REVEALING TORONTO’S STORIED ORIGINS TREATY CITY: IN THE CONTEMPORARY URBAN LANDSCAPE

WELCOME TO THE TORONTO PURCHASE

SUBMITTED BY: MATTHEW CANARAN INSTRUCTOR: LARRY HARDER COURSE: LARC*6470 DATE: MARCH 05 2020

WORD COUNT: 2,931 i ii

1.0 Introduction

After centuries of injustice, Indigenous communities in Canada have embarked on the process of cultural reclamation. Segments of Canada’s non-indigenous population are themselves participating in the Indigenous cultural revival. Land acknowledgements​—often — practiced by non-Indigenous communities​ ​have resulted in an increased awareness of the First peoples of this land. Despite the heightened awareness, many non-Indigenous Canadians have a limited understanding of their territorial treaties and their significance.

This paper aims to explore the history and relevance of treaties in contemporary Toronto, and proposes landscape design projects that encourage all residents of Toronto to learn about the city’s complex origins as colonial capital. The proposed design project aims to capture the spirit of Indigenous place-making, while also encouraging non-Indigenous city dwellers to engage with their own reality as treaty people.

2.0 Context

Since 2014, the City of Toronto has been opening meetings and events with land acknowledgements. Toronto has two official land acknowledgements. The first is for lands west of Victoria Park Avenue, and is referred to simply as the Land Acknowledgement for Toronto:

“We acknowledge the land we are meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Mississaugas of the Credit” (City of Toronto, 2019).

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 1

— — The second​ ​referred to as the Land Acknowledgement for Scarborough​ ​applies to lands east of Victoria Park Avenue (City of Toronto, 2019). The Land Acknowledgement for Toronto makes a reference to Treaty 13 signed with the Mississaugas of the Credit, while the land acknowledgement for Scarborough makes reference to Treaty 13, as well as the Williams Treaties. Other institutions in Toronto such as the Toronto Catholic, and the Toronto Public district school boards have their own versions of land acknowledgements. Despite frequent references to these treaties, many Torontonians are unaware of the significance.

2.1 Why Treaties Between the Crown and First Nations Exist

Contemporary storytelling on the origins of Canada would be incomplete without mentioning the country’s legacy of treaty-making. Indigenous societies have been making treaties since before the arrival of the French or British colonists (Historica Canada, n.d.). Many years prior to colonization, the Anishinaabeg and Haudenasaunee, entered into the Dish with One Spoon treaty, signifying cooperation between their nations (Union of Ontario Indians, 2013). Early treaties between Indigenous peoples and European powers were made too. Extended to the Dutch in 1613 and later the British, The Two-Row Wampum signifies mutual respect, autonomy, peace, and friendship (Historica Canada, n.d.).

Land exchange by means of negotiation became mandatory with King George III’s Royal Proclamation of 1763. The proclamation described a model for Idigenous rights and title to the land. It also forbade white colonists from settling on land that was not first purchased from First Nations by the Crown (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2013). King George III had just ended a bloody war with France, acquiring her colonies of Quebec and Louisiana. Already experiencing war-fatigue, he feared aggravating French settlers and their Indigenous allies. As a result, King George III sought to expand his colonies through negotiations, rather through warfare (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2013; Historica Canada, n.d.). While — King George III may not have been successful at preventing war​ ​the American War of — Independence began in 1776​ ​he was successful in establishing a framework to acquire land from Indigenous peoples in Canada.

— Today, there are 46 treaties covering Ontario​ ​many are in dispute. Often, geographic descriptions of land surrenders were never recorded. Sometimes, payouts from the Crown were

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 2

given to the wrong individuals (Union of Ontario Indians, 2013). Even if proper payouts were made, many nations were denied fishing and hunting on land they thought they had permission to access (Union of Ontario Indians, 2013; Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2001). A flip through the Governor John Simcoe’s official letters, reveals a number of First Nations who were contesting payments and misinterpreted protections immediately after treaties were ratified (Cruikshank, 1923).

2.2 What Treaties Apply to Toronto?

After the US War of Independence, United Empire Loyalists left their homes in the United States and sought refuge in Canada. The new political realities in North America resulted in three new objectives for the British in present day Southern Ontario; First, to establish a communication network between the Loyalist settlements in Niagara and the Bay of Quinte. Second, to develop a secure land route to the Georgian Bay and upper Great Lakes avoiding the hostile Americans at Detroit. Third, to create a defensible capital for the soon-to-be colony of Upper Canada. The Toronto Carrying Place and its adjacent bay met the criteria (Surtees, 1986). Negotiations for Toronto started in 1787 and have been revisited several times over the next two centuries.

2.2.1 The Toronto Purchase & Subsequent Settlement

At the Bay of Quinte in 1787, the Sir John Johnson, the head of the British Indian Department called in the Mississaugas of the Credit to hand out gifts acknowledging their loyalty and support during the American Revolution. A total of £1,700 worth of goods was distributed that day. The British did discuss acquiring Toronto, and for several years, the British public was led to believe that Toronto was indeed purchased that day. Shortly after the Upper Canada was established, lawmakers realized that its capital was on legally precarious land. A deed without a geographic description had been recovered from Johnson’s meeting with the Missisaugas to ​purchase​ Toronto (Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2001; Indian Claims Commission, 2003). In 1798, Johnson confessed the incomplete nature of the treaty in a letter;

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 3

“Ten miles square at Toronto, and two to four miles, I do not recollect which, on either side of the intended road or carrying place”, “this deed was left with Mr. Collins, whose clerk drew it up to have the courses inserted with (a) survey of these Tracts were completed and was never returned to my office” (Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2001).

Due to the incompleteness of the 1787 Toronto Purchase, the Crown did eventually feel compelled to revisit the issue in 1805. The government of the time produced various maps outlining the potential boundaries for the 1787 purchase, but only presented their most favourable claim to the Mississaugas. When pressed on clarifying the boundaries of the purported purchase against that map, Chief Quinepenon of the Credit Mississaugas responded;

“All the Chiefs who sold the Land you speak of are dead and gone… We cannot absolutely tell you what our old people did before us, except by what we see on the plan now produced, and what we remember ourselves and have been told” (Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2001).

At this point, the Missisaugas were looking to preserve fishing rights in Toronto, something they feared they would lose with increased British settlement. The Mississaugas — — signed Treaty 13​ ​the Toronto Purchase of 1805​ ​for ten shillings and the preservation of their fishing rights at Etobicoke Creek (Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2001).

In 2010 the Government of Canada recognized the unreasonable nature of the Toronto Purchase, including the wrongful acquisition of the Toronto Islands, land not covered by the 1805 agreement. As a result, the government of Canada provided $145 million in compensation to the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (formerly Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation), settling this land claim (Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2001).

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 4

Figure 1.​ Map of the Toronto Purchase showing Johnson’s 1787 geographic description compared to the 1805 signed agreement. Sourced the Toronto Purchase Specific Claim (P.7), by the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2001.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 5

2.2.2 The Williams Treaties and Subsequent Settlement

In 1923, seven First Nations and the Ontario government signed the last land purchase treaty, transfering 20,000 square kilometres to the Crown. The territory covered by this treaty was vast. Its northern segment stretched from Lake Nippising and the Ottawa River Valley down to Muskoka and Lake Simcoe. The southern segment includes the area between Lake Simcoe and Scarborough and along Lake Ontario east to Brighton (Surtees, 1986). The signing nations include Alderville First Nation, Beausoleil First Nation, the Chippewas of Georgina Island, the Chippewas of Rama, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island. The Mississaugas of the Credit were notably excluded from this treaty despite having a territorial land claim in present day Scarborough and Markham (Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, 2019). Prior agreements, such as the Gunshot Treaty of 1787 aimed to deliver parcels of this land for the crown earlier, however records of the treaty provided little to no geographic description of the surrender.

The Crown had already started to administer this land even though it had not yet been purchased. As a result, the Ontario government wished to quickly extinguish Aboriginal title on these lands in pursuit of other government objectives. Ontario did not negotiate with First Nations to draft the treaty, the government simply invited the Nations for their signatures (Surtees, 1986). Like many treaties prior, the signing Chiefs were looking to preserve access to hunting and fishing grounds. Despite not clearly outlining continued access to treaty lands, the seven nations signed the treaty in good faith. In exchange for the land, each band member received $25. The Mississaugas additionally received $233,425 for their nations, while the Chippewa nations received $233,374 (Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d).

The monetary payout of the Williams Treaty was far less than the land was worth, and Nations were virtually barred from accessing territory beyond their reserves. In 1992, the Williams Treaty First Nations filed a litigation seeking compensation. The Trudeau Liberal government decided to take up this cause in 2015, and by 2018, all parties came to an agreement. The Ontario and Canadian governments paid out a total of $1.1B to Williams Treaties nations, recognized pre-existing harvesting rights, and offered nations the ability to grow their reserve land base (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2018). Lastly, Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations offered an apology along with a promise to do better:

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 6

“In 1923, the Crown could have, and should have, done better. In 2018, I pledge that we can, and will, do better. Today, the Government of Canada recognizes that the Crown did not adequately compensate or provide you with additional reserve lands under the Williams Treaties. The Crown's actions in negotiating and implementing these treaties did not respect your ancient and profound relationship with your traditional lands, and the Crown's interpretation of these treaties unfairly restricted your ability to harvest in your pre-Confederation treaty areas” (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2018).

2.2.3 Outstanding Land Claims in the City of Toronto

The entirety of the City of Toronto is covered by either the Toronto Purchase or the Williams Treaties, leading residents to believe that all land in Toronto has been ceded. The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, however have territorial claims to Scarborough - area covered by the Williams Treaty. The Mississaugas of the Credit were not participants in the Williams Treaties of 1923, nor were they compensated in the 2018 settlement. The Mississaugas of the Credit claim that they have unextinguished Aboriginal title to the Rouge Tract, an area that covers Scarborough and Markham, and have submitted a claim to the Canadian government to have the land returned (Fullerton, 2015).

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 7

Figure 2.​ Map of the contested Rouge Tract Claim with municipal boundaries submitted in 2015. Sourced from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation website, 2001.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 8

2.3 Interpretation and Contemporary Relevance

In the past, the Crown used its position of power to gain signatories for their treaties. As is evidenced by the Toronto Purchase Settlement of 2010, and the Williams Treaty Settlement of 2018, contemporary governments from across the political spectrum have started to recognize the past wrongdoings of the Crown. Recent settlements have been made possible by reinterpreting the original treaty agreements and compensating First Nations for their damages. All is not settled however. Today, Ontario has 50 open land claims (Government of Ontario, 2019). The process of righting the wrong-doings of the past has only just begun.

The fact that there are so many contemporary land claims means that the treaties have ongoing political, legal, and economic relevance. Treaties have always been culturally significant for Indigenous peoples, and are now becoming culturally relevant for the non-Indigenous communities. Land acknowledgements are now a cultural phenomenon, yet treaty awareness is limited. Non-Indigenous peoples must now begin to participate in dialogue around the significance of treaties.

Non-Indigenous Canadians are here because the land was by choice and by force surrendered by Indigenous peoples to the Crown. The land was then administered to early settlers, like the United Empire Loyalists, and later settled by immigrants and refugees from all over the world. Treaties were foundational in the creation of Canada—we are all treaty peoples. By recognizing treaties, we acknowledge their role in displacing the original peoples, often to our benefit. We also recognize that contemporary treaty interpretations can lead to land claim settlements that seek to fairly compensate Indigenous nations for generations of colonial wrong-doings.

To promote awareness and discussion, the Ontario government implemented Treaties Recognition Week in 2016. The event is held annually during the first week of November. The event has been adopted by most school boards across the province (Government of Ontario, 2016). Beyond school aged children, Ontario’s non-Indigenous population has limited exposure to treaty education. Alternative avenues ought be considered. The urban landscape presents numerous opportunities to encourage treaty awareness.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 9

3.0 Urban Landscape Proposals

This section of the paper proposes a number of urban landscape applications for treaty awareness in Toronto. Proposed applications are expected to be low-cost and scalable, meaning they can reach wide audiences, quickly.

3.1 Welcome Signs

Signs are a common way to delineate a boundary. Signs could prove to be a simple, yet effective way to recognize treaty territory. The Toronto Purchase, for example, crosses all major east-west concession roads through the City of Toronto and beyond. Delineation signs could be placed at Queen Street, Kingston Avenue, The Queensway, Bloor Street, Danforth Avenue, Dundas Street, Eglinton Avenue, Finch Avenue, and dozens more streets in the City. The modal-share of pedestrians to auto drivers using the street could help determine the legibility and scale of these signs. Signs at the pedestrian scale could also offer a QR Code and a URL directing people to a website to learn more about the treaty territory in question.

Figure 3.​ Proposed welcome signs that could be placed at respective treaty boundaries in Toronto. Images created by Matthew Canaran, 2020.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 10

3.2 Sidewalk Installations

Cities across the world use sidewalk features for historical reference. On Montréal’s Avenue St-Laurent, small brass plaques are recessed into the sidewalk. These plaques highlight the dates of construction of bordering buildings. At a Robert Furgusson memorial in Edinburgh, Scotland, his poetry is etched into the paving. A change in paving orientation and texture is also used to draw further attention to the memorial. Both serve as precedence for Toronto, especially along corridors with high pedestrian volumes. The brass plaque example used in Montréal is fairly inexpensive, and can be added to existing sidewalks. The Edinburgh example would be more intensive, but it could be phased into certain locations as sidewalks are replaced. Lastly, the use of different paving textures should be explored to create a delineation point that can be read by individuals with visual impairment.

Figure 4.​ Engraved brass plaques highlighting the ages of adjacent buildings are embedded in the sidewalks of Avenue St-Laurent in Montréal. Sourced from spacing.ca, photograph by Matthew Blackett, 2008.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 11

3.3 Treaties Recognition Week on the TTC and on GO Transit

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) carries on average 1.6 million revenue passengers on a given weekday (Toronto Transit Commission, 2012). The TTC may be a platform for meaningful and engaging placemaking. Representing Toronto’s relationship to treaties in new ways, such as on the subway map, would encourage passengers to think about their place in local history during their daily commutes. TTC system maps used for wayfinding might not be retrofitted with treaty lines as it may confuse passengers. The TTC could publish pamphlets around Treaties Recognition Week with graphics such as the one outlined in Figure 5.

Although GO Transit serves a smaller passenger volume than the TTC, GO’s network is larger, and it crosses several treaty lines. Station spacing on the GO network also allows for longer announcements than on the TTC. A Treaties Recognition Week campaign on GO Transit may include a simple passenger announcement when entering new Treaty lands.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 12

Figure 5.​ Map showcasing Toronto’s subway system in 2020 overlaid with the respective treaties. Key geographic features that made Toronto an ideal candidate for the colonial capital in the late 1700s are also highlighted. This map is not to scale, nor does it provide a complete historical record. It should simply serve as a starting point for discussions. Images created by Matthew Canaran, 2020.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 13

3.4 Sensitivities & Next Steps

Treaties can be a sensitive topic. As is evidenced by the Mississaugas of the Credit’s Rouge Tract Claim in the Williams Treaties territory, the Crown often mistook who the title-holders of the land were. In the cases where treaties were made with the rightful title holders, Canada often did not live-up to treaty obligations. While historical grievances between Indigenous nations and the Crown are being rationalized, the timelines to process all these land claims remain unclear. By acknowledging these complexities, the urban landscape proposals could avoid isolating or sidelining any specific group.

While the case for increased treaty awareness among non-Indigenous Canadians has been made in this paper, Indigenous support for these proposed urban landscape features is not currently known. The natural next step for this work would be to engage with the Toronto Purchase and the Williams Treaties Nations to identify interest in these proposed urban landscape features.

4.0 Conclusion

Toronto’s history, like the rest of the country, can be told through a series of treaties. The contemporary urban landscape presents itself as an ideal canvas for treaty story-telling. Simple solutions such as street signs, sidewalk installations, and features in the transit network are opportunities to learn about the city’s storied past, and the engage with its current shift in identity. Broader treaty recognition would create more opportunities for Canadians to understand their responsibilities as treaty people.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 14

5.0 Bibliography

City of Toronto. (2019, July 5). Land Acknowledgement. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accessibility-human-rights/indigenous-affairs-offic e/land-acknowledgement/

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. (2018, November 16). Williams Treaties First Nations Settlement Agreement. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1542370282768/1542370308434#wb-info

Cruikshank, E. A. (Ed.). (1923). ​The Correspondence of Lieut. Governor John Graves Simcoe : with allied documents relating to his administration of the government of Upper Canada.​ Toronto, ON: The Ontario Historical Society.

Fullerton, K. A. (2015). ​The Rouge River Valley Tract Unsurrendered Traditional Lands​. Oakville, ON. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SOC-MNC-RRV-March-31-2015-KAFBS.pdf

Government of Ontario. (2019, October 24). Current Land Claims. Retrieved March 3, 2020, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/current-land-claims

Government of Ontario. (2016). Treaties. Retrieved March 3, 2020, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/treaties#section-3

Historica Canada. (n.d.). Education Guide: Treaties in Canada. Retrieved February 02, 2020 from http://education.historicacanada.ca/files/104/Treaties_Printable_Pages.pdf

Indian Claims Commission. (2003, June). ​Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Inquiry Toronto Purchase Claim​. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/datapub/digital/NG/historicTOmaps/newcreditlandclaim-en g.pdf

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. (2013, November 27). Royal Proclamation of 1763: Relationships, Rights and Treaties – Poster. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1379594359150/1379594420080

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 15

Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. (2019, November 12). The Rouge Tract Claim (submitted in 2015). Retrieved March 1, 2020, from http://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/land-and-water-claims/rouge-claim/

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. (2001). ​Toronto purchase specific claim: arriving at an agreement​. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MNCFN-Toronto-Purchase-Specific-Claim-Ar riving-at-an-Agreement.pdf

Surtees, R. J. (1986). ​Treaties Research Report: The Williams Treaties​. Ottawa, ON. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-CIRNAC-RCAANC/DAM-TAG/STAGING/te xte-text/traw_1100100029001_eng.pdf

The Canadian Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Williams Treaties. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/williams-treaties

Toronto Transit Commission. (2012). Key Facts and Figures. Retrieved March 3, 2020, from https://www.ttc.ca/Customer_Service/Corporate_Plan/Appendices/Key_facts_and_figures/in dex.jsp

Union of Ontario Indians. (2013). ​Nation to nation: A resource on treaties in Ontario​. North Bay, ON: Beatty Printing.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 16

6.0 Image References

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. (2001). Toronto Purchase [Map]. Toronto Purchase Specific Claim: arriving at an agreement (P.7). Retrieved March 1, 2020, from http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MNCFN-Toronto-Purchase-Specific-Claim-Ar riving-at-an-Agreement.pdf

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. (2015). Rouge Tract Claim [Map]. Toronto . Retrieved March 4, 2020, from http://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/land-and-water-claims/rouge-claim/

Canaran, M. (2020). Proposed Treaty Welcome Signs [Digital Image]

Blackette, M. (2008). Montreal Sidewalk Markings [Digital Photograph] Retrieved March 4, 2020, from ​http://spacing.ca/toronto/2008/11/03/montreals-sidewalk-features/

Canaran, M. (2020). Toronto Treaties overlayed with TTC Subway with Signs [Map]. Not to scale.

Treaty City: Revealing Toronto’s Storied Origins in the Contemporary Urban Landscape | Matthew Canaran | ​Page 17