Agricultural benefits claim clashes with treaty rights

Debate surrounding issue allows our leaders to negotiate a better future

The topic of treaties and the agriculture benefits claim was front and centre on the first day of the chiefs' annual winter assembly. The issue also known as “cows and ploughs” refers to the federal government's lack of action on the agricultural section of the numbered treaties.

The government officials who drafted the treaties felt that agriculture would be the new economic path for our people. So, there is a lengthy clause in the treaty that outlines what assistance will be available for Indigenous farmers.

It includes things like a scythe, rake, hoe, etc., as well as a team of oxen and other farm implements. There are two problems with this.

First, the government never implemented it and, in fact, discouraged agriculture by creating policies like peasant farming where no modern implements were allowed and the permit system where the Indian agent had to issue a certificate before they would allow produce to be sold.

The permit system became a political weapon against anyone who would speak out or complain.

The second flaw was that the government vision was limited to agriculture only, without any thought about future economic opportunities.

The racism of the day created a very narrow future for our people. The duty of the residential schools — besides cultural destruction — was to create farm hands out of the boys and domestics out of the girls.

So, when the leaders in Treaty 8 in northern Alberta raised the issue of a lack of action on the agricultural provisions of the treaty, the government decided to provide compensation.

On the surface this seems fair, but the Department of Indigenous Services with their long colonial history just couldn't leave it there. They had to add a poison pill that this terminates the clause to provide agricultural benefits.

Instead of making it a treaty issue, the federal government is calling it a specific claim, which goes against the spirit and intent of the treaties. When a chief and council sign this agreement, they have in effect denied future generations the right to assistance for agriculture.

This is a typical action on the part of the federal government because they have tried for years to terminate the treaties.

The government needs to give compensation for their lack of commitment to the agriculture provisions from the time the treaties were signed to the present and from that point on create an economic assistance program as promised in the treaty.

The treaties are nation-to-nation agreements and must be respected. Our elders have stressed over the years that nobody can break the treaty, but now some of our leaders have signed the “cows and ploughs” agreements and in affect terminated their treaty right to agriculture.

The negotiation of the agriculture benefits claim has become a controversial topic in Indian Country. Many want a quick settlement with a large payout to the First Nations members and it's become a political tool for some chiefs and councils.

First Nations that sign away their treaty right to agriculture benefits will receive a large settlement that will result in a per capita payment that will limit the claim for future generations.

Also, recently First Nations have received considerable amounts of new land and, in the future, our people may want to farm it. Today, farming is big business and it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a young farmer to capitalize a farming operation.

First Nations are continuing to buy more land and fill up the land quantum available under the Treaty Land Entitlement agreement.

I agree that we need compensation for past wrongs, but it can't come at the expense of our future. Our leaders must negotiate compensation, but to sign away a treaty right is a non-starter.

We also must develop policies that review the narrow vision of a strictly agriculture economy and expand this clause to include realistic economic development such as resource extraction, manufacturing and real estate.

When our chiefs negotiated treaties close to 150 years ago, they had no idea what the future would hold. The government negotiators stated that they wanted the land for agriculture and we would share it.

The agriculture benefits debate allows our leaders to negotiate a better future based on treaty and not sign away our right to assistance for economic development.