Mr. Bryon Wilfert
(Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 18 and 19.
[Text]
Question No. 18--
Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to specific
treaties with the crown and the following aboriginal bands or communities in the
Maritimes; Abegweit, Lennox Island, Big Cove, Buctouche, Burnt Church, Eel
Ground, Eel River, Fort Folly, Indian Island, Kingsclear, Madawaska, Red Bank,
Oromocto, Pabineau, Saint Mary's, Tobique, Woodstock, Acadia, Afton, Annapolis
Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Glooscap, Membertou, Millbrook,
Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook, Waycocomagh: (a) what is the
specific treaty that covers each of these bands or communities; (b) when
was each of these specific treaties signed; (c) where was each of these
specific treaties signed; (d) which of these bands or communities are
covered by the so-called Marshall or Halifax treaties; (e) which of these
bands or communities are covered by treaties signed after the so-called Marshall
or Halifax treaties; (f) which of these bands or communities are covered
by the Miramichi Treaty of 1779; and (g) which of these bands or communities are
not covered by treaties?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
With regard to specific
treaties being made between the crown and aboriginal bands or communities in the
Maritimes, the British crown signed a number of historical documents with the
Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people between 1725 and 1779. These
historical documents are commonly referred to as treaties, but only three of
them, the two LaHeve treaties of 1760-61 and the Cope treaty of 1752, have been
formally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as having the constitutional
status of treaties.
In response to part (a) of
the question, it is important to consider the geographical boundaries and
political structures of the Maritimes in the 1700s. In the Marshall decision,
the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “...the British signed a series of
agreements with individual Mi’kmaq communities in 1760 and 1761 intending to
have them consolidated into a comprehensive Mi’kmaq treaty that was never in
fact brought into existence. The trial judge found that by the end of 1761 all
of the Mi’kmaq villages in Nova Scotia had entered into separate but similar
treaties”. It is important to note that during the colonial period, Nova Scotia
was considered to include modern day New Brunswick.
Regarding parts (b) and (c)
as they relate to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Marshall, only the
1760-61 treaties were recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as treaties
under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1760 LaHeve treaty was signed on
March 10, 1760 in Halifax. The 1761 LaHeve treaty was signed on November 9, 1761
in Halifax.
In addition, the other
“historical documents” that have been identified from various archival sources
are virtually identical to the LaHeve treaty of 1760 with the exception of the
February 23, 1760 agreement with the Saint John (Maliseet) and Passamaquoddy
Indians, which contained similar promises but also renewed previous peace and
friendship treaties with the crown.
Copies of the following
1760-61 documents were provided to the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in May 2001:
Renewal of 1725 Articles and
1749 Articles, with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy, at
Chebucto (Halifax) Harbour, 23 February 1760; Treaty dated 10 March 1760 with
Chief Michael Augustine of the Richebuctou Tribe; Treaty with Chief Paul of
LaHeve Tribe at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with Claude René, Chief of
Chibennacadie and Muscadoboit, concluded at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with
the Merimichi Tribe, concluded 25 June 1761; Treaty with Chief Claude Atouash of
the Jedaick Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Etiene
Apshobon of the Pogmouch Tribe, Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Joseph
Argimaut, Chief of Mesiguash Indians, Halifax, 8 July 1761; Treaty with Chief
Jeannot Picklougawash on behalf of the Pictouk and Malegomich Tribes, 12 October
1761; and Treaty with Chief Francis Mius of the LaHeve Tribe, concluded at
Halifax, 9 November 1761.
In part (d) reference is
made to “Marshall or Halifax treaties”. It is assumed this is in reference to
the LaHeve treaties of 1760-61, which were considered by the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Marshall decision. Therefore, with respect to which bands or
communities are covered by these treaties, the Government of Canada is of the
view that while modern day first nations are the most likely successor groups of
the original signatory groups, it is impossible to determine a direct
correlation between the application of treaties to modern day first nations.
It is important to keep in
mind that the passage of time has meant that there have been changes to the
composition of some of the signatory groups. We recognize the difficulty in
connecting the signatories of historic treaties to particular contemporary first
nation communities. This may be due in part to migration of first nations,
intermarriage, government policies creating bands and other initiatives such as
the centralization of reserves. However, since the court found that all Mi’kmaq
communities participated in the treaties, members of modern communities are
likely beneficiaries of these treaty rights.
For these reasons, the
Government of Canada has determined that the most appropriate course of action
is to enter into a dialogue with the 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet first nations in
present day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec to
consider the implications of the Marshall decision.
Parts (e) and (f) of the
question are unanswerable since only the two LaHeve treaties of 1760-61 and the
Cope treaty of 1752 have been formally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada
as having the constitutional status of treaties. In addition, the Government of
Canada maintains that while modern day first nations are the most likely
successor groups to the original collectives that signed the treaties, it is
impossible to determine a direct correlation between the application of treaties
to contemporary first nations. As for which bands are not covered by treaties,
part (g), the question is unanswerable due to changes in the composition of some
of the signatory groups over the years. Nonetheless, the Government of Canada
has drawn from the observations of the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision
on Marshall and has determined that working with the 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet
first nations on the implications of this decision is the most appropriate
course of action.