The Crown and First Nations

Vincent J. Curtis

11 June 22

RE: Easier to use than lose the monarchy.  Spectator editorial. 10 June 22

Among the many good and practical reasons for retaining the monarchy is that Crown-Aboriginal relations depend upon there being…..a Crown.  If the monarchy is eliminated, it doesn’t follow that a Republic of Canada is under any obligation towards aboriginals that had been made by the Canadian Crown.  Nor does it follow that a Republic is the beneficiary of land settlements that were made with the Crown.

Crown-aboriginal relations is founded upon the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which amounts to an executive order from the head of the British Empire (as it then was) to the governors and peoples of the colonies concerning the aboriginal peoples of North America.  The Royal Proclamation was made without reference to the British Parliament, and when the American colonists succeeded in their revolution, their treatment of American Indians bore no resemblance to the instructions they had received from King George III.

A break in legal continuity entailed by abolishing the Crown in Canada leads to a host problems, including the legitimacy of Canada itself.  All the land agreements are made with the Crown.  Canada would have to change the basis for its existence to occupation by force or of Terra Nullius, which is somewhat contradicted by the existence of treaties.

Canada enjoys perhaps the best form of government possible: a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch is largely absent.  Replacing that with something fashionable entails more grief than can be imagined.

-30-