The government’s goal in concluding treaties was to remove any obstacles liable to hinder the arrival of settlers, the clearing of arable lands, and resource development west of the Great Lakes. Aboriginal people were also to be encouraged to gradually abandon their way of life and assimilate by taking up agriculture. However, the Aboriginal peoples
There are 11 Aboriginal nations recognized in Québec: Abenaki (Waban-Aki), Algonquin (Anishinabeg), Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok, Cree (Eeyou), Huron-Wendat, Inuit, Maliseet (Wolastoqiyik), Mi’gmaq (Micmac), Mohawk (Kanien’kehá:ka), Innu (Montagnais) and Naskapi. Across Canada, there are nearly sixty Aboriginal nations.
In Canada, there are two types of treaties with Indigenous peoples: peace and friendship treaties, and land treaties, i.e., those specifically dealing with land and land titles.
The government’s objective with land treaties was to remove obstacles to colonization and to encourage First Nations members to abandon their lands and lifestyles and assimilate.
Photo credit: The Baltimore Sun, Tribune Photo Archives, collection of Pierre Lepage
Photo credit: National Archives of Canada, PA 59534
Numbered Treaties: Free and Informed Consent by Aboriginal Peoples is Doubtful
Several factors suggest that Aboriginal consent to certain treaties may have been flawed. The first is obviously the non-existence of the notion of private property in Aboriginal conceptions of their relationship to the land. Government commissioners therefore needed to explain in detail what the cession of territory meant. However, this does not seem to have been done. During treaty negotiation, the emphasis was often placed on the guarantee of unrestricted hunting and fishing rights and the preservation of the Aboriginal way of life. A study of tribal elders in Alberta showed that Aboriginal people had little or no understanding of territorial cession. A bold legal ruling even took into consideration the possibility of a “failure in the meetings of the minds.” Moreover, a commission set up in 1957 to investigate the implementation of Treaties 8 and 11 concluded that the Aboriginal groups concerned did not understand the content of these treaties due, in particular, to the very poor translation during negotiations and the Aboriginal people’s trust in the priests and highly respected civil servants present at the negotiations. Even at this relatively recent time, the commissioners had to have realized that Aboriginal people did not differentiate between hunting rights and land-ownership rights. Since the negotiators had assured the Aboriginal people that they would still be able to hunt, one can reasonably assume that there was a major discrepancy between the Aboriginal understanding and the European understanding of these treaties. There were other flaws as well, such as the designation of Aboriginal chiefs by government commissioners rather than by the Aboriginal people themselves. It goes without saying that the individuals appointed as chief were in favour of a treaty that would benefit the Crown.
In its 1996 report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples found that “[a]ccounts of negotiations leading to the historical treaties are full of stories of miscommunication and cross purposes.” The historical evidence is clear on the verbal promises made by government representatives during negotiations: “the written treaties often are not a full and fair statement of agreements reached.” It is highly doubtful that the essential conditions for genuine negotiation and free and informed consent by Aboriginal peoples existed. Have we done any better in Québec?
