[SOUND] My name is Frank Tough. I'm a professor with the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta. I trained as a historical geographer. So, the fur trade is a fundamental part of the relationships between Aboriginal people of Canada and the so-called settlers, or settler society, or colonial forces. Most of this relationship has been through the Hudson's Bay Company which received a charter in 1670. And so actually many Aboriginal people and communities have been in contact with European systems for several hundred years through the mechanism of the fur trade. And the fur trade is somewhat unique to Canada, or unique to this hemisphere, in terms of how it defined Aboriginal relationships, although there was a fur trade in parts of the United States. It did not tend to endure or last as long as it has in many parts of Canada. So in the northern half of North America, which some people refer to as Turtle Island, the fur trade was the dominant relationship and interaction between Indigenous people and European traders. [MUSIC] And in the case of the Hudson's Bay Company, for some communities, this could be 200, 250 years of contact. This means in terms of time, the fur trade was of longer duration than missionaries, residential schools, Indian agents, mounted police. So that's why in some cases the Hudson's Bay Company is referred to as "here before Christ" because the fur traders established presence in northern Canada and in western Canada before the missionaries were present. And in fact, the missionaries were really dependent on the Hudson's Bay Company to establish missions near fur trade posts. So the fur trade is important because it has a long duration and because it is an ongoing relationship in very basic economic terms between Aboriginal people and European traders. So on the basis of time it's been important to both sides of this trade equation. So the fur trade is actually fundamental to Canada, although we've often lost sight of that. It's not really an accident that the beaver is a symbol of Canada. It is the beaver that became the prime fur pelt. The beaver was our first export commodity of a national scale. We did have cod off the East Coast, but the cod fisheries would not have led to the development of the Canadian nation state. It is because beaver were found just about everywhere. They're often easily depleted and the thrust of mercantilism pushed northward and westward. And so at one time or another the fur trade had a presence in almost every corner of Canada. But this is especially true of western Canada, British Columbia and northern Canada, northern Ontario, northern Quebec that it had this presence there. When the European world expanded outwards after 1500s, say the significant date of 1492 with Columbus, it came to establish presence at different times in what was referred to as the New World. There was a part of the New World what some people know as Turtle Island. But North and South America or might refer to it as the Western Hemisphere. And this was mercantilism in a very aggressive expansive state. And so all the Indigenous peoples of the New World, at some point after 1492, and sometimes it took centuries, were in contact with the Europeans. And for the Europeans to colonize this hemisphere, a key development was the creation of a commodity that could be exported that would provide the resources and the finances to support settlement at whatever scale. So in the Caribbean, in the West Indies, it was sugar. Initially the Spanish were plundering the surface of these lands, taking gold and silver from the Mexicans and Incans in Peru. And this was still again mercantilism. But throughout these areas various commodities were created and exported. Southern United States at one time was cotton. And in the case of Canada it was the beaver pelt. And the London fur market was the place that these furs were traded to. And it was for the most part dominated by the Hudson's Bay Company. But these furs were produced by the skills, talents and labor of Aboriginal people, both in trapping, knowing where to find them, how to transport them and then how to support the Europeans that are living here by provisioning, providing game and fish, pemmican to these European traders, showing them the lands, playing key roles in the transport. So the fur trade would never really have existed with the import of a lot of European labour. It was something that required Native labour. So in this sense, then we talk today of First Peoples or First Nations and that's largely a construct that's based on the fact that Aboriginal people were geographically and demographically the first ones here. They used and occupied the lands before Europeans. But I would add to that meaning of first an economic dimension, and that is Canada would not have existed, could not have come about without the fur trade. And the fur trade would not have existed without the participation of First Peoples. It was actually quite vital. In this sense, and in contrast to other places, Indian and Mètis people had an economic role, they had a vital economic role and the Europeans understood that. This is not a situation where it's good for long-term business to shoot your customers, or to shoot all your employees. You just don't do those sorts of things. So this economic necessity created an economic space for Aboriginal people and for different people, it was different degrees of integration and participation. And it was very different view than seeing Native people as a nuisance or as a barrier to settlement. So in the United States, where you don't have an enduring fur trade, what happens is violence is very prevalent. There's a huge number of wars against Indians in the history of the United States. And I would say that reflects the fact that there was little or no economic relationship. So, Indian people in the states were simply a nuisance, a barrier, something to be disposed of. Whereas in Canada because of an enduring fur trade, this was understood, their economic importance was understood. And this actually gave them a strong basis when they did approach the treaty talks. And in fact when the federal government, the dominion government then, was looking to the post-fur trade era in 1870 and negotiating with the treaties, they certainly relied on the knowledge of the Hudson's Bay Company employees in western Canada. And there are a number of links between the fur trade era what had been established there, And with the expectations in the treaty era. So the fur trade is also an important background to understanding the treaties. A lot of people think that history only begins with the treaties. But in fact that is sort of incomplete understanding, and you have to consider the way that the fur trade set the basis for the treaties. And one of the conditions, one of the driving forces for considering treaties was the fact that the fur trade had run its course. And that people were looking, especially in the Treaty 1 area, to different economic strategy. They understood that they were approaching an era when the fur trade would be less significant. Fur trade lays down an infrastructure for the Canadian nation state. The transport systems and systems of settlement are created by the fur trade. So many of the major places like Edmonton and Winnipeg had come into being, first as places where Aboriginal people concentrated, and therefore places where the Hudson's Bay Company and Northwest Company built sizeable posts. So, I would argue that the first national transport system was not the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think that's just the kind of central Canadian myopic view of our history. The first national transport systems were things like the Voyageur canoe and the York boat. The Voyageur canoe connected the hinterland of northwestern Canada with the heartland of the St. Lawrence Valley. The York boat connected the same region to the London fur market through York Factory. So as far as the fur trade needed an infrastructure, this was laid down by the Hudson's Bay Company. And the great Canadian economic historian, basically said that the Northwest Company was the forerunner of confederation. And if you look at the boundaries in Canada, they're basically the boundaries where the fur trade was long established and endured. [MUSIC] British North America could have remained united, and the part of what is now Canada, central Canada, could have linked up with the Americans. We could have taken part in the revolution and cut our ties with England. But we actually resisted that notion. And part of that was because of the fur trade, a dependence on the London fur market. A merchant class that saw its connections with London as being more important, than the sort of things that the Americans were up to. So our distinctiveness as a people reflects the fact that the fur trade laid an economic basis that was eventually added to by a political basis and the process of nation building. And so these different commodities, in our case it was furs, laid a nucleus of the colony. And in our case, it was fur, and it's reflected in the beaver. So you'll see the beaver on currency. There's nickels, you'll see the beaver on stamps. And you'll see the beaver as company logos. And notwithstanding, Senator Eaton who tried to change our mascot, if you will, from the beaver to some species of animal that's likely to become extinct is really against the grain of history. And it also probably reflects the fact that her economic legacy, the T. Eaton Company which was a department store, went bankrupt, whereas the Hudson's Bay Company founded on the beaver and the fur trade is still around. It is one of the few enduring, itâs one of the only enduring mercantile company to survive into the modern era. All the other companies like the East India Company, the Royal Africa Company, all these mercantile companies from the 17th century basically did not survive but the Hudson's Bay Company did survive. [MUSIC]
