and "Indian" stuff is current, not "convoluted crap a couple of hundred years before we ever got here". Treaties with First Nations are as important as the International Treaties we have made with the US or Great Britain. If you count yourself Canadian then you better accept it. It is part of our Canadian heritage and legacy.

[cybercoma]

All I know is I'm not convinced that I, as a Canadian whose grandparents never showed up in this country until the 1920s, am responsible for all this convoluted crap a couple of hundred years before we ever got here.

You're not responsible for those things. However, you're living in a country that was established and expanded based upon the relationship our Monarch had with the First Nations. The life you enjoy here in Canada, our institutions, lands, political systems, and everything else, is only possible because we set up shop here on Native lands and because the monarch, as well as the Canadian government, made particular agreements with the First Nations. Neither the Crown, nor the colonial government, nor the Canadian governments that followed have fully lived up to their ends of the bargain. We can debate all day whether it's practical to live up to those bargains or not, but the fact of the matter is that there is mountains of historical documents from both the First Nations and people in our own government admitting that we have not lived up to our end of the bargain. So, no... you're not responsible for what happened before you arrived here. However, you are responsible for reaping the benefits of what had happened and if you believe we shouldn't live up to the legal agreements that were made, you're also responsible for perpetuating the damaged relationship between monarchy/government and the First Nations.

[cybercoma]

The Quebec Act had no affect on the Royal Proclamation 1763.

The Quebec Act was targeted at French nationals living in Upper Canada, no one else.

It refers only to land ceded to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris 1763 which the Royal Proclamation 1763 identified as a Colony of Great Britain.

(Southern Ontario and Indian Lands did not "belong" to the Crown in 1774)

I think you're saying what I said in different words. What I meant was that the Quebec Act had nothing to do with the Proclamation. The other poster seemed to think it eliminated it entirely.

[g_bambino]

All I know is I'm not convinced that I, as a Canadian whose grandparents never showed up in this country until the 1920s, am responsible for all this convoluted crap a couple of hundred years before we ever got here.

I don't quite understand. Are you saying laws should be ignored if they're old?

[g_bambino]

We can debate all day whether it's practical to live up to those bargains or not, but the fact of the matter is that there is mountains of historical documents from both the First Nations and people in our own government admitting that we have not lived up to our end of the bargain.

There's evidence that the Crown (the sovereign acting on the advice of ministers and agents) has not honoured its treaty obligations. But, let's not be so one sided. There've been instances where the Aboriginals haven't been honest in their dealings with the Crown and its non-Aboriginal subjects, as well.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

There's evidence that the Crown (the sovereign acting on the advice of ministers and agents) has not honoured its treaty obligations. But, let's not be so one sided. There've been instances where the Aboriginals haven't been honest in their dealings with the Crown and its non-Aboriginal subjects, as well.

Do tell.........

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763

"And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid."

When I read this I conclude that ALL INDIANS in fact come under the protection of the Crown. Further to this I read into it that those lands that were formerly in the control of "Indians" from that day forward, ALL LANDS are to be controlled by the Crown. Does it not follow then that since the land and the people fall under the dominion of the Crown, they are in fact citizens of this nation.

[cybercoma]

There's evidence that the Crown (the sovereign acting on the advice of ministers and agents) has not honoured its treaty obligations. But, let's not be so one sided. There've been instances where the Aboriginals haven't been honest in their dealings with the Crown and its non-Aboriginal subjects, as well.

Oh, absolutely. That's why this isn't as simple and straight-forward as charter.rights claims, although I give him/her all the respect in the world for being so well-researched in the area. You can tell he/she has devoted a lot of time to these problems. It's just silly, though, to say that there is no issue because these things happened a long time ago (they're still happening today and laws don't expire, unless they're written to do so).

[prairiechickin]

I don't quite understand. Are you saying laws should be ignored if they're old?

No, but neither am I in favor of the industry that has grown up around mining historic documents for alleged misdeeds with the hope of cashing in on the backs of hard-working Canadian taxpayers. At its best, history should be used a tool to foster a better understanding of how we, as Canadians, got to this point in our development, and should provide a useful caution as to how to proceed in the future. Most Canadian historians spend their lives devoted to this ideal, and none of them get rich doing it. At its worst, the historical record is abused and distorted by those seeking to cash in on the misdeeds of our forefathers. This is the preserve of the parasitic lawyers who are not interested in the truth, but rather in distorting the truth to extract the largest sum of money from the government, because as we all know, there's nothing like a nice whack of cash to redress an historic wrong.

[prairiechickin]

I'm not sure where you're getting this from; the Royal Proclamation of 1763 makes no mention of either religion or any official language, to be forced on anyone or otherwise.

"Originally, the British had hoped to turn Quebec into a normal British colony. A program of assimilation was announced accordingly in 1763 by Royal Proclamation. Official status was to be withdrawn from the Roman Catholic Church, French civil law and the seigneurial system of land distribution were both to be discouraged, and a massive influx of British settlers was expected by inviting British soldiers to retire in the colony on land being granted in freehold...Eventually the canadiens were supposed to become British colonists in their own right -- even their Roman Catholic Church would be incorporated into the Church of England."

J.L. Finlay and D.N. Sprague, The Structure of Canadian History, pp, 70-71.

So this was the original plan, but when revolution started percolating in the southern colonies, the British backtracked away from this position and passed the Quebec Act of 1774 that guaranteed language and religeous rights to the French as a way to forstall possible revolt. This is what I'm talking about when I point out the absurdity of using 250 year old proclamations as some sort of road map for modern Canada. These things were tossed out to deal with the exigencies of their time, not as the blueprint for a potential nation a hundred years down the line. I'm not opposed to recognizing The Royal Proclamation as part of our history, or even as carrying some legal weight within the context of its time, I think its absurd to impose this uniformly across what is now Canada. The British did not control all of what is now Canada in 1763, why should some unilateral declaration by some far off king 250 years ago tie Canada's hands in perpetuity.

[g_bambino]

A program of assimilation was announced accordingly in 1763 by Royal Proclamation.

You'll have to point out to me precisely where in the Royal Proclamation such a program is laid out.

[cybercoma]

You'll have to point out to me precisely where in the Royal Proclamation such a program is laid out.

He's right to the extent that it established British Colonial governments in North America. It follows that the Civil Code, the Seigneurial System, and the Roman Catholic Church would no longer be recognized as a result of the British acquiring the colonies. It just odesn't state it explicitly in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (aside from laying out the governments and territories).

[cybercoma]

If you want an exact quote from the Proclamation, this is about as close as it comes:

We have also given Power to the said Governors, with the consent of our Said Councils, and the Representatives of the People so to be summoned as aforesaid, to make, constitute, and ordain Laws. Statutes, and Ordinances for the Public Peace, Welfare, and good Government of our said Colonies, and of the People and Inhabitants thereof, as near as may be agreeable to the Laws of England, and under such Regulations and Restrictions as are used in other Colonies

[g_bambino]

If you want an exact quote from the Proclamation, this is about as close as it comes:

Okay, so the Royal Proclamation imposed British law on the Crown's newly acquired colonies; that seems rational. However, it's a bit of a stretch, an assumption at best, to say that the proclamation set out a program for forceful assimilation of the ex-French colonists. My own assumption would be that, in typical British administrative fashion, the government at Westminster simply lost amongst all the various laws and orders and proclamations the fact that some British laws they were now, with one simple diktat, requiring all who lived in the Canadas to adhere to were anti-Catholic and of the common law system (I can't think of any that were specifically hostile to the French language). Hence, they remedied the conflict with the Quebec Act.

[ed.: +]

Edited January 8, 2012 by g_bambino

[charter.rights]

The Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763

"And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid."

When I read this I conclude that ALL INDIANS in fact come under the protection of the Crown. Further to this I read into it that those lands that were formerly in the control of "Indians" from that day forward, ALL LANDS are to be controlled by the Crown. Does it not follow then that since the land and the people fall under the dominion of the Crown, they are in fact citizens of this nation.

"...protection of the Crown..."

Yes, but not likely in the way you are thinking.... That is the problem with amateurs reading historical documents. In British - Indian History, very little stands on its own. It is always linked to something else and history.

The concept of "sovereign protection" arose out of the Howard Treaty (Treaty of Albany) 1684 with the Iroquois. Among other things, the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee, Six Nations) sought to prevent the Algonquin from coming down to the north to trade with the settlers, since the Iroquois controlled the trade among the Indians and the Algonquin were refusing to comply. In coming to the south, the Algonquin would be frequently harassing the Iroquois (and vice versa). By demanding protection, the British offer the Iroquois military force and weaponry to prevent the Algonquin from coming into Albany.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 was built upon all the agreements from previous treaties as well as the Silver Covenant Chain (series of treaties still valid today) and the Iroquois were quick to point out the British failures at almost every opportunity. However, the Royal Proclamation protected all Indian lands from surrender or settlement, and did not give the British rights to any of it, outside of their 4 colonies.

And no, Indians are not "citizens of this nation". THIS Nation didn't even exist either in concept or in application and the British were on record of having anything to do with it because of the hostile Indians inhabiting it. However, they won by default Quebec but the only significance of that was control of the St. Lawrence for movement of people and goods into New England / New York.

[cybercoma]

Okay, so the Royal Proclamation imposed British law on the Crown's newly acquired colonies; that seems rational. However, it's a bit of a stretch, an assumption at best, to say that the proclamation set out a program for forceful assimilation of the ex-French colonists. My own assumption would be that, in typical British administrative fashion, the government at Westminster simply lost amongst all the various laws and orders and proclamations the fact that some British laws they were now, with one simple diktat, requiring all who lived in the Canadas to adhere to were anti-Catholic and of the common law system (I can't think of any that were specifically hostile to the French language). Hence, they remedied the conflict with the Quebec Act.

[ed.: +]

Bingo. Canada wasn't nearly as important to Europe as historians like to pretend. Voltaire probably summed up the general attitude in Europe about Canada when he called it, "a few acres of snow" ("quelques arpents de neige").

Edited January 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[jbg]

Bingo. Canada wasn't nearly as important to Europe as historians like to pretend. Voltaire probably summed up the general attitude in Europe about Canada when he called it, "a few acres of snow" ("quelques arpents de neige").

Wrong.

Canada became extremely important in 1781 with the British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia.

[cybercoma]

Only to Americans with an inflated sense of national worth. In fact, America was so not worth Britains time that they couldn't actually be bothered fighting you in the War of 1812. They were more focused on just maintaining what they had. Hence the status quo nature of the Treaty of Ghent.

Edited January 9, 2012 by cybercoma

[prairiechickin]

For those still folowing the debate, turn your textbooks to page 223, The Treaty of Ghent.

[jacee]

"Originally, the British had hoped to turn Quebec into a normal British colony. A program of assimilation was announced accordingly in 1763 by Royal Proclamation. Official status was to be withdrawn from the Roman Catholic Church, French civil law and the seigneurial system of land distribution were both to be discouraged, and a massive influx of British settlers was expected by inviting British soldiers to retire in the colony on land being granted in freehold...Eventually the canadiens were supposed to become British colonists in their own right -- even their Roman Catholic Church would be incorporated into the Church of England."

J.L. Finlay and D.N. Sprague, The Structure of Canadian History, pp, 70-71.

So this was the original plan, but when revolution started percolating in the southern colonies, the British backtracked away from this position and passed the Quebec Act of 1774 that guaranteed language and religeous rights to the French as a way to forstall possible revolt.

This is what I'm talking about when I point out the absurdity of using 250 year old proclamations as some sort of road map for modern Canada. These things were tossed out to deal with the exigencies of their time, not as the blueprint for a potential nation a hundred years down the line. I'm not opposed to recognizing The Royal Proclamation as part of our history, or even as carrying some legal weight within the context of its time, I think its absurd to impose this uniformly across what is now Canada. The British did not control all of what is now Canada in 1763, why should some unilateral declaration by some far off king 250 years ago tie Canada's hands in perpetuity.

Ah ... but do you see that that is only your own dissenting opinion, not the rule of law in Canada?

As such, it shouldn't be taught to students as 'fact' as it isn't.

In 'fact', the Supreme Court uses the land 'surrender' procedures in the Royal Proclamation 1763 to evaluate the validity of such 'surrenders' and to determine what rights apply on 'surrendered' and 'unsurrendered' land (ie, "unceded land". Thus, while the geography specified in the RP is specific and eastern, the relevance of the processes described has been found to be useful for establishing consistency in application across the country.

In all numbered treaty areas as elsewhere, hunting, fishing and sometimes trapping rights were retained by Indigenous Nations even on 'surrendered' lands, indicating a more general right to sustain themselves on the land.

The Government of Manitoba recognizes it has a duty to consult in a meaningful way with First Nations Métis communities and other Aboriginal communities when any proposed provincial law, regulation decision or action may infringe upon or adversely affect the exercise of an aboriginal right or treaty right of that Aborigina community. This duty arises out of the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

http://www.manitoba.ca/iem/mrd/mines/procedures/index.html

The duty to consult doctrine in Canadian law is a doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

This doctrine says that governments making decisions that may have an impact on Aboriginal rights or treaty rights have a duty to consult the potentially affected Aboriginal communities even prior to final proof of the rights in court or final settlement on the rights in negotiation processes.

The Crown's Duty to consult and to accommodate Aboriginal Rights

... by Dwight Newman, Associate Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Edited January 9, 2012 by jacee

[peterpan]

brought up in a society that's elders were killed by genocide, in a holocaust of their own, then forced into schools run by catholic priets and nuns, so that they forget their own language, culture and the ability to live according to their old ways. Then raped, and the perpetrators allowed to get away with it. Given rewards of recognition as good citizens of the country, even. Then land treaties dishonoured, when it was economically advantagous for Oh Canada to take what it wants.

Lets see how many of you can "man up" and recover from something like that!

None of you could, you arm chair master baiters.

But despite that, the question of a meaningful solution for helping natives come out of what has been done to them eludes us. Clearly, throwing money into it without oversight is just as useless as doing nothing at all.

It is a grave injustice to believe that any religious churches or Faiths. Religiouis institutions had nothing to do with Natives being forced to attend schools. It was the Federal Government who institututed these school matters. The Government of Canada, believed that by educating the young native population, iot would lead to Natives being able to work and become self sufficient in the world. There were no schools on the reserves st the time. The Anglican and Catholic churches were the only ones that had a schooling proceedures.I agree that, these schools did force the children to learn another language and to forget their native tongue. It was done so that they would conform to society. In a number of cases, it proved benificial as it offered those who wanted to succeed a place where an education was necessary. It is also true that there were a lot of resentment by the natives over their young being forced into residential schools.