Treaty rights

In this case, Crow Dog, a Native American, shot and killed another Native American on a reservation.[11] The reservation police turned him over to the army, who tried him in Dakota Territorial Court.[11] The court sentenced him to death for the murder.[11] Crow Dog appealed the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States.[11] He argued that because he committed the crime on a reservation, and his family had made amends for his crime in accordance with tribal law and custom, the United States had no right to try him.[11] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Crow Dog, stating that the district court could not impose a punishment on a Native American for a crime committed on a reservation against another Native American.[11]

As Native Americans became more integrated into American culture, more non-Native Americans began working and living on the reservations. This gave rise to the question of whether or not tribes had the legal authority over non-Native Americans who commit crimes on their land. In 1959, a case surrounding the rights of a tribe to regulate the civil activities within their reservation went to the Supreme Court. In Williams v. Lee, a non-Native American merchant, who owned a general store on a reservation, sued some of his Native American customers in Arizona State Courts.[12] The Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona court system did not have legal authority over reservations. Stating that the tribes had legal jurisdiction over both criminal and civil cases. Including those between non-Native Americans and Native Americans on the reservation.[12]

However, this ruling did not last long. The Supreme Court Case Olyphant v. Suquamish attempted to settle this issue once and for all.[13] This case centered around the question of if Native American law applied to non-Native Americans living on reservations. The Supreme Court ruled that non-Native Americans living on reservations were not subject to the rulings of the tribal courts.[13]

Treaties are understood differently between the Canadian and Indigenous nations. For Indigenous peoples, the character of treaties is found in what was said at the time of negotiations. Contrary to this, the principles for treaty makings were to establish the constitutional foundations of Canada and what was said was not reflected in the treaties signed. Verbal commitments made to the Indigenous leaders not included in the written treaties became a common source of discontent and remains an ongoing issue of dispute and discussion. Following complaints from affected communities, many of these promises are not honored.  

Canada only recognizes the 70 historic treaties signed between 1701 and 1923 and 25 modern treaties (also called comprehensive land claim agreements) since 1975. Together, these treaties have provided[14] inconsistent protection to traditional ways of life, vague participation in land and resource management decisions, and Indigenous ownership to about 600,000 km² out of the 9.985 million km² of land that makes up Canada.[15]

Historic treaties promised Indigenous peoples reserve land, the government paid schools and teachers on reserves, hunting and fishing rights on unoccupied Crown land, and one-time benefits (such as farm equipment and animals, ammunition, and clothing).[14]

The most notable historic treaties include the Numbered Treaties 1-11. The Numbered Treaties were used as political tools to secure alliances and transfer land ownership. Differing interpretations of the treaties have led to disputes between the federal government and First Nation groups. The concept of territory and ownership differ amongst European and Indigenous world views, where  Indigenous peoples interpreted the treaties as promises to share, rather than own, the land and natural resources with the colonizers.[16] The long-lasting legal and socioeconomic impacts of the Numbered Treaties on First Nation peoples, such as the creation of reserves, schools and other instruments of assimilation, have affected Indigenous cultures, customs and traditional ways of life.[17]

• Presentation copies of several numbered treaties
• 
  Treaty 4
• 
  Treaty 6
• 
  Treaty 7
• 
  Treaty 8

These treaty presentation copies are held in the Bruce Peel Special Collections at University of Alberta Library. Each is printed on parchment with text in black and red and a blue and red border.

Modern treaties began in 1973 after the Supreme Court of Canada's decision which recognized Aboriginal rights for the first time. Aboriginal rights are the collective rights entitled to Indigenous peoples as the first inhabitants of Canada. These treaties addressed Indigenous rights to ownership of lands, wildlife harvesting rights, financial settlements, participation in land use and management in specific areas, and self-government.[14]

Section 35 recognizes and affirms the treaty rights and Aboriginal rights of the Indigenous peoples in Canada.[14] The Constitution does not define Indigenous rights under Section 35, but they can include Aboriginal titles, rights to occupy and use land resources, self-government rights, and cultural and social rights. Section 35 varies depending on the vast cultures, customs, practices, and traditions of each group.[16]

Some inherent Indigenous rights are not recognized by the Crown, as the Constitution does not define specifics. The Canadian government stipulated that these rights were to be defined in the courts on a case-by-case basis. There are several significant cases that recognized Indigenous rights in the Canadian court, such as R v. Sparrow, R. v. Van der Peet, and R. v. Powley.

R. v. Sparrow [1990] set out criteria, known as “the Sparrow Test,” to determine whether government infringement on Aboriginal rights was justifiable.[18]

R. v. Van der Peet [1996] was pivotal in further defining Aboriginal rights in Section 35. It established criteria that are used to determine whether an Aboriginal right is protected as an “existing” Aboriginal right under the Canadian Constitution.[19]

R. v. Powley [2003] was the first major Aboriginal rights case concerning Métis peoples. It created “the Powley Test,” which addressed the criteria that defines Métis rights, and who is legally entitled to those rights.[20]

Beginning in the 1980s and extending into the early 1990s, Northern Wisconsin was rife in protests against Ojibwe spearfishing.[21][22] The Voigt decision in 1983[22] had reaffirmed that the treaties made in 1837 and 1842 still stood.[21] These treaties gave the Ojibwe the rights to hunt, fish, and gather off-reservation, which was not subject to state regulation.[22] This heralded a backlash of non-Natives, who believed the Ojibwe had been granted special rights. Spearheaded by groups like Stop Treaty Abuse (STA),[21] often violent and racially discriminatory protests against spearfishing covered boat landings across northern Wisconsin.[22] This led to the case Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin.[21] This case culminated with Judge Barbara Crabb upholding the Voigt decision and many members, donors, and politicians distancing themselves from the STA, which many believed was racist.[21]

The right to hunt North Pacific gray whales has been a contentious issue for the Makah people in Washington state.[23][24][25] The Makah people ceded much of their traditional lands in the Treaty of Neah Bay in 1855 but retained the right to whale.[24] The tribe voluntarily gave up this practice in 1915 because of decimated gray whale populations, but once the species was taken off the Federal Endangered Species List in 1993, the tribe sought to continue whaling. In 1999, they killed one whale but faced immediate backlash from environmental groups and animal rights groups.[24][25] The International Whaling Commission (IWC) believed that the Makah tribe’s quota of harvesting up to five whales a year would not hurt the recovering population.[25] Because of a number of new studies garnishing evidence for and against this practice, the issue has been tied up in court since 1999, with the tribe being unable to exercise the right given to them in the Treaty of Neah Bay.[23]

Throughout the nineteenth century, the United States made several treaties with the then Kingdom of Hawaii, the last being in 1887.[26] These treaties recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii as being sovereign and independent.[26] In 1893, John L. Stevens, US minister assigned to the Kingdom of Hawaii, led a group of non-indigenous people to overthrow Queen Lili‘uokalani, which was backed by the United States naval forces.[26] They established a Provisional government, which then declared itself the Republic of Hawaii.[26] In 1899, the US annexed Hawaii. Many Hawaiian sovereignty activists feel that because of the treaties mentioned above, Hawaii should today be its own Nation instead of part of the United States.[26]

The Lakota people of Standing Rock reservation in North and South Dakota believe that the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which runs near their main source of water, could contaminate that source of water should it leak. They also cite the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868, which promised the land that DAPL runs through to the Lakota's land.[27] Lands were seized in 1877 [28] and 1887 with the Dawes Allotment Act that broke up reservations.[29] Some call for these treaties to be reinstated and enforced today, which would put the course of the DAPL straight through Lakota lands.

• Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (1991). Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (Report). Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission. Retrieved 4 February 2014.