-

by Phil Henderson

On October 24th, in a letter published on The Hub, Larry Miller (MP) expressed his concern over an Agreement in Principle between the Algonquins of Ontario (AoO), the Government of Canada, and the Government of Ontario. While Mr. Miller writes that we "recently" learned about the Agreement addressing a longstanding land claim, he can hardly be caught off guard, as a draft was reached in 2012, public consultations on the draft were held throughout 2013, the Agreement was published in June 2015, and voted on by the AoO in early 2016. Given this, it's worth asking why this is the week that Mr. Miller has chosen to voice his concerns. That aside, there are more important issues requiring public reflection in light of Mr. Miller's comments.
I'm of the opinion that when discussing the claims put forward against the Crown by indigenous peoples it's best to have a long historical lens. Mr. Miller conveniently neglected to mention that this particular claim dates back to at least 1772; when several indigenous nations, of what's now called the Ottawa Valley, presented the Crown with a petition against the encroachment of settlers into their territories. This is of particular importance, because only a decade earlier the Royal Proclamation (1763) had declared that by law no subject of the British Crown could enter onto lands of indigenous peoples who had not negotiated treaties with the Crown. This means that those squatters were not only violating the laws of the Algonquin peoples, they were also violating the law of their own government. Their actions were those of criminals, but criminals the Crown did not seem to see fit to prosecute. Fast forward, over the next two and a half centuries, and still no treaty was ever formally signed in regards to the territories of the Ottawa Valley. As the Supreme Court of Canada established in the case of R v Sparrow (1990), and recently reaffirmed in Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (2014), in the absence of a treaty to the contrary, indigenous peoples' rights remain fully intact. (A matter subject only to the limitations of having to prove the constancy of their traditional practices through time, something which the repeated petitions of various Algonquin peoples from the Ottawa Valley clearly indicates.)
What all this admittedly laborious history means is that under the laws of Canada - the laws that Mr. Miller helps to write and has sworn to uphold - title over the 36,000 Square Kilometres of territories under question in this case has never been legally passed from the Algonquin peoples to the Crown. Therefore, the fact that non-indigenous persons have been living in these territories for centuries now without a treaty represents a serious failure on the part of the Crown in its fiduciary obligations to the First Nations - which is to say that the Canadian and Ontario governments, by their own laws, have been messing this situation up for a long time and must work to set things right. The Agreement that so concerns Mr. Miller is a step - but, as we'll see, a tepid one - towards rectifying this situation.
To his great credit, all the facts that Mr. Miller presented in his letter are seemingly verifiable and accurate. They are not, however, all the facts. Aside from leaving out the long history of the Crown's broken obligations, Mr. Miller has also obscured several other important points. First, the Agreement will transfer 117,500 acres of Federal and Provincial Crown Land to the AoO. While this is a sizeable transfer of land it's worth noting that this represents only 1.3% of the total 36,000 Km2 of untreatied land under question in this case. It's also important to note that under this transfer all lands would be registered as fee simple holding and not reserve lands. This means that the land will be privately held, and can be alienated yet again through selloffs - this is a tactic used by the Crown in an effort to undermine the longterm viability of indigenous ownership of lands (as they're often encouraged into selloffs in order to make up for inadequate federal spending). I'd also like to note that Mr. Miller applauded the total exclusion of the City of Ottawa and Algonquin Park from the settlement; but given the history of illegitimate settlement in these territories what can actually justify this exclusion? Ottawa is no less absent a treaty simply because it is urban, and Algonquin Park is no less absent a treaty simply because its name is an homage to those who have been dispossessed. Adherence to our own laws, as Canadians, dictates that we should be seeking to restitute for our wrongful claiming of both these sites as well as the backcountry.
Now, the second feature of Mr. Miller's letter that deserves commentary is his subtle effort to drum up fear over what the effects of this Agreement will be on non-indigenous persons if it is implemented. Mr. Miller writes that it's "not clear... exactly what will happen" to the land once it's transferred and that this will have "very massive implications for hunters, anglers, community groups, and home and cottage owners". While, this sort of bombastic language is sure to get attention and to allow some to present themselves as saviours of the common people, they bear little relevance to the substance of the Agreement. As enumerated on the Ministry of Indigenous and Northern Affairs' own website, the Agreement has been negotiated with several key principles in mind. The very first principles listed are that: "Land will not be taken or expropriated from private owners"; and that "No one will lose existing access to cottages or private property or navigable waterways" under the terms of this Agreement. Additionally, the site also indicates, as a key point, that "Arrangements will be negotiated for existing recreation or other legal interests to continue on transferred land; Ontario would facilitate these negotiations." So not only are all of Mr. Miller's burning concerns already present in the minds of the negotiators, but the power to most directly address the issue of resource recreation is already in the proper hands of the Province - as Section 92 of the Constitution Act (1867) requires it to be. While it is appropriate to strongly represent one's constituents, it is never appropriate to ignore the facts in order to present oneself in a more heroic light. Such representation is disingenuous at best, especially if one has not participated in a meaningful way up to this point.
With all that said, I do think that there are facets of this Agreement that need more scrutiny. Several First Nations, their community groups, and prominent indigenous individuals, have raised their concerns - they deserve serious attention and support. I welcome Mr. Miller into public conversation on these issues, I also welcome his response to the more detailed account of the Agreement that I have presented above.