Some First Nations are relinquishing the rights to agricultural benefits in treaties in exchange for one-time payments as compensation.
Author of the article:
Doug Cuthand • Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Published Mar 02, 2024 • Last updated 13 hours ago • 4 minute read
Today, farming is big business and it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for a young farmer to capitalize a farming operation. Photo by Matt Smith /Saskatoon StarPhoenix
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.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.Get exclusive access to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.Get exclusive access to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.
Sign In or Create an Account
or
Article content
Article content
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.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Article content
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
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.
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
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.
Advertisement 5
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
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.
Doug Cuthand is the Indigenous affairs columnist for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix and the Regina Leader-Post. He is a member of the Little Pine First Nation.
Recommended from Editorial
Doug Cuthand: A frog fable shared to mark Sask. storytelling month
Doug Cuthand: Supreme Court affirms Indigenous child welfare rights
Our websites are your destination for up-to-the-minute Saskatchewan news, so make sure to bookmark TheStarPhoenix.com and LeaderPost.com. For Regina Leader-Post newsletters click here; for Saskatoon StarPhoenix newsletters click here.
Article content
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Saskatoon StarPhoenix – https://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/doug-cuthand-signing-away-treaties-farming-rights-stirs-controversy
