Almost every part of Canada is covered by some kind of treaty or is the subject of an ongoing claim, very likely including the land your school stands on. A treaty is an agreement between nations, and like any agreement it can be understood differently by the people who made it. Many First Nations remember treaties as promises to share land and live in an ongoing relationship; the written documents kept by the Crown often use the language of a completed sale. Reading contemporary Indigenous writing, you will meet that gap constantly, so this topic is about understanding where it comes from rather than deciding any particular dispute.
Kinds of treaties
| Kind of treaty | When | What to know |
|---|---|---|
| Peace and Friendship Treaties | 1700s | Made between the British Crown and nations in what are now the Maritimes and parts of Quebec, including the Mi'kmaq and Wolastoqiyik. They were about peace and trade and did not surrender land |
| Robinson Treaties | 1850 | Covered land north of Lakes Huron and Superior in present-day Ontario |
| Numbered Treaties | 1871–1921 | Eleven treaties across what became parts of Ontario, the Prairies and the North, including large areas of northern Ontario |
| Williams Treaties | 1923 | Covered land in central Ontario |
| Modern treaties | From 1975 | Comprehensive land claim agreements such as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975), the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993) and the Nisga'a Final Agreement (in effect 2000) |
Why oral and written understandings differ
- Different languages. Negotiations for many historic treaties happened through interpreters, while the written text was drafted in English by Crown officials. Legal terms had no simple equivalent in the languages of the nations at the table.
- Who held the pen. Many First Nations signatories did not read English and could not check that the document matched what had been said. The written version was the Crown's record of the agreement, not a shared one.
- Promises made aloud. Commitments spoken during negotiations do not always appear in the final text. For the nations involved, what was said in council was part of the treaty.
- Different legal traditions. For many nations an agreement is made and renewed through ceremony, speeches, wampum or the pipe, and it lives in memory and ongoing practice. The Crown's tradition treated the signed paper as the agreement.
- Relationship versus transaction. Many written numbered treaty texts use wording such as 'cede, release, surrender'. Many First Nations understand the same treaties as agreements to share the land and live alongside one another, with obligations on both sides that continue.
How Canadian courts read treaties
The Supreme Court of Canada has said treaties should be interpreted with attention to how the First Nations signatories would have understood them at the time, that ambiguous wording should be resolved in their favour, and that evidence of oral promises can be considered alongside the written text. Courts also refer to the honour of the Crown, the principle that the Crown must act honourably in its dealings with Aboriginal peoples. These are general principles; how they apply in any one case is decided on its own evidence.
The Two Row Wampum
Wampum are beads made from shell, woven into strings and belts that record agreements and carry them forward through the people responsible for remembering and retelling what they mean. The Two Row Wampum, known in Kanien'kéha (the Mohawk language) as Kaswentha, is a Haudenosaunee belt. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy is made up of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca and Tuscarora nations. Haudenosaunee oral history connects the belt to an agreement with Dutch newcomers in the early 1600s, often dated to 1613; historians have debated the written evidence for that date, but the belt and its meaning are carried in Haudenosaunee tradition.
- Two rows of purple beads run the length of the belt. They are explained as two vessels travelling side by side down the same river: a Haudenosaunee canoe and a European ship.
- Each vessel carries its own people, laws and ways of life. Neither is meant to steer the other's vessel or pull its people across.
- Rows of white beads separate and surround the purple rows. They are often explained as peace, friendship and respect, the conditions that keep the two vessels travelling together.
- The model is coexistence, not merger. The belt describes two distinct peoples sharing the river while each keeps its own authority, which is why it is often cited in discussions of sovereignty.
- Other agreements used wampum too. The Dish With One Spoon wampum is associated with an agreement among the Haudenosaunee, the Anishinaabe and other nations to share the hunting grounds around the Great Lakes and take care of them together.
ATreaty as a living relationship
- The agreement is renewed through meetings, ceremony and gifts
- Obligations continue on both sides for as long as the relationship lasts
- Land is shared, and each people keeps its own governance
- Memory, oral history and wampum are part of the record
BTreaty as a completed transaction
- The signed document is the agreement
- Obligations are the specific terms written down, such as annuities or reserves
- Land is transferred, and the written text uses words such as cede and surrender
- The paper record is treated as the authoritative version
Land claims: specific and comprehensive
| Specific claim | Comprehensive claim | |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | A treaty or other obligation already exists | Rights to land were never dealt with by treaty or other legal means |
| What it is about | The Crown's alleged failure to meet obligations under historic treaties or agreements, or how it managed First Nations lands, money or other assets | Settling ownership and use of land and resources, and often self-government, for the first time |
| Typical example of the issue | Reserve land that was promised but never provided, or reserve land taken without a proper surrender | Large areas of British Columbia, the North and parts of Quebec, where historic treaties were not signed |
| Outcome | A negotiated settlement of that particular grievance | A modern treaty, such as the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement |
Loading interactive…
Watch the verbs you use about treaties
Writing that a nation 'gave up' or 'sold' its land quietly adopts the written text's understanding as the only one. Writing that a nation 'was tricked' makes a claim about a specific negotiation you would need evidence for. A more accurate sentence names whose understanding you are describing: 'the written text states…', 'the nation's oral history records…'. That habit keeps your analysis precise and stops you from deciding a dispute you have not studied.