While it might be desirable to amend the constitution of Canada to acknowledge the distinctiveness of Indian society as an aid to construction of instruments, it is unnecessary to amend the constitution in order to add a substantive right of Indian self-government. That right is already entrenched as an existing aboriginal right within the meaning of section 35 of the <i>Constitution Act, 1982</i>. The right was constituted by prerogative legislation in the eighteenth century, and has since been reiterated in the statutes of the imperial government which also established the corresponding constitutional powers of the federal and provincial governments. As originally constituted and since perpetuated the right has meant that federal and provincial governments may not legally encroach upon the Indians' jurisdiction to govern their own civil affairs. But neither are the federal and provincial governments under any express or necessarily implied constitutional obligation financially to support Indian governments. Furthermore the Indian right is plenary, in that it applies to civil affairs generally, rather than to a delegated set of enumerated powers. Although the basis for the right was not the common law, the only basis consistent with current federal policy is as if it were common law. That policy presumes that if ever the Indian right had existed it has been superseded historically by actions of federal and provincial governments inconsistent with it. However, the thesis here suggests that since the imperial legislation which actually constituted the right and subsequently reiterated it has never been repealed, such supersession is a legal impossibility. Because it is basic to federal policy the supersession idea nevertheless dominates the current approach to law reform and the negotiation process, which proceeds upon the assumption that the municipal form of self-government on offer, with its delegated enumerated powers to carry out local works, is at least something where nothing exists at the present time. The Indian need to secure financial support renders insisting upon the application of existing law seem politically counterproductive, although it need not be so.

ABORIGINALITY, EXISTING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND STATE ACCOMMODATION IN CANADA: ABSTRACT The central focus of this dissertation is the relationship between aboriginality, aboriginal rights and state accommodation in Canada. The work considers how the existence of a plurality of conceptions of aboriginality impacts the capacity of aboriginal rights to protect and accommodate this collective identity. This dissertation takes the position that aboriginal rights, as they are currently constructed in Canada, cannot account for the existence of this definitional multiplicity, and so impose serious limits on the degree to which aboriginality is accommodated and protected by the state. This case is built by looking at Supreme Court cases that deal with Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The investigation contained herein examines the written legal submissions of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal participants in these cases, as well as the Court’s decisions, in an effort to trace the various articulations of aboriginality put forward by the parties. The dissertation demonstrates that, even though there is a multiplicity of conceptions of aboriginality – in other words, the aboriginal litigants, the provinces, the federal government and the Supreme Court justices advance different and often competing conceptions of aboriginality – aboriginal rights are constructed to protect and accommodate a single, particular vision of this collective identity. Moreover, this version of aboriginality does not coincide with the version of this collective identity advanced by the aboriginal litigants themselves. Consequently, the work in this dissertation argues that aboriginal rights fail to accommodate and protect aboriginal peoples’ collective identities and pose a substantial threat to these identities. / Thesis (Ph.D, Political Studies) -- Queen's University, 2008-07-09 23:23:43.659

Ce mémoire propose un portrait global et une critique de l'état du droit canadien relatif au statut juridique des municipalités. L'adage voulant que les municipalités constituent des créatures des législatures ne possédant aucun statut constitutionnel est un héritage du droit américain (théorie du Dillon 's rule) de la fin du 1ge siècle. Or, plusieurs États américains ont introduit très tôt le principe du home rule (autonomie locale) dans leurs constitutions. Le Canada n'a pas fait de même et les institutions municipales ne sont toujours pas protégées dans la Constitution écrite. On constate toutefois une évolution de la législation et de la jurisprudence vers une augmentation de l'autonomie municipale. Notre hypothèse est que l'existence d'institutions municipales représentées par des élus et pourvues de pouvoirs autonomes dans les matières d'intérêt purement municipal fait partie de la Constitution non écrite. Les exceptions non écrites au pouvoir d'une province de modifier sa constitution interne, ainsi que les principes structurels de la démocratie et de la protection des minorités sont étudiés. Un statut protégé pour les municipalités est conforme au droit international et plusieurs États, dont la Californie et l’Italie, ont constitutionnalisé les pouvoirs locaux. Enfin, nous proposons diverses avenues inspirées du droit international et du droit comparé afin que le Canada, ou le Québec, reconnaisse expressément que l'existence de la troisième branche de gouvernement est protégée et que la Législature ne peut porter atteinte au caractère démocratique des municipalités, ni à leurs pouvoirs municipaux généraux. / This thesis proposes a global portrait and criticism of Canadian Law concerning the legal status of municipalities. The adage that municipalities are merely creatures of legislatures that have no constitutional status is an inheritance of the American Law (Dillon’s rule) dating back to the end of the 19th century. Many American states have rejected this rule though and implemented home rule powers in their state constitution. But canadian case law has not followed and still refuses to recognize constitutional protection to municipalities. We notice however an evolution of the legislation and the case law towards an increase of municipal autonomy. This research tries to demonstrate that the existence of municipal institutions steered by elected representatives and provided with autonomous powers on subjects of purely municipal interest is part of the unwritten constitutional law. The unwritten exceptions to the legislative power of a province to amend its internal constitution and the unwritten fundamental principles of democracy and protection of minorities will be examined. A protected status for municipalities is in compliance with the international instruments concerning local powers and is present in the constitutions of several States, among which California and Italy. Finally, we propose different measures inspired by international law and comparative law for Canada or Quebec to recognize expressly that the existence of the third branch of government is protected and that the democratic character of municipalities and their general municipal powers cannot be withdrawn by the Legislature.

Ce mémoire propose un portrait global et une critique de l'état du droit canadien relatif au statut juridique des municipalités. L'adage voulant que les municipalités constituent des créatures des législatures ne possédant aucun statut constitutionnel est un héritage du droit américain (théorie du Dillon 's rule) de la fin du 1ge siècle. Or, plusieurs États américains ont introduit très tôt le principe du home rule (autonomie locale) dans leurs constitutions. Le Canada n'a pas fait de même et les institutions municipales ne sont toujours pas protégées dans la Constitution écrite. On constate toutefois une évolution de la législation et de la jurisprudence vers une augmentation de l'autonomie municipale. Notre hypothèse est que l'existence d'institutions municipales représentées par des élus et pourvues de pouvoirs autonomes dans les matières d'intérêt purement municipal fait partie de la Constitution non écrite. Les exceptions non écrites au pouvoir d'une province de modifier sa constitution interne, ainsi que les principes structurels de la démocratie et de la protection des minorités sont étudiés. Un statut protégé pour les municipalités est conforme au droit international et plusieurs États, dont la Californie et l’Italie, ont constitutionnalisé les pouvoirs locaux. Enfin, nous proposons diverses avenues inspirées du droit international et du droit comparé afin que le Canada, ou le Québec, reconnaisse expressément que l'existence de la troisième branche de gouvernement est protégée et que la Législature ne peut porter atteinte au caractère démocratique des municipalités, ni à leurs pouvoirs municipaux généraux. / This thesis proposes a global portrait and criticism of Canadian Law concerning the legal status of municipalities. The adage that municipalities are merely creatures of legislatures that have no constitutional status is an inheritance of the American Law (Dillon’s rule) dating back to the end of the 19th century. Many American states have rejected this rule though and implemented home rule powers in their state constitution. But canadian case law has not followed and still refuses to recognize constitutional protection to municipalities. We notice however an evolution of the legislation and the case law towards an increase of municipal autonomy. This research tries to demonstrate that the existence of municipal institutions steered by elected representatives and provided with autonomous powers on subjects of purely municipal interest is part of the unwritten constitutional law. The unwritten exceptions to the legislative power of a province to amend its internal constitution and the unwritten fundamental principles of democracy and protection of minorities will be examined. A protected status for municipalities is in compliance with the international instruments concerning local powers and is present in the constitutions of several States, among which California and Italy. Finally, we propose different measures inspired by international law and comparative law for Canada or Quebec to recognize expressly that the existence of the third branch of government is protected and that the democratic character of municipalities and their general municipal powers cannot be withdrawn by the Legislature.