By Steve Halabura
Reconciliation is a personal journey. Here is mine.
Let me explain.
In the summer of 1900, my great-grandfather Kyrylo Halaburak and his family arrived at the rail depot at Rosthern where they were met by an agent of the Canadian government.
He was from Torhovitsia, a village in the Horodenko province, in what is now the western Ukraine, but at the time was the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. Galicia was the northernmost and most populous province of the Austro-Hungarian empire, ruled by the Habsburg emperor Franz Josef.
It was a long and arduous journey – by train across central Europe to the port of Hamburg, then by steamship across the Atlantic to Halifax, and then by steam locomotive across Canada to their point of disembarkation at Rosthern, in what was then the Northwest Territories.
Kyrylo was a farmer, illiterate and knowing no English; yet he realized he and his family had no future remaining where they were. When he heard an agent of the Canadian government tell him about the boundless opportunities offered by the western prairies of Canada, he listened. He farmed two acres of land with most of his meagre crop going to the landowner, so the promise of owning 160 acres promised unfathomable wealth.
Hence, the long journey.
At the railhead, the government land agent took Kyrylo’s family and about 10 other families east across the South Saskatchewan River to their allotted land – 160 acres for each family, surveyed into quarter-sections by the government’s surveyors.
“This”, he was told by the government man, “is all yours”.
Wrong.
The agent, and by extension the government of Sir Wilfred Laurier, lied to Kyrylo – there were people already here before him.
The lands that the Ukrainian newcomers settled in was about 10 kilometres south of Fish Creek, which was the site of a battle between Canadian military and Metis skirmishers 15 years earlier. It was not only Metis territory, but also the traditional territory of Indigenous people of the One Arrow Nation, who were inadvertently caught up in what is now called the Riel Resistance of 1885.
This situation was not unique to Kyrylo Halaburak’s small parcel near Fish Creek – it was repeated thousands of times across south and central Saskatchewan, during what people commonly call the “Settlement of the West”. The problem with this was the same one faced by Kyrylo – there were other people here first, and for a much longer time than the newcomers.
How did this happen? I continue to seek my own understanding of this heritage, as it is part of my identity. What follows is what I have learned, as I realize that as Kyrylo’s descendent, I am complicit in this history.
My understanding begins with the Doctrine of Discovery, a Papal Bull issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493. This document granted the right to any land not inhabited by Christians to be “discovered”, claimed, and exploited by Christian takers.
It was formally repudiated by the Vatican in March of 2023, some 530 years after its inception. The doctrine was deemed racist and fundamentally flawed due to its disrespect of Indigenous peoples who were the true inhabitants of the Americas.
Columbus, like Kyrylo, was surprised upon landing in the Americas that “hey, there already are people here!”
In the formation of what is now Canada, further framing of Indigenous rights was imbedded in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, when the British King George III recognized the implicit right to title held by Canada’s Indigenous peoples.
The Royal Proclamation required administrators of the Crown to abstain from the taking, surveying, or seizure of Indigenous lands, unless such a transfer was properly ceded and/or purchased. It is this document that set into motion the larger process of “treaty”, whereby such provisions could be negotiated.
The process of treaty began in central Canada before Confederation in 1867 because of the early settling of colonists in the region. It extended to what was called “Rupert’s Land” after Canada purchased it from the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1870.
The need for such settlement was driven by the Red River Resistance of 1869-1870, which spurred the Canadian government to hasten the process of land annexation, and the government wanting a quick settlement, began treaty-making in earnest during the period of 1870 to 1877.
Unfortunately, the treaties thus struck were focused upon limiting, or worse – removing – any outstanding Aboriginal title to land. Treaties installed a reservation system upon the people, which in many instances did not correspond to their inherent knowledge and understanding of their lands.
Who is the original owner of the land? Not us “settler-colonists”. And were they properly ceded? Probably not. That’s why, to this day, Canadian Indigenous peoples struggle with the federal government to unravel the damages done during this period of “treaty-making”.
There is more to consider, like the federal Act S.C. 1930 C.41, which is “An Act respecting the Transfer of the Natural Resources of Saskatchewan (assented to on the 30th of May 1930), also known in short form as the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, or the NRTA.
The NRTA, an agreement between Canada and Saskatchewan, concerns the transfer of mineral rights from Canada to the Province. The recognition of the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to their lands is set forth in the Act’s attached Schedule, this being the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Dominion of Canada and the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan, dated 30 March, 1930.
Section 10 of the Memorandum recognizes that “lands included in Indian reserves within the Province, including those selected and surveyed but not yet confirmed … shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, and the Province will from time to time, upon the request of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, set aside, out of the unoccupied Crown lands hereby transferred to its administration, such further areas … as necessary to enable Canada to fulfil its obligations under the treaties with the Indians of the Province, and such areas shall thereafter be administered by Canada in the same way in all respects as if they had never passed to the Province under the provisions hereof.”
What is meant by the need for “Canada to fulfill its obligations”? I have heard Indigenous leaders speak of challenging the NRTA in the courts, arguing that the transfer had no basis in law. They speak that the chiefs who signed the treaties never transferred the rights to minerals, and that these rights necessarily remain with the Nations. So, these rights should be transferred back.
There are two further milestones in more recent times with the first occurring in 2007. As a result of advocacy, discussion, and debate, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13, 2007. On June 21, 2021, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act received Royal Assent and immediately came into force.
The purpose of this legislation is to “advance the implementation of the Declaration as a key step in renewing the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples” from the perspective of human rights.
From the viewpoint of the sovereignty of individual Nations, Article 23 states “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development.”
The second milestone was in 2008. Canada undertook its own recognition of the violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples because of protests over the Indian Residential School (IRS) system, which is the most shameful legacy of the imposition of “settler-colonist” policies upon Indigenous peoples. The protests were driven by the growing Indigenous Rights movement, who demand justice and redress from Canada.
It also led to the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2008, which further investigated the failings of the system. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its final report in 2015, and it recommended 94 Calls to Action for the Canadian government to right the wrong inflicted upon Indigenous children and families.
For me, the key formulation of Indigenous mineral policy is firmly rooted in the Truth and Reconciliation Report Call to Action Number 92, whereby “We call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources.”
This is a lot of history to understand, and by no means is my personal journey over.
How is this relevant to potash? This publication is, after all, called The Potash Producer. Well…
Many of the signatories of Treaty 4, and some signatories to Treaty 6, have as their reserve lands and their traditional territory, lands which host not only world-class potash mines but also untapped potash wealth in terms of resources. One could easily deduce that the Nations of these treaties are in fact among the largest holders of potash resources in the ground. We hear of jobs, contracts, and other benefits, but what of the benefits accruing to the owner of the minerals itself, this being a royalty and the right to tax profit, little is said.
So, again I ask, “Whose potash is it anyways”?
And with this question, ‘nuff said.
