Treaties with First Nations people in Canada and the interpretation of these treaties has always been a controversial issue. In Canada, parliament never passed any of these treaties through any piece of legislation. Treaties are separate from laws like the Indian Act, which is a piece of parliamentary legislation, and only briefly mentions First Nations treaties.

The legal debate over treaties with First Nations people and how they should be interpreted is on going. There are a number of different ways of looking at treaties in Canada. They could be classed as: international treaties, contracts, non-binding promises, or semi-legislation.

Treaties viewed as international treaties

Canada's treaties with First Nations people resemble international treaties between two independent nations. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 used the term nation when referring to Aboriginal people. There are those who have interpreted this to mean that nation status for Aboriginal people was recognized in the Royal Proclamation. In the United States treaties with aboriginal people are considered to be international treaties. In Canada however the treaties were not ratified by Parliament therefore it is argued that they not be international treaties.

Treaties viewed as contracts

Recently the Canadian Courts have interpreted treaties with First Nations people as contracts. The parties come to an arrangement over the terms of the relationship the parties agree on what is to be negotiated, the terms of exchange and that they will be legally bound by the contract. But if the courts are viewing the treaties as contracts, these contracts can therefore be change by one party through legislation. Both sides can interpret contracts differently. If treaties are classed as contracts then there is evidence to show that the treaties have been broken by the Federal government in the areas of land entitlement and have restricted some hunting and fishing rights.

Treaties viewed as non- binding promises

There are those that believe that the government never intended to fulfill its promises past the first few years. If this is so then treaties were nothing but false promises made to get First Nations people surrender their land and Aboriginal rights. All First Nations leaders believe that treaties were solemn promises not entered in to lightly. Treaties were bound by spirit and intent whether or not the promises appeared in the written text or not. It is clear that a number of oral promises did not appear in the text

Treaties viewed as semi- legislation

Recently treaties have been interpreted as if they were pieces of legislation. Recognition of Aboriginal rights and Treaty rights in the 1982 constitution certainly makes it look like treaties may part of a piece of legislation. The Supreme Court of Canada has suggested that the government must look at the circumstances surrounding the signing of the treaty and what is meant. A task force looking at Treaty No.8 recommended re-interpreting treaties so that some sort of parliamentary legislation could be passed to enforce them.