DOCSLIB.ORG

Solemn Promises: Treaty Rights in the Shadow of Sparrow

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Solemn Promises: Treaty Rights in the Shadow of Sparrow SOLEMN PROMISES: TREATY RIGHTS IN THE SHADOW OF SPARROW Prepared by Stephen M. McGilligan A Thesis Submitted to The faculty of Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for a Degree of Masters of Law Faculty of Law University of Manitoba ©Stephen M. McGilligan, July, 2004 The Faculty of Graduate Studies 500 University Centre, University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 Phone: (204) 474-9377 Fax: (204) 474-7553 [email protected] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... 2 Abstract........................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER I.................................................................................................................. 14 Introduction............................................................................................................. 14 i. Origins of British Authority ............................................................................... 17 ii. The Royal Proclamation, 1763......................................................................... 34 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 43 CHAPTER II................................................................................................................. 46 Introduction............................................................................................................. 46 i. Sovereignty and the Judicial Decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall.......... 47 ii. British and Canadian Case Law....................................................................... 54 iii. Contemporary Canadian Case Law ................................................................ 61 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 79 CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................... 81 Introduction............................................................................................................. 81 i. North American Treaties and Their Effects on Indigenous Peoples ................ 82 ii. The Nature and Judicial Interpretation of Treaty Rights ................................. 92 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 110 CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................. 112 Introduction........................................................................................................... 112 i. The Elements of Fiduciary Duty ...................................................................... 113 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 127 CHAPTER V .............................................................................................................. 129 Introduction........................................................................................................... 129 i. British Columbia Court of Appeal................................................................... 130 ii. Supreme Court of Canada Decision............................................................... 133 iii. Extinguishment and the Sparrow Test........................................................... 134 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 138 CHAPTER VI ............................................................................................................. 140 Introduction........................................................................................................... 140 i. The Application of the Sparrow Test Part I (Compelling and Substantial Legislation) ......................................................................................................... 142 ii. The Application of the Sparrow Test Part Two: (The Honour of the Crown) 148 iii. Interpreting Sparrow in Relation to Treaty Rights........................................ 154 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 161 ARTICLES CITED..................................................................................................... 163 BOOKS CITED .......................................................................................................... 167 LEGISLATION CITED.............................................................................................. 171 CASES CITED ........................................................................................................... 174 2 Acknowledgements There are many people who I must acknowledge as partners in this work. First, I would like to thank Professor Robin Elliot of the University of British Columbia whose patience and knowledge were invaluable in my early legal education. I would also like to thank Professors Gerry Nemiroff and Darcy MacPherson of the University of Manitoba for their encouragement during the difficult writing stage of this work. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the tremendous effort of Delloyd Guth in editing early editions of this work and facilitating the entire process and Professor Kent McNeil for his suggestions leading to the final copy of this work. I would like to thank my dear friend Gosia Bawolska who aided in more ways than she could know. Finally, I would like to thank my family. My children Katie, Samantha and Spencer for their patience all those times that daddy had to work, and my wife Laura, without whom I would not have the courage needed to accomplish such a task. 3 Abstract Aboriginal rights are rooted in the historical relationship between the Indigenous peoples of Canada and the British Crown and attempt to reconcile the prior occupation of lands by the Aboriginal peoples with claims of Crown sovereignty. In Van der Peet, Lamer C.J.C. stated Aboriginal rights enjoy constitutional status because of one simple fact, “when the first Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in organized communities on the land, and participating indistinctive cultures as they had done for centuries.” Treaty rights on the other hand, owe their existence to a series of consensual agreements between the signatories and represent an ongoing relationship between the parties. Treaties represent an integral part of the early Indigenous-European relationship, initially offering peace and friendship and later a vehicle through which the Europeans could acquire lands from the Aboriginal peoples for settlement. Over a period spanning the past three decades, the Supreme Court of Canada has struggled to alter their interpretation of the nature and content of Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. Over the last decade alone, the Court has addressed such issues as the Aboriginal right to fish commercially, high-stakes gambling as an incident of self- government, Aboriginal interests in lands, and recently the right of an Aboriginal group to transport goods internationally exempt from duties or taxes. In the seminal decision R. v. Sparrow, the Supreme Court of Canada attempted for the first time to address the scope and content of constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights. Having determined that Canada held sovereignty over and therefore was entitled to legislate in relation to Aboriginal peoples, the Court concluded that Aboriginal rights existed at common law and that these common law rights, whatever they may be, received constitutional protection by virtue of s. 35(1). Thus any legislative enactment designed to infringe on these rights must meet constitutional standards for justification. Despite the fact these rights fall outside the parameter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Court proceeded to apply a Charter-like limitation on these rights, holding them subject to reasonable regulation, so long as the legislation in question was capable of meeting a stringent test for justification. While in Sparrow, the issue before the Court was the infringement of constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights, subsequently courts at all levels adopted the test designed to justify infringements to treaty rights protected by s. 35(1) as well. However, in the period following Sparrow, the Court has watered down the effects of this decision by diluting the legislative intent portion of the test to such a degree that it risks becoming a non-factor in the justification process. In this paper I contend that the use of the Sparrow test, particularly as that test has been interpreted by the Court in the period following Sparrow is flawed and to use this test as a tool for determining when constitutionally protected Aboriginal treaty rights might be infringed multiplies this flaw to a critical point. 4 INTRODUCTION Over a period spanning the past three decades, the Supreme Court of Canada has struggled to alter their interpretation of the nature and content of Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. Over the last decade alone, the Court has addressed such issues as the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights
    M10_TELF6850_01_SE_C10.indd Page 185 22/04/14 7:24 PM user /206/PHC00138/9780132546850_PHC00138/PHC00138_AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_CANADIAN_POLITIC ... Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights Key Points n The rules of the game have always been different for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. n Aboriginal peoples constituted self-governing communities in North America before the arrival of Europeans, and they entered into treaty arrangements with the Crown in many parts of Canada, although not everywhere (particularly British Columbia). n Treaty arrangements with Aboriginal peoples were frequently ignored, and at Confederation Aboriginal peoples were subjected to a form of internal colonialism. n In light of important court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act 1982. n But the governments of Canada have been reluctant to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with Aboriginal peoples, so it has fallen to the Supreme Court to define the scope and meaning of Aboriginal rights, including self-government. n The constitutional promises of 1982 are still not fulfilled, but it is clear that Aboriginal peoples constitute unique citizens in Canada. n While Aboriginal rights are now constitutionally protected, many Aboriginal communities are still mired in poverty. For many Canadians, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of the ­Constitution Act 1982, but Part II of the new constitution is potentially even more signifi- cant. Here we find, in one very brief section, the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights. Section 35 was an afterthought for Pierre Trudeau and the provincial premiers, and it reads more like a promissory note than a plan for a new order of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act As a Means To
    Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act as a Means to Promote Economic Participation and Treaty Implementation by Myra J Tait A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF LAWS Faculty of Law University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2017 by Myra J Tait ii ABSTRACT Canadian courts, despite recognition in the Canadian Constitution, 1982 that treaties are to govern the Crown-Aboriginal relationship, continue to develop principles of interpretation that narrow Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the taxation provisions of the Indian Act. In Robertson, the Federal Court of Appeal, building on Mitchell v Peguis, articulated a “historic and purposive” analysis, by reliance on a distinctive culture test and an ascribed protection rationale, thereby abrogating the fundamental treaty relationship. As a means to fuller implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaties, taxation provisions must be interpreted in a treaty-compliant manner. The potential for economic participation through a proposed “urban reserve” on the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Manitoba, as part of a Treaty 1 settlement, is discussed as a case study, and compared with similar developments in New Zealand, under a Waitangi Tribunal settlement, as an example of treaty compliance in economic development. Key words: Indian Act s87; Economic development; Historic and purposive; Tax exemption; Numbered Treaties; Treaty interpretation; Treaty implementation; Urban reserves; Native Leasing Services, Kapyong; Waitangi Tribunal. iii Acknowledgements Ehara taku toa, he takitahi, he toa takitini—Success is not the work of one, but of many.
    [Show full text]
  • The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Wilfred Posluns
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons LLM Theses Theses and Dissertations 2014 The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Wilfred Posluns Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Posluns, Michael Wilfred, "The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown" (2014). LLM Theses. 7. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/7 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LLM Theses by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Posluns A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAW GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL, YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO December 2013 © Michael Posluns, 2013 ABSTRACT This thesis is about two inter-related matters: first, the allocation of burdens of proof in litigation between First Nations and the Crown; and, secondly, the reaction or response of the Crown to the Court’s allocations of burdens, as evidenced in the subsequent cases. Since “burdens of proof” refers to matters of fact and evidence, I refer simply to “burdens”, emphasizing that, I mean all the burdens allocated by a Court and which the Court expects the parties to discharge in order for their case to succeed. My initial interest was in the response of the Crown to the allocation of burdens by the Court and related admonitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 71 (2015) Article 5 Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Borrows, John. "Aboriginal Title and Private Property." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 71. (2015). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows* Q: What did Indigenous Peoples call this land before Europeans arrived? A: “OURS.”1 I. INTRODUCTION In the ground-breaking case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia2 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.3 It held that the Tsilhqot’in Nation possess constitutionally protected rights to certain lands in central British Columbia.4 In drawing this conclusion the Tsilhqot’in secured a declaration of “ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple, including: the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land”.5 These are wide-ranging rights.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spirit and Intent of Treaty Eight: a Sagaw Eeniw Perspective
    The Spirit and Intent of Treaty Eight: A Sagaw Eeniw Perspective A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for a Masters Degree in the College of Law University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Sheldon Cardinal Fall 2001 © Copyright Sheldon Cardinal, 2001. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for a graduate degree from the University ofSaskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries ofthis University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying ofthis thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head ofthe Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use ofthis thesis orparts thereoffor financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use ofmaterial in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: The Dean, College ofLaw University ofSaskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N5A6 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number ofpeople that I would like to thank for their assistance and guidance in completing my thesis. First, I would like to acknowledge my family. My parents, Harold and Maisie Cardinal have always stressed the importance ofeducation.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • A BRIEF HISTORY of OUR RIGHT to SELF-GOVERNANCE Pre-Contact to Present
    A BRIEF HISTORY of OUR RIGHT to SELF-GOVERNANCE Pre-Contact to Present A BRIEF HISTORY of OUR RIGHT to SELF-GOVERNANCE Pre-Contact to Present The first nine chapters for this publication were prepared for the National Centre for First Nations Governance (NCFNG) by Professor Kent McNeil in March, 2007. Kent McNeil has taught at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto since 1987. He specializes in Indigenous rights, especially in Canada, Australia, and the United States. The Duty to Consult Aboriginal People was prepared by NCFNG research staff. NCFNG supports First Nations as they seek to implement effective, independent governance. The Centre delivers nation rebuilding services to First Nation communities across Canada. NCFNG is an independent service and research organization that is governed and staffed by experienced First Nation professionals. 4 Introduction For thousands of years, the aboriginal people of what is now Canada organized themselves as sovereign nations, with what was essentially gov - ernmental jurisdiction over their lands, including property rights.Those rights — of governance and property — were trampled in the stampede of European settlement, colonization and commercial interests. But they were never lost or extinguished. Read this brief historic account of the rights inherited by citizens of today’s First Nations, Learn about the erosion of property and governance rights through the dark periods of colonization and marginalization, and ultimately, their affirmation in Canada’s constitution and recognition in Canadian
    [Show full text]
  • R. V. Van Der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R
    R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 Dorothy Marie Van der Peet Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) and The Attorney General of Quebec, the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition and the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the First Nations Summit, Delgamuukw et al., Howard Pamajewon, Roger Jones, Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Van der Peet File No.: 23803. 1995: November 27, 28, 29; 1996: August 21. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Constitutional law -- Aboriginal rights -- Right to sell fish on non-commercial basis -- Fish caught under native food fish licence -- Regulations - 2 - prohibiting sale or barter of fish caught under that licence -- Fish sold to non-aboriginal and charges laid -- Definition of "existing aboriginal rights" as used in s. 35 of Constitution Act, 1982 -- Whether an aboriginal right being exercised in the circumstances -- Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) -- Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, s. 61(1) -- British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, SOR/84-248, s. 27(5). The appellant, a native, was charged with selling 10 salmon caught under the 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) authority of an Indian food fish licence, contrary to s. 27(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, which prohibited the sale or barter of fish caught under such a licence. The restrictions imposed by s.
    [Show full text]
  • From Calder to Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders? Peter W
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 16 (2002) Article 8 From Calder To Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders? Peter W. Hutchins Anjali Choksi Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Hutchins, Peter W. and Choksi, Anjali. "From Calder To Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders?." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 16. (2002). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol16/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. FROM CALDER TO MITCHELL: SHOULD THE COURTS PATROL CULTURAL BORDERS? Peter W. Hutchins* Anjali Choksi** In what sense is an era ever truly finished — who sets the boundaries and how are they patrolled. Do we not have overwhelming evidence, in our time and in every period we study of an odd interlayering of cultural perspectives and a mixing of peoples, so that nothing is ever truly complete or unitary.1 The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.2 ... Constitutional protection of indigenous difference ought to extend beyond pro- tection of certain customs, practices, and traditions integral to Aboriginal cultures to include protection of interests associated with territory, sovereignty, and the treaty process.3 I.
    [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]