Category Archives: Aboriginal Law

Should Treaties be Abandoned?

Aboriginal Law, Colonialism, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Treaties

 

Yesterday, I argued that it is difficult to walk away from treaties because they are constitutional documents. The next question is should we want to walk away from them?

To answer this question intelligibly we must understand what treaties are and how they came about.

First, is it true to say that Indigenous people who will be paid treaty payments are getting unequal or special treatment?  After all the First Nations are being by the Crown for payments that are due by contract. The Crown promised to pay these annuities  in return for obtaining the right for itself and its assignees to occupy and use the land of the First Nations. Paying what is due and owing  is not a gift. The Crown got the land and promised to pay for it. Some people sell things or rights to the Crown and are paid for them. Others don’t receive that money because they did not enter into an agreement to sell something, such as land. There is no unequal or special treatment here.

Secondly, what is the purpose of treaties? It is more than payment of money for land. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in an earlier case, Little Salmon,:

“Historically, treaties were the means by which the Crown sought to reconcile the Aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Canada to the assertion of European sovereignty over the territories traditionally occupied by First Nations. The objective was not only to build alliances with First Nations but to keep the peace and to open up the major part of those territories to colonization and settlement.”

 

In other words treaties are created to facilitate nations living together peacefully. As a result of the Robinson treaties Canada obtained tremendous benefits for centuries. Should it now be allowed to renege on its promises and pretend those promises were never made? Or should it rather renegotiate those treaties.  Indigenous people mostly thought that this is what would occur after treaties were made. They would last for a long time, i.e., they would last” as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow,” but they would be periodically renewed and renegotiated. Indigenous people expected that. Sadly, that has not happened as often as it should it.

Personally, I think the Crown should renew and renegotiate those treaties. Just like Canada should renew its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States should renew its Constitution. This won’t happen overnight and abandoning them is not the best way to do this.

Legal scholar Professor Janna Promislow explained why this makes the interpretation of treaties so important:

“Serving the ends of justice in the treaty interpretation context, however, is more complex than the interpretation of contracts, due to the historical nature of the agreements and the constitutional character of the moments of agreement — and because the foundational values behind protecting historic treaty rights are arguably less understood and more contentious than the values behind protecting freedom of contract.”

 

The Supreme Court of Canada in the Robinson Treaty case said this about the rights obtained by the First Nations who entered into the treaty with Canada and Ontario,

“In this case, for example, this Court has to interpret the scope and content of constitutionally protected rights and obligations that embody the very conditions on which pre-existing Indigenous peoples agreed to share their most precious gift — the land itself — with newcomers.”

 

Treaties are important documents. Societies are based on them. They are not entered into for the short term, but the long term because treaties give stability to the nations involved in them. We must be very careful before we abandon them. They are important for all of the nations involved. That is why Justice Jamal said in the Robinson Treaties case on behalf of all 9 judges:

“treaty interpretation involves the application of constitutional principles such as the honour of the Crown, with lasting implications for the nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown.”

 

As J. Y. Henderson, Treaty Rights in the Constitution of Canada, which was also adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Robinson Treaties case:

“Treaty texts are “evidence of the transgenerational rights and obligations of the treaties and their promises”, and are “meant to impose obligations on the British sovereign and the delegated colonial governments and subjects into the distant future”

 

S. Grammond in the legal text The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution pointed out that treaties are not just binding on those who signed them,

“they are binding upon all Canadians who, because of the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty, are also effectively implicated in these founding agreements. A treaty is a compact “not only among the provinces or ‘founding peoples’, but also ‘between the non-Aboriginal population and Aboriginal peoples’”

 

That does not mean the treaties should be written in stone. They must be renewed and renegotiated frequently. That does not happen overnight. It takes time, effort, goodwill, and yes, even honour!

And that is what Canadians should do. The Indigenous people and the government of Canada and Ontario non-Indigenous people should get together from time to time to renew and amend those treaties to make them better and more effective. Like my cousin said, this is 2024. Times change. We can do better. But reneging is not the answer.

 

 

Can Treaties be Abandoned?

Aboriginal Law, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Treaties, Law

 

Recently one of my very intelligent cousins, and as well a good friend told me more or less the same thing. My cousin said,  “This is 2024 so all people should be treated equally as Canadians. The treaty and reservation system should no longer be valid.”  My friend said no system of politics will work when one side gets special treatment or has special rights.” I agree with both of them. All people should be treated equally and none should have special status, but this does not end the matter. Other principles are at stake here too. For example, countries should their keep their promises. And countries should act honourably. Sometimes important values or principles collide and we have to deal with that.

The American Constitution is pretty old and far from perfect. Should it be abandoned too? Under that constitution slavery was acceptable and women could not vote nor Indians nor black people. That’s pretty bad. Yet, we have to be careful when we throw out constitutions because a lot will be thrown out with it. A lot is tied to that Constitution. We must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I agree that all people should be treated equally as Canadians. Just as all people should be treated equally as Americans.  And no people should have special status as a result of their birth. But we all know that doesn’t always happen that way.  We want to get there. But we are not there yet. Discrimination and racism are real so what should we do about it?

The American Constitution tolerated for centuries a system whereby slavery was permitted, indigenous people and black people could not vote, women could not vote and white people were allowed to jerry-rig the system to effectively make their votes count more than their non-white fellow Americans. Over time, improvements were made, but the system is still not perfect.

We must also remember that remarkable change can happen.  A good example is France and Germany.  I remember on a trip in Africa when I had an interesting talk with one of our German guides. With tears in his eyes, he talked about how the German and French nations had fought and quarrelled and gone to war over centuries, and since the EU was established, they had become best of friends.  During all that time it seemed impossible. During World War II Japan and the United States engaged in a savage war. After the war they also became good, if not best friends. I hope this is what happens with the Indigenous and non-Indigenous people of Canada.

Canadians must remember that treaty rights are constitutional rights.  They are entrenched, which means it is not easy to change them. They can be changed but it difficult. This what Justice Jamal said on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court in the 2024 the Robinson Treaties case:

“As already noted, historic Crown-Indigenous treaties are sui generis agreements protected under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The constitutional nature of treaty rights demands that appellate courts be given wide latitude to correct errors in their interpretation. Historic treaties “establish or reaffirm a fundamental and enduring relationship between the Crown and an [A]boriginal people”… They are “an exchange of solemn promises between the Crown and the various Indian nations”… Since 1982, s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 has recognized and affirmed that existing treaty rights have constitutional status and attract related constitutional protections.”

 

It was on the basis of those treaties that Canada gained the right to occupy and develop the land around Lake Superior and Lake Huron country. The Robinson Treaties were just one example of that.  As the Supreme Court said, as  a result of those treaties,

” since the Robinson Treaties were concluded in 1850, the Crown has derived enormous economic benefit from the ceded territories through mining and other activities. Meanwhile, as the Court of Appeal noted, the Anishinaabe treaty partners have experienced many deprivations in their communities, such as “substandard housing and boil water advisories” …One treaty partner has thrived, while the other has often experienced immense hardship.’

 

Can the party who got all the benefits now renege and say, sorry we did not pay what we promised to pay and its your tough luck?  Would it be right for Canada and Ontario in the case of the Robinson treaties to renege on their promise to pay after reaping all the benefits? In law if one party wants to rescind an agreement it must first return what it obtained in return for that agreement. Isn’t that fair?  Canada and Ontario have received a lot. Do they really want to give back what they got? Do they want to give back the land in the same condition or better as when it was first shared? I would think not.

So, whether Canadians like those treaties or not, we are stuck with them until the treaties are renegotiated or the Constitution of Canada amended. We can’t just walk away from them.

So far I have pointed out that Canada and Ontario can’t easily get out of their treaty obligations, but the more important question is should they try to get out of them? That is for my next post.

Discretion

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, Aboriginal Law, Colonialism

 

There was one tricky issue on the appeal. The Treaties gave the Crown [the government] to exercise its discretion to determine whether or not it had earned enough profits to warrant paying the First Nations, but that did not mean it could exercise that discretion without any parameters. It has to exercise its discretion in a way that aligns with the Honour of the Crown and its constitutional role and its duty to bring about reconciliation. As Justice Jamal said, on behalf of the entire court,

“This Court has long recognized that “there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled ‘discretion’…in a country founded on the rule of law and in a society governed by principles of legality, discretion cannot be equated with arbitrariness”. Our law requires discretion to be “exercised within a specific legal framework”, and recognizes that “[d]iscretionary acts fall within a normative hierarchy…”

 

The Supreme Court also endorsed a law text which said,  ‘a claim of unfettered discretion by government is “constitutional blasphemy. . . . Unfettered discretion cannot exist where the rule of law reigns.”

 

Therefore, even though the government could exercise its discretion on how much to pay, it can’t pay whatever it wants to pay. It must follow the rules the court set out. It must act honourably in the interests of the First Nations and all of Canada.

 

Treaty of Niagara

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, Aboriginal Law, Colonialism, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Treaties

 

There is one more document that must be considered in order to understand the significance of the Robinson Treaties. in 1764, one  year after the Royal Proclamation was proclaimed,  Sir William Johnson who represented the English crown, invited all of the First Nations in the region that would be impacted by the Treaty of Niagara to Niagara to talk him. This has been called the Council of Niagara 1764 and was attended by over 1,700 Indigenous people, including Anishinaabe leaders. At that time Johnson on behalf of the  Crown again assured the Indigenous attendees of their autonomy and stated that the Crown would maintain and protect their title to their lands as was proclaimed by King George in the Royal Proclamation.

He advised them that he was the person responsible to implement the Royal Proclamation. He sent out copies of the proclamation together with strings of wampum. These are shells commonly used in Eastern Canada and they represented the highest forms of nation-to-nation diplomacy. These strings or belts were the indigenous form of treaty “writing.” It is interesting how the parties latched on to Indigenous ceremonies in this “new world.” This was a sign of respect by British authorities to their Indigenous partners. It was understood that they would be partners.

 

The Covenant Chain belt was created through the Treaty of Niagara. It is a belt that shows 2 individuals holding hands representing friendship and alliance. Gifts and wampum belts were exchanged, including the Great Covenant Chain Wampum and the 24 Nation Wampum. The trial judge in the Ristoule case that went to the Supreme Court who momentously rule on the case this past year, described the Great Covenant Chain Wampum as an embodiment of the “merged symbols of diplomacy” between the two groups, visually represented on the belt by two figures holding hands as part of two links in a chain.”

The Treaty of Niagara is what flowed from that historic meeting in 1764.

Aimée Craft is an Indigenous lawyer (Anishinaabe-Métis), an assistant professor at the Faculty of Common Law, University of Ottawa, and an adjunct professor in Native Studies at the University of Manitoba, said this;

“The Royal Proclamation does not stand alone. The Treaty of Niagara is a sister document. It is the foundation of the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and the First Nations of Canada. Together, the Treaty and the Proclamation provided the first understandings between the English and the Indigenous people of North America about the relationship of the British crown and the indigenous nations. Through the Proclamation, Britain asserted sovereignty over the parts of North America that it claimed, but at the same time, it also acknowledged the sovereignty of the First Nations of Canada. It recognized that lands had not been surrendered or ceded to the British crown and therefore it was necessary to make treaties with Indigenous peoples.”

 

The Royal Proclamation signed by King George said Canada should ensure that indigenous people would not be disturbed or molested in their occupation of land reserved for them. It also said the abuses that occurred in the past in the acquisition of land should not be repeated.  It was acknowledged that too often in the past fraudsters had taken advantage of Indigenous people who often could not read English script.

A fundamental principle of the Royal Proclamation is that no private person has the authority or privilege to purchase land from Indigenous people of those vast lands that had been set aside for them (unceded land). The crown has the exclusive right to purchase such land from Indigenous people or groups and only at public meetings of said nations. The indigenous people had to be “inclined to dispose” of their interest as the nation as involved in the agreement. If they were not so disposed there would no transfer of ownership. This is the foundation of treaty making to this day. Only in this way can land of a First nation be sold or ceded.

Sadly, later there were some lapses in recognizing this legal prerogative, just as there were lapses in failing to honour the treaties, particularly on the part of the non-indigenous people. Perhaps there is no better example of this than the Robinson Treaties, that I will get to in the next post.

The Treaty of Niagara is called a treaty because 200 chiefs showed up from as far away as the Rocky Mountains. They came to Niagara to “make treaty.” 24 nations were represented. Of course, the concept of nations has morphed over time.

These 2 documents, together with the Covenant Chain, mandate non-interference in indigenous governance. According to Professor John Borrows, of the University of British Columbia, this is the foundation for indigenous sovereignty. Those treaties that were negotiated are still the legal basis for the legitimacy of settler presence in North America. They are the basis of the right of all of us non-indigenous people who live in North America to do so with security of tenure.