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