Treaty 5

Kiseyinis and Cecim made an adhesion to Treaty 5 on September 7, 1876, and reserves were surveyed for them in 1884 (Red Earth) and 1894 (Carrot River). In 1875, the Crown entered treaty with the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree (Mushkegowuk) Indigenous people. The purpose of the Treaty was an agreement founded on sharing and protection, as stated in the Treaty text, to “share in the bounty and benevolence.” A new relationship between First Nations and the Crown was then established that would last “as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the grass grows.”

The spirit and intent of the Treaty, made between the Crown in right of Great Britain and Ireland, and Mihkoskiwakak Nehiyawak (RECN), was to protect Indigenous nations from encroachment, delineate land rights for both parties, permit occupancy and use of land, and define the rights of each nation as sovereigns. Particularly “To Continue in their Mode and Avocation of Life.”Footnote 15 Our treaty to “share” and to live in peace and friendship is evident of Canada’s current use of the land though the dishonouring, or ignorance, of this treaty understanding leaves us impoverished in our own lands. For example, almost immediately after treaty signing, numerous disputes over land claims arose with Indigenous peoples claiming the land was never surrendered. The Crown set out to ratify many of the numbered treaties to appease these disputes but did not satisfy many complaints from First Nation communities.

In the 1920s, adding to the lack of good faith on part of the Honour of the Crown, Indian Act laws were established, which made it illegal for lawyers to represent First Nation interests in courts. These laws were not repealed until 1951, leaving generations of Indigenous peoples without wherewithal to pursue land claims.

Today, the government of Canada recognizes treaties with Indigenous nations as “solemn agreements that set out long-standing promises, mutual obligations and benefits for both parties.” Not only did treaties between the Crown and Indigenous peoples allow for settler expansion to the west, and end hostilities between nations, treaties provided the foundations for what is now Canada. In effect, the treaty with RECN permits Canada usufructuaryFootnote 16 rights to the land.

In R v Ermineskin, the courts include an excerpt of Alexander Morris’ accounts from the numbered treaty making processes in Western Canada. Of particular interest is the narrative of Commissioner McKay’s address by the treaty secretary, Dr. Jackes, included in paragraph 113:

Now before we rise from here it must be understood, and it must be in writing, all that you are promised by the Governor and Commissioners, and I hope you will not leave until you have thoroughly understood the meaning of every word that comes from us. We have not come here to deceive you, we have not come here to rob you, we have not come here to take away anything that belongs to you, and we are not here to make peace as we would to hostile Indians, because you are the children of the Great Queen as we are, and there has never been anything but peace between us. What you have not understood clearly we will do our utmost to make perfectly plain to you.Footnote 17

RECN and its people unanimously assert that treaties with the Crown or Canadian state never included terms of surrender (of either land or sovereignty). The RECN claim remains that they hold a rightful stewardship relationship with the land, meaning a Creator granted responsibility to maintain the land for future generations. From this understanding, it becomes clear that the land was never theirs to sell, nor could it ever be surrendered from the hands of God and future generations yet to come.

RECN’s nationhood was recognized by the Crown when treaties were made between the two nations. Treaties exemplify a First Nation’s authority and ability to self-govern their own people. Nothing in recorded history purports to surrender their sovereignty. Conversely, the implementation of the Indian Act, 1867 ignored the inherent sovereignty of RECN, though they continuously call for recognition of their sovereignty.

Nations make Treaties, Treaties do not make Nations

Treaty with RECN has not been properly recognized and affirmed as it is considered a domestic treaty by the Canadian state. Such reasoning is unfathomable however, when one considers a state cannot, and does not, make treaty with its own subjects.

Because RECN’s Sovereignty was not surrendered and is not mentioned as being surrendered in the text of the Treaty, there ought to be no hesitation nor inhibition in the reinvigoration of RECN legal, political, social, and economic systems and institutions. Favorably, sustainability of coexistence and greater care for one another, our selves, and the land will result. However, due to Canada’s ongoing and insistent unilateral interpretation of the Treaty with respect to RECN sovereignty and legal orders, RECN government and people are oppressed, suppressed, and impoverished in every way (mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally).