Two First Nations scholars say myths about treaties are still being perpetuated, and that, if studied, treaties offer insight into what a respectful relationship between Canada and Indigenous Peoples should look like.

Colby Tootoosis remembers sitting at the kitchen table, listening to his family talk about treaties.

Learning about treaties has been an integral part of who he is, as Nehiyaw (Plains Cree) person. He is from Poundmaker Cree Nation, in Treaty 6 territory.

"We were immersed in treaty conversation and treaty awareness," said Tootoosis.

He also remembers being taught about the treaties in elementary school.

"Some of the conversations that would take place in school were around our rights, basic treaty rights," he said.

That early form of education went on to become a personal passion of his, as he ended up travelling solo to many treaty gatherings across the Prairies. Treaty gatherings are political meetings for leadership, in areas that are situated in Treaty 1-11 territories.

The information that he has on treaties comes from an oral understanding of what took place during the signing of Treaty 6.

Not a land surrender

He describes the treaties as a sacred covenant.

"The [treaties are the] very sole reason why Canada even exists and why newcomers are permitted to be here," said Tootoosis.

"It's like a foundation of the government of this land."

As someone who grew up learning about treaties, Tootoosis knows that other First Nations youth haven't been afforded the same opportunity.

He said a lot of the mis-education that First Nations people have received on treaties can be blamed on residential schools and the public education system in Canada.

​

"[Treaties are] about our rights as Nehiyaw people. There is no Treaty 6 nation. There's the Nehiyaw nation. There is no Treaty 2 nation, there's the Anishinaabek nation. We have our communities to our nations. It's a whole different mentality," said Tootoosis.

Tootoosis said it is important to teach young people that the treaties weren't a land surrender. That perception doesn't sit well with him.

"The problem is that people are confused with treaties and the Indian Act. They blame the results of the Indian Act for what treaties were supposed to do."

Gina Starblanket recently finished a PhD where she researched the oral history of Treaty 4. (Submitted)

'Coexistence and respect'

Gina Starblanket had a similar educational upbringing as Tootoosis. Her mother and family members taught her about treaties, but she also took that passion to the academic world.

Starblanket recently finished defending her PhD dissertation, where she focused on the political principles that are in treaties, specifically in Treaty 4.

She grew up in Regina, and is from Starblanket Cree Nation, part of Treaty 4.

"The understanding that I've heard from my mother and her ancestors before was that treaty represented the establishment of peace and friendship, coexistence and respect," said Starblanket.

Starblanket was inspired to learn more about treaties based on myths that she heard growing up in school.

She said that narratives and myths of treaties are perpetuated in Canada's legal and political institutions, and often disregard the treaties as being a sale or cession of land.

Differing interpretations

"This idea that Indigenous people sold their lands for fixed set of promises always bothered me," said Starblanket.

She said the treaties were supposed to represent a guarantee that would see the land shared, and that Indigenous systems of law and governance would continue.

"While the Crown recognized that Indigenous people had enough political authority to enter into treaties, it had to also find a way to make Indigenous orders of law and governance less than the Crown's," said Starblanket.

She said that her research echoes what Indigenous Peoples have been saying all along. She has broken it down into two parts and drawn out the distinctions of the treaties as interpreted by Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples.

"A lot of times, our understanding of diplomatic practices of treaties and treaty making have basically been exclusively informed by the way they have been inhabited by settlers," said Starblanket.

"I argue that we shouldn't allow one of our oldest political institutions to be defined strictly by the way that they have been misinterpreted by settlers."

She believes that the historic agreements offer a reminder to Canada of what the relationship should look like, if done properly.

"That vision of what should be, is one that we should work towards."

​