As president of the North West Territories Metis Association, Hardy represented a group of people who were of mixed First Nations and European ancestry. His people “belonged to neither White nor Indian societies” (Podruchny). As he put it, being Metis meant that “white[s] and Indian[s] accept you on the surface, but reject you from the heart and soul…For a while we did what we thought was a smart thing; when with the Whites we were White; when the Indian came, we became Indian, but this could only go on for so long without splitting ourselves apart trying to be two people” (Podruchny). The government regarded them likewise, establishing a separate Half Breed Commission that negotiated treaties with the Metis separately from the purely indigenous First Nations Peoples. Unlike those peoples, the Metis were given a choice. The Metis were given the decision to take treaty like the First Nations people, and thus be considered Indians by the government, or settle their land claims in exchange for scrip which entitled the holder to a one-time payment of $240 or 240 acres of land. The second option was an attempt to directly assimilate them into European society; separating them from their indigenous heritage and claims to traditional lands. Subsequently, most of the Metis chose to take treaty. It is important to note that this decision was given to individuals and not the band as a whole as with the First Nations Peoples’ negotiation of treaty. The fact that government trusted individual Metis to make decisions for themselves and their families as opposed to requiring meetings with full First Nations bands led by their senior leaders demonstrates the higher level of respect and trust that was granted to the Metis than was given to the purely indigenous people.

Camp scene including one Metis man and two Metis women (1918) From the Library and Archives of Canada

Both the First Nations People and the Metis who took treaty did not interpret the treaty agreement as a forfeit of their traditional lands or aboriginal rights such as hunting and fishing. But during World War Two, government presence and thus tension in the region increased as the Canol Pipeline and Alaska Highway were built through traditionally aboriginal lands. After the war, the presence did not recede. At this time “there were still more sustained interventions in Dene and Métis societies, including the introduction of compulsory schooling, more health care, social housing, and measures to encourage Indigenous Peoples across the north to settle in communities” (Abele). Thus, groups of Indigenous People “had begun to organize politically in the 1950's and 1960's in response to the increased level of postwar state intervention. Some of their concerns were longstanding (inappropriate game law enforcement) while others were a response to the social engineering measures implemented after the Second World War” (Abele). Therefore, tensions over government intrusion on aboriginal lands and rights in this region were already high when the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline was proposed, setting the stage for a significant resistance movement by Indigenous Peoples.

1. Abele, Frances. "The Immediate and Lasting Impact of the Inquiry into the Construction of a Pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley, 1974-77." Commissions of Inquiry and Policy Change: A Comparative Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (2013).
2. Ens, Gerhard J., and Sawchuk, Joe. From New Peoples to New Nations : Aspects of Metis History and Identity From the Eighteenth to the Twenty-first Centuries. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2015.
3. Podruchny, Carolyn, and Thistle, Jesse. "A Geography of Blood: Uncovering the Hidden Histories of Metis Peoples in Canada." Spaces of Difference: Conflicts and Cohabitation (2016): 61-82.

Before being taking charge as the Indian Commissioner for Treaty 11, Conroy was in the 1899 treaty party that worked on Treaty 8 in the adjacent region. He was the accountant in the party and thus oversaw the annual payment of treaty money. He also worked to convince bands of First Nations People to take treaty. In this capacity, he worked to persuade them using a variety of tactics. In fact, “The Indian Affairs Department relied heavily on treaty inspector H.A. Conroy to admit those Indians who had not joined treaty [8]…as a great many of them have a great deal of antipathy to [it]” (Madill). He continued this work as Indian Commissioner for Treaty 11.

Indian Commissioner Conroy making treaty at Providence, N.W.T. (Treaty 11) From the Library and Archives of Canada

The bands’ main concerns were generally with the idea of selling their land; which is how many viewed the treaty. To quell this concern Conroy gave two main objections. First, the treaty money was a perpetuity not a onetime payment. The bands were not selling their land for a sum of money, but receiving an annual payment from now and forever. In addition, he assured the people that they would maintain their traditional rights on their lands. Specifically, the right to hunt and fish as they had always done. He guaranteed this because many bands refused to sign treaty without such an assurance as hunting and fishing were vital to aboriginal economies and welfare. Additionally, psychologically “no one likes to give up [their] ancient customs,” and the First Nations People were no exception with their hunting habits. Conroy made the people believe that the land would still be theirs and that their rights were not being taken away from them by treaty. He told them “You can [continue to] do whatever you want…we will not bother you about your land or animals” (Madill).

However, this idea of the First Nations People continuing with their traditional lifestyles and peacefully coexisting with white settlers in the region was not realized. Legislation such as The Migratory Birds Convention Act established closed seasons for hunting and fishing . The enforcement of these laws, even for Aboriginal Peoples on their traditional lands, resulted in “perhaps 50 to 100 prosecutions of Indians throughout the country for violations of hunting or fishing regulations” (Hobbs). The promise made to many of the bands who took treaty had been broken, hurting their economies, wellbeing, and dignity in their traditional way of life.

1. Fumoleau, René. As long as this land shall last: A history of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, 1870-1939. University of Calgary Press, 2004.
2. Hobbs, Charles A. "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights II." Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 37 (1968): 1251.
3. Madill, Dennis. Treaty Research Report: Treaty Eight (1899). Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986.

This legislation was established to protect birds that migrated between the United States and Canada. It established closed seasons during which these birds could not be hunted in either nation. This is highly contested because of its adverse effects on some of the First-Nations People of Canada who viewed it as a breach of their treaty with the federal government. Notably, however, “Key provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1918) were not intended to apply to native hunters when originally drafted” (Gottesman). Thus, the restrictions on First-Nations People, which is the most conflicted part of the legislation, may have actually been unintentional. It is possible that “[The] violations of aboriginal and treaty hunting rights were simply overlooked by policymakers during the negotiation and legislative drafting process” (Gottesman). The act was written and ratified by the two nations involved in addition to Great Britain on Canada’s behalf. Thus, it is possible that the cause of the issue was complications involving the number of nations that collaborated on the act. Multiple nations writing and passing a law together makes the law-making process even more complicated than it already is. They can have different motives in making the law and therefore want it to focus on different things. The problem that the act created mainly affected the Indigenous Peoples of Canada as opposed to those of the United States. Thus, an exemption for indigenous hunters may have been excluded from the wording by the United States policymakers in one of the many drafts of the act and never added back. Even if this is true, it shows a serious lack of awareness and concern by Canadian policymakers for the well-being of First Nations Peoples and the sanctity of their treaties with them.

Hunters hanging geese and ducks at camp From the Canada Science and Technology Museum Gallery

The image above depicts white Canadian hunters. Presumably, with game birds that they shot on that day and the rifles they used to shoot them. In the photograph there are four large birds between the two men. It is a fair assumption that each man does not need two birds per day. Thus, this image depicts how white hunters could kill more birds than was necessary for survival. In conjunction with dwindling populations of these birds, this shows a need for legislative interference to protect such birds from over hunting. Even though these hunters did not necessarily need the birds, others did. First Nations People often depended on these animals for survival. In addition, they had less access to advanced technology like the hunting rifles seen in this image because of their economically disadvantaged situation. Because of this, they had a harder time hunting enough food to survive. Their predicament only worsened as the population of game birds declined. Therefore, an exemption in the act for indigenous hunters would have been not only fair but imperative for these people who were already disadvantaged.

1. Bissonette, John A., and Krausman, Paul R., “Integrating people and wildlife for a sustainable future,” Wildlife Society, 1995.
2. Foster, Janet, Working for Wildlife: The Beginning of Preservation in Canada (Toronto [Ont.: University of Toronto Press, 1998)
3. Gottesman, Dan, “Native Hunting and the Migratory Birds Convention Act: Historical, Political and Ideological Perspectives,” Journal of Canadian Studies 18, no. 3 (August 1, 1983): 67–89, doi:10.3138/jcs.18.3.67.