The Treaty Negotiator from Beyond the Grave is still turning up across our legal systems and having his point of view on Treaties upheld.

The Numbered Treaties were negotiated by settlers, and while they said they “negotiated” the way the processes generally went was like this:

1. Send settler government treaty negotiators to First Nation communities with drafted Treaty terms.
2. Meet with First Nations, sometimes with translators, sometimes without, and discuss the terms and agreements and come to an oral agreement.
3. Ask the First Nations to sign the draft treaties agreeing to those oral promises, without making any changes to account for the discussion.
4. The negotiators then leave, often without even leaving a copy of the Treaty text behind, let alone one in the First Nation language. 
5. Argue in court that the oral agreements are not the contract to be upheld.

RAVEN has three campaigns that take place in Numbered Treaty territories. 

Treaty No. 3

The Treaty was signed on October 3, 1873, by a group of Anishinaabe Chiefs on behalf of their communities and by treaty commissioners on behalf of the Crown. Grassy Narrows First Nation is one of the communities that make up the descendants of those Anishinaabe Chiefs. 

In 1873, the Anishinaabe Chiefs who negotiated Treaty No. 3 were focused on protecting the Anishinaabe way of life for the present and coming generations. They were only prepared to sign if the Crown promised that the Anishinaabe way of life would continue in the future as in the past. They were in no rush to make a deal and were unwilling to compromise their traditional fishing, hunting, trapping, food and medicine gathering, trading, and ceremonial practices.

The Anishinaabe Chiefs’ adherence to the Treaty was contingent on the Crown’s promise that they would retain their way of life, including their traditional fishing, hunting, trapping, and rice harvesting activities as before.

However, this has not been the result. Grassy Narrows has continued to have governments “take up” or unilaterally grant permits for the use of the land, within the territory of Treaty No. 3. Grassy Narrows has had Treaty No. 3 previously interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court found that Treaty No. 3 does allow Ontario or Canada to take up lands from the territory as long as it is in line with the honour of the Crown. However, many argue that the honour of the Crown has not been met in the way the Crown has done this.

Today, Grassy Narrows is bringing a claim for Treaty infringement because of the way the Crown has continued to unilaterally make decisions surrounding land use, and allowing the ongoing pollution of the English-Wabigoon River system preventing Grassy Narrows members from exercising their rights. 

Treaty No. 6

Treaty No. 6  was made between the Crown and various groups of Plains and Wood Cree Indians on August 23, 1876, at  Fort Carleton and on September 9, 1876, at Fort Pitt. Ancestors of Beaver Lake Cree Nation were parties to this Treaty making.

The Crown sought and obtained the agreement of the Indigenous signatories to cede and surrender the tract of land inhabited by them, including lands in what is now the province of Alberta. The promises were that the descendants of Beaver Lake would retain their old way of 

life and would be as free to hunt, trap and fish throughout their traditional territory as they had been before entering the Treaty; and that descendants of Beaver Lake would be entitled to access lands and waters and exercise treaty rights to hunt, trap and fish throughout the tract surrendered “saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes…”. 

Beaver Lake Cree Nation has been engaged in litigation for many years over interpretation of Treaty No. 6 and the cumulative effects caused by the ongoing “taking up” of land by Alberta, Canada and industry. As more and more land is taken up, and removed from land on which Beaver Lake Cree can exercise their rights, these rights can be rendered essentially meaningless. 

Treaty No. 9 

Signed in 1905 and 1929, Treaty No. 9 is an agreement between the Crown and Indigenous Nations in Northern Ontario that, according to many, protects Indigenous sovereignty while sharing the land with settlers. Part of the land this Treaty covers is known as the Breathing Lands. 

At the time of Treaty negotiations, since many of the Indigenous leaders did not speak or read English, interpreters were used. The Crown presented a draft already written, without Nation’s input. The Indigenous Nations demanded that their way of life not be interfered with, and that their fishing and hunting grounds not be encroached upon. Under the continued assurance of the Crown, Indigenous leaders believed they were signing onto an agreement that would meet these commitments. However, the Treaty itself was never translated into Anishinaabe or Cree, and no physical copy of the Treaty was left with the Indigenous Nations. And it turns out, the negotiators did not include those conditions in the Treaty. Noticing a pattern?

The Numbered Treaties were drafted decades ago by government negotiations that didn’t take Indigenous perspectives or needs into account. And who engaged in “negotiations” that didn’t take Indigenous contributions into account. Treaties were signed based on information left out, and in some cases outright lies. These negotiations, or lack thereof, continue to resurface long after the death of these particular Treaty negotiators have passed on and no longer face the consequences of their actions. These contributions from beyond the grave continue to form the basis of the analysis a court must undertake to interpret a Treaty. 

While the court will consider evidence relating to the oral agreements made at the time of treaty-making, it is much easier to look at the words written on a page as evidence, than to listen to oral traditions shared by the members of the Nations. This bias in the Canadian legal system toward written evidence is still felt and still countered every day and every time a Treaty matter goes before the courts.