Indigenous Rights (Human Rights)

Sandra Lovelace v. Canada

katherine — Fri, 17 May 2024 15:54:05 +0000

Sandra Lovelace v. Canada katherine Fri, 05/17/2024 - 12:54

Sandra Lovelace v. Canada

The Lovelace decision came about when Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet women from the Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick, married an American man and moved away, which effectively stripped her of her Indian status.
When she moved back home to the reserve, Sandra and her children were denied housing, education, and healthcare, all things that are supposed to be provided for status Indians under the Indian Act.
However, at the time, a discriminatory provision under the Indian Act stated that an Indian women who married a non-Indian man would lose her status and all of the rights associated with it (note: the same policy did not apply to Indigenous men who married a non-Indigenous woman).
Due to the precedent set by the Lavell decision, Sandra Lovelace could not appeal her case to the Canadian courts so she submitted an application to the Human Rights Committee at the United Nations stating that this policy violated several Articles under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Ultimately, the Committee found that Canada did in fact breach the ICCPR, which led to the revision of the Indian Act in 1985 to ensure that Indigenous women who marry non-Indigenous men would still retain their status.
This case was a step forward in eliminating gender-based discrimination laws in Canada and also represented a positive step for Indigenous peoples' rights in Canada.

Citation

Kinsella, Noel A. "Sandra Lovelace v. Canada [1977-1981]. Documents made available by the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission. Published by the Indigenous Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. September 13, 1981. Accessed August 4, 2022. https://indigenouslaw.usask.ca/publications/sandra-lovelace-v.-canada-1977-1981.php

Further Readings

For more information on the Lovelace decision: https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2010/sandra-lovelace-v-canada-communication-no-241977-canada-300781-un-doc-ccprc13d241977
& https://library.law.utoronto.ca/whrrarticle/human-rights-committee-and-case-sandra-lovelace

Overlapping Topics

Indigenous Affairs

Policy Sub-Topic

Indigenous Rights (Human Rights)

Policy Type

Collection of Case Files

Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell

katherine — Fri, 17 May 2024 15:52:40 +0000

Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell katherine Fri, 05/17/2024 - 12:52

Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell

Canada (AG) v Lavell was a landmark 5-4 Supreme Court of Canada decision that found Section 12 of the Indian Act did not violate the respondent's right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
This case came about when Jeannette Vivian Corbiere, an Anishinaabe (Ojibwa) woman from the Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve on Manitoulin Island, married a non-Indigenous man from Toronto, Ontario.
Due to Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act, which revoked the Indian status of women who marry non-status men, Jeanette lost her Indian status, which also meant that her children would not receive status either.
This policy was not applicable to Indigenous men and it essentially worked to further force assimilation, disenfranchisement, and discrimination against Indigenous women.
Jeanette filed a lawsuit claiming that this Article and the federal government were in violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights because the policy discriminated against her sex.
The federal courts ultimately found that the Bill of Rights did not make s. 12 of the Indian Act inoperative.
There were some mixed reactions with this decision, some viewed it as the government and the justice system's failure to protect and uphold Indigenous women's rights and some thought if this section was rendered inoperative, the court's could go further and strike down the entire Indian Act.
It is generally understood that this case was a setback for Indigenous rights, however, it also acted as a catalyst for greated Indigenous rights activism and a precursor to changed in Canadian law, which saw the revision of the Indian Act (1985) and other changes to discriminatory policies against Indigenous peoples.

Citation

Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell [1974] S.C.R. 1349, 1973. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5261/index.do

Further Readings

For more information on the Lavell case, its impacts and relevance: https://jurisprudence.reseaudialog.ca/en/case/attorney-general-of-canada-v-lavell/
& https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1588&context=scholarly_works

Overlapping Topics

Indigenous Affairs

Policy Sub-Topic

Indigenous Rights (Human Rights)

Policy Type

Supreme Court Case

Granting Indigenous Peoples the Official Right to Vote

katherine — Fri, 17 May 2024 15:50:16 +0000

Granting Indigenous Peoples the Official Right to Vote katherine Fri, 05/17/2024 - 12:50

Granting Indigenous Peoples the Official Right to Vote

On March 31st, 1960, the Deputy Governor General, on behalf of Her Majesty, gave royal assent to An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which repealed portions of Section 14(2) of the Act and granted the federal vote to status Indians.
This is the record of the House of Commons Debate of this day where the policy change was officially declared in the House and which gave Indigenous peoples the right to vote in 1962.
Despite this change in policy, there are differing opinions with regards to voting among Indigenous peoples across Canada.
To some, it is seen as going against principles of self-government and others see it as an important way to participate in Canada's democratic process.
Moreover, many criticize Prime Minister Diefenbaker's decision to change policies that directly impact First Nations, without any meaningful consultation with them.
Following the debate that gave Indigenous peoples the right to vote with no strings attached, Prime Minister Diefenbaker appointed James Gladstone to the Senate, which was the first time an Indigenous member was appointed to the Senate.

Citation

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons Debates, 24th Parliament, 3rd sess., vol. 3, p. 2669. March 31, 1960. Accessed August 4, 2022. https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2403_03/227

Further Readings

For an alternative version of this: https://www.lipad.ca/full/1960/03/31/10/

Overlapping Topics

Indigenous Affairs

Policy Sub-Topic

Indigenous Rights (Human Rights)

Policy Type

House of Commons Debate

Indigenous Voting Rights

katherine — Fri, 17 May 2024 15:44:06 +0000

Indigenous Voting Rights katherine Fri, 05/17/2024 - 12:44

Indigenous Voting Rights

Up until 1960, Indigenous peoples in Canada did not have the right to vote in federal elections, unless they were willing to give up their 'Indian' status through enfranchisement.
Enfranchisement was the process of stripping Indigenous people of their Indian status to gain citizenship rights instead.
Prior to 1960, laws around voting contained several qualifications that voters needed to have and many of these automatically excluded Indigenous peoples (such as owning property, British citizenship, being a taxpayer, etc).
If an Indigenous person was willing to relinquish their Indian status, they would be able to vote as long as they still met existing qualifications.
Like many policies surrounding Indigenous affairs, enfranchisement was used to assimilate Indigenous people and strip them of their rights, culture, language, and traditional practices.
In 1960, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's government, as promised in his election campaign, helped amend Section 14 of the Canada Elections Act.
This is the record of the House of Commons Debate on March 10, 1960, where the House of Commons came to a virtually unanimous decision to give Indigenous peoples the right to vote without revoking their treaty rights in exchange.

Citation

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons Debates, 24th Parliament, 3rd sess., vol. 2. March 10, 1960. Accessed August 4, 2022. https://www.lipad.ca/full/1960/03/10/7/

Further Readings

For more information on the history of Indigenous suffrage and the right to vote: https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/voting-rights-through-time-0/first-nations-and-right-vote-case-study & https://collections.irshdc.ubc.ca/index.php/Detail/occurrences/132
& https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/elections/chronique_e.pdf & https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indigenous-suffrage

For an alternative version of this volume: https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2403_02/1

Overlapping Topics

Indigenous Affairs

Policy Sub-Topic

Indigenous Rights (Human Rights)

Policy Type

Hansard