These past few months, provinces have been taking big losses in Supreme Court against Indigenous people and I’m so here for it. The latest ruling on the Robinson treaties could create an interesting precedent for nations still under archaic treaties.
In July, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Crown breached the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior treaties by not increasing annuity payments since 1875, despite substantial economic gains from resource extraction and land development around the Great Lakes.
The 1850 treaties required the Crown to increase payments over time, but they remained at $4 per person. The Supreme Court emphasized the severe impact on the Anishinaabe communities, who have been facing poverty and inadequate living conditions. We’ve always known that the Crown is in constant violation of its treaties, but to have the Supreme Court recognize it is huge.
The decision orders the Crown to negotiate settlements with the affected nations. The Robinson-Huron Treaty beneficiaries have settled for $10 billion, with ongoing talks for future payments. The Robinson-Superior Treaty beneficiaries must reach a settlement within six months, or the Crown will set the payment amount, subject to court challenges. The ruling stresses the Crown’s obligation to honour its treaty and constitutional responsibilities and seeks to address longstanding injustices faced by the Anishinaabe people.
The Robinson treaties were the blueprint for the 11 Numbered Treaties the Crown signed with other Indigenous nations in western Canada between 1871 and 1921, as the Dominion addressed land claims from Indigenous peoples following its creation.
To this day, members from these nations still line up on Treaty Day in front of an RCMP officer to receive their annual $5 compensation. Canada is a G7 country, largely because of the resources it extracts in these territories, making the $5 annuity a deep insult.
The latest Supreme Court ruling could create a precedent for First Nations out west seeking the revision and redefinition of outdated treaty clauses and terms, just like Treaty 6 that recently renegotiated the “cows and ploughs” section of their agreement which originally promised agricultural benefits to signatories.
Not only did these nations never receive said cows and ploughs, but the Canadian government confined them to small reservations and systematically prevented them from generating wealth from their resources while giving portions of land for settlers to farm.
Coercion aside, these treaties don’t reflect the intent in which they were signed, and they do not reflect the economic aspirations of Indigenous people as contemporary human beings. The signatory chiefs only agreed to share the land and let settlers use the top portion of the soil, no more than the “depth of a plough” – which Canada has been breaching to this day.
I hope to see more nations demand their rightful and constitutional dues in courts soon and challenge the legitimacy of the Crown’s heritage.