INST 203 UNIT 2 Section 1-5 with
complete verified solutions 2025
In the first section of Unit 2, we trace the development of the debate over
Aboriginal rights from the fifteenth century, when European powers began
exploring the Western Hemisphere. Those involved were European
monarchs, religious leaders, biblical scholars, philosophers, and jurists
who sought grounds on which to base their treatment of the peoples
indigenous to what are now North and South America. We also present an
outline of the historical development of the treaty system in the part of
North America that later became Canada, from the eighteenth century.
Section 2 begins with a discussion of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The
Proclamation was the primary document that established procedures for
negotiating the elimination of Aboriginal title to land, but it is also viewed
by many Indian people as the “Magna Carta”of their rights. The article by
Robert Surtees introduces the process by which land surrenders were
negotiated in Upper Canada in the early nineteenth century. As Surtees
notes, these surrenders contained the embryonic features of standard
treaties negotiated with Indian people from 1850 onward. An article by
Alexander Morris introduces the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior
treaties as the basis of the treaties signed in Manitoba and the then
North-West Territories.
Section 3 of the unit is devoted to a consideration of the interpretation of
treaties in the courts. The reading by Delia Opekokew gives a legal
interpretation of the treaties from an Indigenous perspective, which
stands in sharp contrast to the European interpretation offered by certain
scholars, the Canadian federal government, and the courts.
In Section 4, we consider the numbered treaties, beginning with a reading
by John Andrew Kerr on the treaties of 1876. Articles by Peter Barkwell
and David Knoll allow us to consider the importance of judicial decisions
and legislation pertaining to aspects of the numbered treaties in various
jurisdictions in Canada.
Finally, in Section 5, we consider how Indigenous people understand the
meaning and intent of treaties. The article by Harold Cardinal interprets
treaties as sacred and inviolable agreements that promote a special
relationship between Her Majesty and First Nations peoples. This view
reflects the oral tradition passed on by Elders about the meaning and the
spirit of the treaties, as understood by the Indian people who signed
them. In the material presented by Richard Price, this tradition is
demonstrated in several transcripts of interviews given by Indian Elders
whose forebears negotiated treaties in Alberta.
,Note: Be sure that you understand the basic terms and issues presented
in each section before moving on in the unit. Test yourself by answering
the study questions at the end of each section. You are encouraged to
discuss the material in each section with your tutor to confirm that you
understand it. A brief glossary is given in Section 5.
More than any other issue affecting relations between the Indian nations
and the federal government, the nature of Indian treaty rights generates
heated debates and provokes protests by treaty Indian people who fear
erosion of the treaty relationship they enjoy in with Canada.
Interpretations of what these rights entail are continually sought in
Canadian courts by treaty Indian people and by various levels of
government.
To help you gain a better understanding of some of the contentious points
raised in discussions about Indian treaties, this section traces the
historical development of the treaty system, and examines some of the
legal interpretations handed down by the courts on various issues
mentioned in the treaties.
Previous
Play
Next
Rewind 10 seconds
Move forward 10 seconds
Unmute
0:00
/
0:15
Full screen
Brainpower
Read More
The Concepts of Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights
A discussion of the nature and significance of Indian treaties necessarily
includes an exploration of the concepts of Aboriginal title and Aboriginal
rights. Aboriginal title is a legal concept, recognized by the Anglo-
American judicial system, which refers to Indian, Inuit, and Métis claims to
land. Aboriginal rights can be defined as claims of Indigenous peoples to
land, self-government, and hunting and fishing rights, among others. The
full meaning of these concepts, from a European point of view, can be
, gained by analysing how European powers justified their imposition of rule
over the Indigenous peoples of the Americas.
In a broader context, the term "Aboriginal rights" has been used
internationally to refer to the rights Indigenous people possess by virtue
of being indigenous to their lands and territories. While some of the rights
this understanding includes were addressed in the paragraph above,
advocates for Indigenous groups and the Canadian justice system do not
agree on the extent and nature of those rights in many instances. The
meaning and extent of the term "Aboriginal title" are similarly
controversial. In a Canadian legal context, Aboriginal title has been
defined as one type of right existing on a continuum of Aboriginal rights.
Importantly, some Aboriginal rights have been acknowledged and secured
in the process, negotiation and writing related to treaties.
Doctrine of Discovery and Right of Conquest
From the fifteenth century onward, European powers engaged in voyages
of "discovery" throughout the world. An international doctrine known as
the "doctrine of discovery" emerged from the rivalries produced by these
voyages. This doctrine declared that a European discoverer of lands
previously unknown to Europeans was entitled to claim the exclusive right
to acquire those lands from the indigenous inhabitants. The first European
powers to occupy North America acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal
property rights or Aboriginal title mainly because the early European
settlements and colonies were militarily weak compared with the Indian
nations. To acquire Aboriginal lands, the Europeans had to negotiate
treaties for land cession.[1] The doctrine of discovery was considered a
claim, and therefore did not affect Aboriginal title. To the European
powers, it merely limited the right of Indian nations to establish
diplomatic relations with European nations other than the discovering
nation.
European powers also recognized the right of conquest in international
law. In accordance with this right, a victorious nation could eliminate the
governmental structure of a conquered nation, and thereby assert its
sovereignty over the subjects and territories of the conquered nation.
While it is important to note that not all people agree that Aboriginal
people were conquered, when Christopher Columbus landed on the islands
and mainland of the Americas in the late fifteenth century, he claimed the
territories as property of the king of Spain. At that time, Europeans
regarded the world as God's property, which could be given to European
monarchs by the Pope. Territories outside of Europe that were not
governed by a Christian monarch could be claimed by such a monarch. The
Pope could sanction such claims by issuing a papal declaration confirming
the sovereignty of a Christian monarch over a newly acquired territory.
Church officials and European monarchs had to face the question of how to
treat the Aboriginal inhabitants of the New World. Should they be treated
as beasts, slaves, or human beings with natural rights? Should their social