1E9Ct5D

“Historical” TreatiesThe region’s historic treaties include anumber of very similar “peace andfriendship” treaties which were entered intoby the British Crown and the Mi'kmaq andMaliseet people. In the 1700s, the Mi’kmaqoccupied parts of Nova Scotia, NewBrunswick, and Prince Edward Island, whilethe Maliseet resided along the St. JohnRiver in New Brunswick.These treaties are brief and difficult tointerpret. Their prime objective was to putan end to ongoing hostilities and to makeway for British settlement in the region, andto ensure that Aboriginal peoples would befree to carry on their hunting, fishing andother traditional activities withoutinterference.Most notably, under these treaties (unlikethose entered into later in the more westernparts of Canada) the Aboriginals did notsurrender any land or other resource claims.The application of these treaties withincertain areas of Atlantic Canada is not freefrom doubt. For example, whether any sucha treaty was signed by any authorizedrepresentative of the Mi'kmaq who occupiedPrince Edward Island has been the subjectof debate. The Newfoundland Court ofAppeal has also denied a Mi’kmaq claimthat they acquired a right to hunt, fish andtrap in a reserve located in the northern partof that province under these treaties (Drew,2006). In its view, these treaties do notapply in that province. The Supreme Courtof Canada denied leave to appeal in thatcase.In two landmark decisions which originatedfrom Nova Scotia, the Supreme Court ofCanada found that, under these treaties, theMi'kmaqs acquired a communal right toengage in traditional 1760 trading (andassociated harvesting) activities, to theextent required in order to sustain amoderate livelihood (Marshall I, 1999).It did, however, emphasize that this right didnot allow the open accumulation of wealth(Marshall II, 1999). The Supreme Court ofCanada has also recognized thatAboriginals had a right to fish for food,social and ceremonial purposes on theirtraditional lands (Sparrow, 1996).In another case, which involved NewBrunswick and Nova Scotia, that Courtrefused to extend this right to includecommercial logging. In its opinion, logs werenot a product that the Aboriginalstraditionally traded with the British in 1760.The Court pointed out that treaty rights arenot “frozen in time” but the contemporaryactivity claimed must have logically evolvedfrom a 1760 activity (Marshall III, 2005).This decision makes it unlikely that thesetreaties will be extended to cover resourcessuch as mineral and offshore petroleumdeposits.“Modern” Treaties“Modern” Canadian treaties typically containsome ceding of Aboriginal rights inexchange for hunting, fishing, trapping orother rights, participation in themanagement of resources, andcompensation. The self-government ofAboriginal peoples may also be addressed.These agreements can have a significantimpact on, for example, developmentprojects in the region because they mayaffect land tenure and regulatory andpermitting regimes. They may also imposeadditional requirements for consultation ornegotiation with First Nations communities.Aboriginal Law 150