Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
TheConversationCanada
The Haida-B.C. agreement was a landmark deal, but where was Canada?
By Michaela M. McGuire, PhD Candidate, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser UniversityTed Palys, Professor of Criminology, Associate Member of Dept. of Indigenous Studies, Simon Fraser University,
Indigenous scholars have described the agreement as “historic” and “an inspiration to Indigenous Peoples across Canada and around the world.” It’s approach to title departs from the racist assumptions underlying colonization.
However, while this agreement between the Haida Nation and B.C. is laudable, we cannot help but wonder: why has Canada been so slow to get on board?
Undermining Indigenous nationhood
Early European explorers and settlers in what is now known as Canada benefited from their symbiotic relationship with Indigenous Peoples who helped them survive Canada’s harsh climate; offered military alliances that resulted in a British North America; kept the upstart Americans at the 49th parallel; and possessed the hunting prowess that brought riches to both sides in the fur trade.
The seminal role that Indigenous Peoples played in those early years was all but forgotten by the time Canada became a nation in 1867. The new legal order dismissed Indigenous nationhood and created one in which “ Aboriginal title ” became subservient to Canadian sovereignty, existing only at Canada’s pleasure.
Evolving international law affirmed that any square inch of territory could have only one sovereign authority.
Only European powers — styling themselves as the civilized world — were entitled to that authority, and European colonizers determined who was allowed to be sovereign, and who was not.
The die was cast in the early 1800s in three United States Supreme Court decisions : the Marshall Decisions. The cases required the court to articulate the relationship between the new United States and Indigenous Peoples. The court’s decisions made clear that the U.S. was the only “sovereign” authority with rights of “dominion” (i.e., governance), while Indigenous Peoples were recognized only as “occupants.”
These decisions would supply the justification that colonizing powers would use to assert that Indigenous Peoples had a right of occupancy, while European powers and their colonial descendants had the right of sovereignty.
In Canada, the first Supreme Court case to speak to the issue of Indigenous title was St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Company v. Ontario in 1887 . The court cited the Marshall decisions favourably as relevant precedent, including its decision that Indigenous rights of title were no more than rights of occupancy, with overall sovereignty retained by the Crown.
Indigenous Peoples were rendered “domestic, dependent nations” whose rights would be defined by the colonial state under whose sovereignty they lived. Classifying them broadly as Indigenous Peoples — or “Indians” at that time — further undermined any understanding of their distinct National identities, defining them instead as the “other” who needed to be managed for their own good.
Haida title
The Haida-B.C. agreement represents an important departure from that view. Most importantly, it distinguishes between “Aboriginal title” and “Haida title,” the latter of which is defined as:
The collective inherent right and responsibility of the Haida Nation to maintain, caretake, protect, restore and renew Haida Gwaii and the realms of interconnected existence that are reflected in Haida culture, the hereditary clan system, and the Constitution of the Haida Nation . Haida Title includes ownership of and a right of jurisdiction over Haida Gwaii, and encompasses Aboriginal title protected under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act , 1982.
This recognition of Haida title is the culmination of decades of work and years of negotiation. Recorded assertions of Haida rights, title and determination to protect Haida Gwaii date back to the early 1900s . The agreement further acknowledges that Haida title extends over Haida Gwaii, and that B.C. is not “giving” the Haida Nation anything that was not already theirs; Haida title is inherent.
But there is still much to do. The agreement kicks off a two-year period where the Haida Nation and B.C. government will negotiate jurisdictional sharing. The agreement states that any disputes that arise in that regard will be resolved based on Haida law and ways of being, dispute resolution and practices.
This is a positive step towards the B.C. government making things right with the Haida, and the Haida for the tremendous patience and sense of purpose that has guided them all these years.
This agreement between the Haida Nation and B.C. is laudable. However, considering Canada’s history of false promises, delaying responsibilities and differing issues to be addressed in the future, we cannot help but be concerned about the Canadian state’s slow approach to negotiations.
This tendency to take the path of least effort and preference for rhetoric over fundamental change is a point of concern . Will Canada finally live up to its promises and support the inherent rights and title of the Haida Nation? Only time will tell.
Ted Palys has previously received funding from the Law Foundation of BC, SSHRC and SFU's Community Engagement Fund for research into various Indigenous justice issues.
Michaela M. McGuire receives funding from SSHRC Vanier.
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Comments / 0