Arrows in a Quiver by James Frideres

Author:James Frideres
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University of Regina Press
Published: 2019-03-11T16:00:00+00:00

Conclusion

It has been estimated that First Nations and the federal government have negotiated approximately 500 treaties over time. Early treaties were generally called Peace and Friendship Treaties, whereas those after 1850 usually involved land cessions. The courts (except for the federal and provincial governments) would agree that treaties between government officials and First Nations were focused on issues of co-occupation and coexistence within a geographical space since most treaties set aside lands for First Nations (Teillet 2013). However, these treaties never specified that First Nations were giving up their rights of sovereignty or self-government.

The government’s failure to enforce the contents of treaties and to obstruct outsiders to help First Nations gain federal compliance with those treaties continues today. First Nations were not able to engage the government and to seek recourse from the state for many years. It was only when outsiders were engaged (e.g., the un Commission on Human Rights) calling for a study of treaties made between First Nations and Canada that the government changed its relationship of trust with First Nations (Anaya 2014).

Treaty Rights are provisions that specifically appear within the text of a treaty or items that were specifically discussed and agreed to during negotiations of a treaty but might not be specifically mentioned in the treaty document. This issue is hotly contested by the government, which claims that oral agreements are not to be honoured. First Nations argue that it is the responsibility of both parties to observe, acknowledge, and respect their treaty obligations, including oral agreements made at the time of signing the treaty. Moreover, First Nations argue that items not appearing within the treaty continue to exist as Aboriginal Rights. So the lack of discussion during the treaty negotiations regarding the right to self-government, language, ceremony, education, or health care does not mean that they have been relinquished or taken away. The Supreme Court’s decisions suggest that only the crown can unilaterally amend treaty agreements and that First Nations have no say in what that amendment might be.

Teillet (2013) argues that, if the negotiating parties saw the necessity of putting something into a treaty, they would have dealt (as is the case with the modern-day treaty-making process) with the land claim agreements that contain many specific provisions. The need to reconsider the treaties, as advocated by First Nations, is apparent from their perspective. However, the reason to re-examine the treaties is not to alter the foundation upon which they were originally entered (i.e., that each party recognized and respected the other’s government and ability to enter treaty relations). Rather, the issue of government jurisdiction for specific territories and the need to deal with economic realities comprise the basis upon which the re-examination is advocated (Teillet 2013).

Recently, several First Nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have indicated their intention to challenge the legitimacy of the treaty-making process and of the Natural Resources Transfer Act that followed it. It appears that the challenge is premised on the view that the Numbered Treaties were not land cession agreements.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.