DOCSLIB.ORG

Robinson Huron 1850 Treaty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Robinson Huron 1850 Treaty 915 Jocko Point Road, RR4 Nadjiwan Nipissing First Nation North Bay, Ontario Law Office P1B 8G5 Barristers & Solicitors Ph: (705) 753-9815 Patrick M. Nadjiwan, H.B.S.W., LL.B. Fax: (705) 753-9795 Krista M. Yao, B.A. (Econ.), LL.B. e-mail: [email protected] August 1, 2008 By E-mail Ontario Energy Board PO Box 2319 27th Floor 2300 Yonge Street Toronto ON M4P 1E4 RE: OPA – INTEGRATED POWER SYSTEM PLAN APPLICATION BOARD FILE NUMBER EB-2007-0707 EVIDENCE SUBMISSIONS OF SERPENT RIVER FIRST NATION (INTERVENOR) Please find attached the evidence of the Serpent River First Nation which consists of a report from expert historian, Dr. David Shanahan, regarding the territory, terms and conditions of the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850, together with various maps and the treaty text. The Serpent River First Nation, with the other treaty signatories, have treaty rights within the Robinson Huron territory. Sincerely, Nadjiwan Law Office Digital Signature Per: Krista M. Yao [email protected] cc. Chief Isadore Day Chief, Serpent River First Nation Commissioner – Lake Huron Treaty Commission ROBINSON HURON 1850 TREATY - TERRITORY, TERMS AND CONDITIONS - Submitted to: The Ontario Energy Board OPA – Integrated Power System Plan Application Board File Number EB-2007-0707 Submitted by: Serpent River First Nation, Intervenor P.O. Box 14 48 Village Road Cutler ON P0P 1B0 Ph: (705) 844-2418 Fax: (705) 844-2757 E-mail: [email protected] August 1, 2008 David Shanahan, PhD. Box 35, Oxford Mills, Ontario, Canada, K0G 1S0 Historical Research and Writing Tel: (613) 258-5083; e-mail: [email protected] Filed: 2008-08-01 EB-2007-0707 SRFN Evidence Page 2 1. BACKGROUND TO THE TREATY Following the Conquest of New France, the British Imperial Government issued a Royal Proclamation on 7 October 1763, outlining the boundaries of Canada (Quebec) and that of the Indian Territory. In recognition of the major role played by the First Nations in the fight against the French, it was the intention of the Crown to prevent trespass on Indian lands west of a line from Lake Nipissing, running just west of the Ottawa Valley, to the St. Lawrence River. Indian lands were to remain protected from unrestricted white occupation.1 They could only be alienated by direct surrender to the Crown at meetings called specifically for that purpose. With the end of the American War of Independence and the arrival of large numbers of Loyalist settlers in Upper Canada after 1783, a series of such treaties were made with various First Nations along the north shores of the St. Lawrence and into southern parts of the province. By 1836, these treaties had reached the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island. In 1839, John Macaulay prepared a Report for the Crown providing information on the state of the various Indian nations in British North America. In dealing with the North Shore of Lake Huron, Macaulay referred to: The Chippewas of La Cloch and Mississauging, - Number 225 souls. They are on the North and East Shore of lake Huron, and consider themselves the lawful possessors of the vast extent of country in which they range as hunters. They cultivate small patches of corn and Potatoes and chiefly depend on the chase and fishing for subsistence. Hudson Bay Company has a trading post near them.2 In the 1840's, following the discovery of large deposits of copper on the Michigan Peninsula, various mining companies were granted Mining Locations on the Canadian shores of those lakes, leading to complaints by Indian communities regarding the trespass on their territories. In spite of the terms of the Royal proclamation regarding the integrity of the Indian 1 Royal Proclamation, October 7, 1763. 2 The Macaulay Report, April, 1839, RG 10, Vols. 718-719, pp. 178-179. Filed: 2008-08-01 EB-2007-0707 SRFN Evidence Page 3 territory, more than thirty Licences were issued by the Crown Lands department in 1845-46, granting Mining Locations on Indian lands, some of which covered summer settlement areas of a number of First Nations. On April 26, 1848 the Commissioner of Crown Lands, J. H. Price, instructed Provincial Land Surveyor Alexander Vidal to survey a number of Mining Locations on the north shore of Lake Huron.3 Further surveys were conducted in the following two years, and representatives of newly-formed mining companies moved into the north shore of Lake Huron looking for promising sites. This caused growing unease and annoyance among the inhabitants of the territory. In 1848, Thomas Gummarsall Anderson of the Indian Department was sent to Sault Ste. Marie to meet with Indian groups to investigate the situation. In his report to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs on August 20th, 1848, Anderson noted that the title of the various Indian groups to the “unceded’ lands on the north shores of the lakes was unquestionable and recommended that the Government solve the problem by making a treaty with the aboriginal owners of the land, allowing reserves to be set apart for their use, and an annuity to be paid to them in perpetuity.4 I would respectfully beg leave to observe that there does not appear a doubt but what the present race are the proprietors of the vast mineral bids and unceded Forests from Grand Bature near Mississauging River on Lake Huron to the Boundary Line at Pigeon River on Lake Superior throughout which region numerous Locations have been granted. Their claim it appears continued unmolested from time immemorial to the present day. The First Nations’ status as allies, rather than subjects of the British Crown was emphasised by the Indians who met with Anderson: They do not admit that it can be owned by any power under pretext of the right of conquest because the French were admitted into the country of [sic] terms of Friendship as Traders and when the English waged war 3 J. H. Price to Alexander Vidal, April 26, 1848. Archives of Ontario [AO], “Instructions to Surveyors”, MS 31, Book 6. 4 T. G. Anderson to Major Campbell, SGIA, August 20, 1848. RG 10, Vol. 534. Filed: 2008-08-01 EB-2007-0707 SRFN Evidence Page 4 against the French the Indians at the instance of the Commander of the British Forces became their allies and have acted in that capacity in all subsequent wars in which the English have been engaged in this country to the present time. Anderson recommended that the Indian title would have to be extinguished in order to clear title for the mining companies to continue their operations. Viewing all the circumstances of the case and the determination with which the natives appear impressed as to their right of soil, I feel it my duty humbly to suggest that the Govt. extinguish the Indians right by a treaty granting to the aboriginees an equitable remuneration for the whole country which as far as the natives are concerned would be most to their benefit in a perpetual annuity, making such reserves to the Indians as may be necessary for them to cultivate hereafter. The Crown Lands Department wrote to Anderson in November 1848 to inquire as to the number, population, location and lands of the various Tribes of Indians with title to the unceded lands north of Huron and Superior. Anderson replied on December 2, 1848.5 In his opinion, it would require a visit to the region, with one to three days spent with each band, to get an accurate impression of the situation on the lakes. An Order in Council of August 4th, 1849 appointed Alexander Vidal, Deputy Provincial Surveyor, and Superintendent Anderson to visit the various Indian groups on the north shores of Lakes Huron and Superior, and report on the amount of compensation that they would expect to receive if they were to surrender their lands.6 Vidal was informed of his appointment by letter from Price on August 7, 1849.7 Price noted that the Indians of Lake Huron “having applied to the Government and proposed to surrender to the Crown the Lands bordering on these Lakes”, the Commissioners were to visit the Indians “on their grounds” to find out what they expected from such a treaty of surrender. Commissioners Vidal and Anderson submitted their report to the Governor General on 5 Anderson to J. H. Price, December 2, 1848. Ibid. 6 Order-in-Council, August 4, 1849. RG 10, Vol. 119. 7 Price to Vidal, August 7, 1849. AO, MS 31, Book 6. Filed: 2008-08-01 EB-2007-0707 SRFN Evidence Page 5 December 5th, 1849.8 The Commissioners clearly recognized the unextinguished title which these bands enjoyed to their traditional lands north of the lakes: The claim of the present occupants of this tract derived from their forefathers, who have from time immemorial hunted upon it, is unquestionable as good as that of any of the tribes who have received compensation for the cession of their rights in other parts of the province; and therefore entitles them to similar remuneration. They noted that each band: ...possessing an exclusive right to and control over its own hunting grounds;- the limits of these grounds especially their frontages on the lake are generally well known and acknowledged by neighbouring bands; in two or three instances only, is there any difficulty in determining the precise boundary between adjoining tracts, there being in these cases a small portion of disputed territory to which two parties advance a claim. Aside from recognising their title to their traditional lands, the Commissioners also noted the main condition upon which the Indians were prepared to surrender their lands: There is a general wish expressed by the Indians to cede their territory to the Government provided that they are not required to remove from their present places of abode - their hunting and fishing not interfered with, and that the compensation given to them be a perpetual annuity..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Who Is on Trial? Teme-Augama Anishnabai Land Rights and George Ironside, Junior: Re-Considering Oral Tradition
    RESEARCH NOTE WHO IS ON TRIAL? TEME-AUGAMA ANISHNABAI LAND RIGHTS AND GEORGE IRONSIDE, JUNIOR: RE-CONSIDERING ORAL TRADITION David T. McNab 14 Howland Road Toronto, Ontario Canada, M4K 2Z6 Abstract/Resume The Teme-Augama Anishnabai have maintained from their oral tradition for almost 150 years that they never signed or participated in the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850. The Crown has always claimed they did sign, and has produced documents showing that annuities were paid for them. New evidence clearly suggests that the Teme-Augama Anishnabai did not sign or participate in the Treaty, and the annuities may have been pocketed by an Agent ofthe Crown. The author discusses the implications ofthis for the significance of First Nations' oral traditions and land rights in general. Sur la base de leur tradition orale, les Teme-Augama Anishnabai soutien­ nent depuis pres de 150 ans qu'ils n'ont jamais participe au Traite Huron Robinson de 1850 ni ne I'ont signe. La Couronne a toujours pretendu qu'ils I'ont signe et a presente des documents montrant que des indemnites compensatoires leur avaient ete verses. De nouvelles preuves suggerent clairement que les Teme-Augama Anishnabai n'ont ni participe au Traite ni ne I'ont signet et qu'un agent de la Couronne aurait empoche les indem­ nites. L'auteur discute des implications de cette situation en ce qui touche les traditions orales des premieres nations et les droits territoriaux en general. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies XVIII, 1(1998):117-133. 118 David T. McNab In the course of my research I recently found a significant document in the federal Department of Indian Affairs records, which are located in the National Archives ofCanada.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephanie Maclaurin. the Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1850
    Stephanie MacLaurin. The Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1850. Fort William First Nation Stephanie talks about the history of the development of Fort William First Nation’s (FWFN) treaty agreement with the Crown (federal government of Canada). Length: 5:51 minutes Summary: Stephanie introduces herself, she is the Governance Coordinator for FWFN. It is important to look at what led to the Robinson-Superior Treaty (1850). That was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 made by King George III. When he got acquisition of all the French territory, in what is now North America, Canada, specifically, King George wanted to stop the Ojibwe from selling land to whoever and the complications that arose from it, such as selling to more than one person or getting ripped off by the people to whom they were selling. The Royal Proclamation outlined Indian Territory and in Indian Territory, the settlers wouldn’t be able to settle until the land was sold properly to the Crown. The Robinson-Superior Treaty was an agreement made between the Ojibways of Lake Superior (including Stephanie’s ancestors from FWFN) and the Crown who was represented by William B. Robinson, which is why the treaty is called the Robinson-Superior Treaty. There were two Robinson treaties: the Robinson-Superior Treaty and the Robinson-Huron treaty, down by Lake Huron. FWFN was the community who pushed for the Robinson-Superior Treaty. The Canadian government was giving out mining certificates without settling the treaty with FWFN, which was in direct violation of the Royal Proclamation. FWFN representatives understood that and started to push for the treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada
    Canada-United States Law Journal Volume 39 Issue Article 5 January 2014 The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada Guy Charlton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj Part of the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Guy Charlton, The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada, 39 Can.-U.S. L.J. 69 (2015) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol39/iss/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE LAW OF NATIVE AMERICAN HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF RESERVATION BOUNDARIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Guy Charlton* ABSTRACT: This article examines and compares the law of Native American/Aboriginal hunting, fishing and gathering rights in those areas which are located outside of reserved land area in Canada and the United States. The article argues that despite the differing statutory and constitutional traditions, both states’ law and policy towards the Native American continues to reflect the underlying premises of the colonial project. While indigenous peoples have significant use rights, national, state and provincial power remains the primary locus of regulatory authority. However, there may be opportunities to extend use and co-management rights to allow tribes to be involved in land use and environmental regulatory decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • North Lake Superior Métis
    The Historical Roots of Métis Communities North of Lake Superior Gwynneth C. D. Jones Vancouver, B. C. 31 March 2015. Prepared for the Métis Nation of Ontario Table of Contents Introduction 3 Section I: The Early Fur Trade and Populations to 1821 The Fur Trade on Lakes Superior and Nipigon, 1600 – 1763 8 Post-Conquest Organization of the Fur Trade, 1761 – 1784 14 Nipigon, Michipicoten, Grand Portage, and Mixed-Ancestry Fur Trade Employees, 1789 - 1804 21 Grand Portage, Kaministiquia, and North West Company families, 1799 – 1805 29 Posts and Settlements, 1807 – 1817 33 Long Lake, 1815 – 1818 40 Michipicoten, 1817 – 1821 44 Fort William/Point Meuron, 1817 – 1821 49 The HBC, NWC and Mixed-Ancestry Populations to 1821 57 Fur Trade Culture to 1821 60 Section II: From the Merger to the Treaty: 1821 - 1850 After the Merger: Restructuring the Fur Trade and Associated Populations, 1821 - 1826 67 Fort William, 1823 - 1836 73 Nipigon, Pic, Long Lake and Michipicoten, 1823 - 1836 79 Families in the Lake Superior District, 1825 - 1835 81 Fur Trade People and Work, 1825 - 1841 85 "Half-breed Indians", 1823 - 1849 92 Fur Trade Culture, 1821 - 1850 95 Section III: The Robinson Treaties, 1850 Preparations for Treaty, 1845 - 1850 111 The Robinson Treaty and the Métis, 1850 - 1856 117 Fur Trade Culture on Lake Superior in the 1850s 128 After the Treaty, 1856 - 1859 138 2 Section IV: Persistence of Fur Trade Families on Lakes Superior and Nipigon, 1855 - 1901 Infrastructure Changes in the Lake Superior District, 1863 - 1921 158 Investigations into Robinson-Superior Treaty paylists, 1879 - 1899 160 The Dominion Census of 1901 169 Section V: The Twentieth Century Lake Nipigon Fisheries, 1884 - 1973 172 Métis Organizations in Lake Nipigon and Lake Superior, 1971 - 1973 180 Appendix: Maps and Illustrations Watercolour, “Miss Le Ronde, Hudson Bay Post, Lake Nipigon”, 1867?/1901 Map of Lake Nipigon in T.
    [Show full text]
  • B. Whose Rights Are Environmental Aboriginal and Environmental Treaty Rights?
    MOLESTED AND DISTURBED: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLES THROUGH SECTION 35 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 Brief No. 376 ISBN # 1-894158-35-0 Prepared by: Theresa McClenaghan CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION 517 College Street, Suite 401 Toronto, Ontario M6G 4A2 Tel: 416-960-2284 Fax: 416-960-9392 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.web.net/cela September 1999 MOLESTED AND DISTURBED: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLES THROUGH SECTION 35 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982. And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories, as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds . (Royal Proclamation of 1763.) ABSTRACT The author reviews the jurisprudence and academic commentary as to the protection provided by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with a view to determining whether aboriginal peoples in Canada can use section 35 as an environmental protection tool. She concludes that section 35 offers promising potential for environmental protection in specific circumstances. The author recommends that aboriginal peoples consider exercise of environmental governance. This recommendation arises out of the conclusion that there are existing environmental aboriginal and treaty rights. Environmental governance would also help with the recognition and protection of those rights under section 35. SECTION 35, CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: (1)The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Study Area’S Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community
    Historical Profile of the Lake Superior Study Area’s Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY FOR THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL INTERLOCUTOR SEPTEMBER 2007 Lake SuperiorMixed Ancestry Final Report Historical Profile of the Lake Superior Study Area’s Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community TABLE OF CONTENTS Map: The proposed Lake Superior NMCA 3 Executive Summary 4 Methodology/Introduction 5 Comments on Terminology 6 Chapter 1: Study Region from the 17th Century to the 1840s 8 Ojibway Indians residing on the North Shore of Lake Superior 8 Europeans and the Study Area 9 Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 12 Mention of Mixed-Ancestry people in the Study Region 15 Chapter 2: Aboriginal Pressure for a Treaty Relationship 25 Louis Agassiz and the Study Region, 1848 28 Treaty Exploratory Commission 28 Mica Bay, 1849 33 Vidal and Anderson Report 35 Government Instructions about Treaty Terms 37 Robinson Travels to Sault Ste. Marie 38 Request for Recognition of “Halfbreed” rights 40 Negotiation of the Robinson-Superior Treaty 40 Chapter 3: Post-Treaty Government Activity 44 “Halfbreed” inclusion in Robinson-Superior Treaty Annuity Paylists 44 Postal Service in the Study Region 46 Crown Activity between 1853 and 1867 46 Chapter 4: Settlement, Resource Development, and Government Administration within the Study Region, 1864-1901 51 Policing 53 Post Office and Railroad 55 Census Information and the Study Region 58 1871, 1881, and 1891 Censuses – Nipigon 59 1881 Census – Silver Islet 61 1901 Census – Nipigon Township (including Dorion), Rossport (including Pays Plat), and Schreiber 62 Small townships not included in early Censuses 63 Joan Holmes and Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Reserves on the Prairies 243
    1985] INDIAN RESERVES ON THE PRAIRIES 243 INDIAN RESERVES ON THE PRAIRIES RICHARD H. BARTLETT~ Indian reserves comprise the only land left to the Indians of the Prairie Provinces. This paper endeavors to examine and explain the rights of ownership and administra­ tion held by the Indians and Governments in such lands. It endeavors to determine what the treaties between the Indians and the Crown promised and to what extent they have been fulfilled. Rights with respect to minerals and timber are examined in the course of the study. I. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDIANS RESERVES BY TREATY 1 Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan make up the Prairie Provinces of Canada. The southern reaches of the Provinces were the traditional lands of the plains' tribes: the Plains Cree, the Assiniboine, the Gros Ventre, the Blackfoot and the Sarcee. 2 To the north the forests were the territory of the Chipewyan, Beaver, Slave and Sekani tribes. 3 The traditional title of the Indians to their lands was recognized in the terms of the treaties that were entered into between the Crown in the right of the Dominion and the Indians. The treaties provided for the surrender of the Indian title in return for the establishment of reserves, guarantees as to hunting and fishing rights, annuities and certain social and economic undertakings. The treaties were entered into as the pressure of settlement and development demanded. Indian title in southern Manitoba and Saskat­ chewan was surrendered by Treaties #1 (1871), #2 (1871), #3 (1873) and #4 (1874). Central Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta was surrendered by Treaties #5 (1875) and #6 (1876).
    [Show full text]
  • Approaching Community in the Context of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
    The Constitution’s Peoples: Approaching Community in the Context of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Brent Olthuis* Modern negotiations between the Crown (or private Les négociations contemporaines entre la Couronne parties) and Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are largely based (ou des parties privées) et les peuples autochtones on the legal principles articulated in major court decisions. canadiens reposent largement sur les principes juridiques Yet those decisions have not yet confronted a fundamental articulés dans les principales décisions jurisprudentielles en question: how, in the first instance, do we determine which la matière. Toutefois, ces décisions n’ont pas encore abordé groups can lay claim to the Aboriginal and treaty rights une question fondamentale : comment, à la base, est-il “recognized and affirmed” by section 35 of the possible de déterminer les groupes en mesure de Constitution Act, 1982? revendiquer des droits autochtones et des droits issus de The author argues that this question ought to form the traités «reconnus et confirmés» par l’article 35 de la Loi theoretical cornerstone of the doctrine of Aboriginal and constitutionnelle de 1982 ? treaty rights. It is also of critical significance to the L’auteur affirme que cette question doit constituer la continuing process of reconciliation between the pierre d’assise théorique de la doctrine des droits Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal elements of Canadian autochtones et des droits issus de traités. Elle est également society. The interlocutors in this process must be d’une grande importance à la poursuite du processus de identifiable. réconciliation entre les composantes autochtone et non- The community recognition needed to give effect to autochtone de la société canadienne.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty Relations in Ontario
    CHAPTER 3 TREATY RELATIONS IN ONTARIO The events that led to the death of Dudley George arose from a longstanding dispute about treaty and Aboriginal rights. Occupations of land and blockades of transportation facilities by Aboriginal people occur when members of an Aboriginal community believe that governments are not respecting their treaty or Aboriginal rights, and that effective redress through political or legal means is not available. It is typical of these events that governments have failed to respect the rights at issue or to provide effective redress, for a very long time, and a deep sense of frustration has built up within the Aboriginal community. Treaty and Aboriginal rights can only be understood in an appropriate histor- ical and legal context. Building a better relationship with Aboriginal peoples requires that governments and citizens recognize that treaties with Aboriginal peoples are the foundation that allowed non-Aboriginal people to settle in Ontario and enjoy its bounty. Nearly all of the lands and inland waters in Ontario are subject to treaties between First Nations and the British and Canadian governments. Beginning in the late 1700s and continuing right up to the 1920s, it was through treaties that the Algonquin, Ojibwe (or Chippewas, to use the British term), Odawa, Cree nations, and the Haudenosaunee (the Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy) and the governments, first of Great Britain and then of Canada, agreed to regulate their relationships and the terms on which land and resources would be shared. These treaties are not, as some people believe, relics of the dis- tant past. They are living agreements, and the understandings on which they are based continue to have the full force of law in Canada today.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Conflict and the Development of Canadian Aboriginal Law
    The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review Volume 19 Article 5 1-12-2017 Constitutional Conflict and the Development of Canadian Aboriginal Law Guy Charlton Auckland University of Technology, [email protected] Xiang Gao The Eastern Institute of Technology, Auckland, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/undalr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Charlton, Guy and Gao, Xiang (2017) "Constitutional Conflict and the Development of Canadian Aboriginal Law," The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review: Vol. 19 , Article 5. Available at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/undalr/vol19/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you by ResearchOnline@ND. It has been accepted for inclusion in The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@ND. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANADIAN ABORIGINAL LAW GUY C CHARLTON* AND XIANG GAO** ABSTRACT This paper argues that aboriginal rights in Canada have been greatly affected by 19th century governmental and social conflicts within the Canadian colonial state. These conflicts, largely over the ownership of land and regulatory authority between the federal government and the provinces necessarily impacted the First Nations on the ground while affecting how their legal claims were recognized and implemented. In particular they impacted the legal efficacy of treaty rights, the scope of rights recognised by the courts and an expansive legally protected notion of indigenous sovereignty. As a result, the rights now protected under sec.
    [Show full text]
  • A Thesis Submitted to the College Of
    La Chaas: The Métis Constitutional Right to Hunt in the Canadian Legal Consciousness A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws in the College of Law University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Bradley S. Bellemare Spring 2006 © Bradley S. Bellemare, 2006. All rights reserved. La Chaas:1 The Métis Constitutional Right to Hunt in the Canadian Legal Consciousness 2 Bradley S. Bellemare Masters of Law (LL.M.) Thesis 2006 1 La Chaas is the Michif phrase for ‘The Hunt.’ Translation was provided by Norman Fleury a Métis elder from Brandon, Manitoba. 2 “Métis Flag,” online: Métis Commission <http://www.metiscommission.com/history.htm> (as of August 21, 2005). The Métis Flag: The flag was first used by Métis resistance fighters prior to the Battle of Seven Oaks in 1816. It is the oldest Canadian patriotic flag indigenous to Canada. The Union Jack and the Royal Standard of New France bearing the fleur-de-lis are older, but these flags were first flown in Europe. As a symbol of nationhood, the Métis flag predates Canada’s Maple Leaf flag by about 150 years! The flag bears a horizontal figure eight, or infinity symbol. The infinity symbol represents the coming together of two distinct and vibrant cultures, those of European and indigenous North America, to produce a distinctly new culture, the Métis. The flag symbolizes the creation of a new society with roots in both Aboriginal and European cultures and traditions. The sky blue background of the flag emphasizes the infinity symbol and suggests that the Métis people will exist forever.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There Still “Unceded” Land in Northern Ontario, Canada, with Respect to Treaty No
    The International Indigenous Policy Journal Volume 12 | Issue 1 March 2021 Development on Indigenous Homelands and the Need to Get Back to Basics with Scoping: Is There Still “Unceded” Land in Northern Ontario, Canada, with Respect to Treaty No. 9 and its Adhesions? Leonard Tsuji University of Toronto, Canada, [email protected] Stephen Tsuji University of Waterloo, Canada, [email protected] Recommended Citation Tsuji, L., & Tsuji S. (2021). Development on Indigenous Homelands and the need to get back to basics with scoping: Is there still “unceded” land in Northern Ontario, Canada, with respect to Treaty No. 9 and its Adhesions? The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2021.12.1.8551 Development on Indigenous Homelands and the Need to Get Back to Basics with Scoping: Is There Still “Unceded” Land in Northern Ontario, Canada, with Respect to Treaty No. 9 and its Adhesions? Abstract Scoping includes the establishment of unambiguous spatial boundaries for a proposed development initiative (e.g., a treaty) and is especially important with respect to development on Indigenous homelands. Improper scoping leads to a flawed product, such as a flawed treaty or environmental impact assessment, by excluding stakeholders from the process. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to gather (and collate) printed and online material in relation to Treaty No. 9 and its Adhesions, as well as the Line-AB. We searched academic databases as well as the Library and Archives Canada. The examination of Treaty No. 9 and its Adhesions revealed that there is unceded land in each of four separate scenarios, which are related to the Line-AB and/or emergent land in Northern Ontario, Canada.
    [Show full text]