Treaties

Failure to Deliver Supplies to Treaty 4 Nations

Summary

Two oxen and four cows were supplied to Pasqua’s band, but otherwise no efforts were made by government officials to supply Treaty 4 bands with seed, animals, and implements that were promised to them in the treaty negotiations. Officials based their decisions on racist beliefs that First Nations people could not be trusted with the implements as promised, and therefore opted to only provide the goods to groups who were already working on cultivating their reserve land (many groups had not had reserve land surveyed yet), despite what was said in the treaties.

Implications
Communities that wanted to make the transition to farming were not able to do so, economically disadvantaging them and making them reliant more reliant on government rations. By denying assistance promised under treaty, the Canadian Government could further the subjugation of Indigenous peoples by making them even more reliant on Government assistance. This would allow the government more control over Indigenous peoples, and greater capacity to implement the National Policy of assimilation.
Date
1875-00-00
Theme(s)

Treaty 4 Negotiations

Summary

Throughout the many days of talks surrounding Treaty 4, Lieutenant-Governor of the North West Territories--Alexander Morris—never definitively indicated the future status of the lands affected by the treaty. However, the final draft of the government's printed version of Treaty 4 was explicit, that the Cree and Saulteaux tribes, and all other Indians in the district ceded their land to the Dominion of Canada. Though the documents suggest that Indigenous people ceded their lands, this is false. Indigenous people did not cede, surrender, or release their lands in any way to the Canadian government. Alternatively, they agreed to share the land and in no way did they extinguish their rights to their lands. It is also important to note that Indigenous leaders requested access to services such as education, health, and food security during these negotiations.

Implications
Though there is some degree of misunderstanding within the treaty negotiations because of interpretation issues, it is not to say that the Canadian government negotiated in good faith with Indigenous leaders. They actively attempted to assimilate Indigenous populations and used the treaties to further this agenda. The government believed the surrender of Indigenous lands to be a part of their treaty negotiations, and attributed the misunderstanding to poor interpretation. This is also incorrect. The government actively attempted to take these lands from Indigenous people for their own selfish gains. This reality often led to discontent, as the written treaty terms often differed from how Aboriginal signatories understood or interpreted the agreement. This has had a lasting effect on the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the government in which trust is lacking. The government has yet to rectify the mistakes of their past actions against Indigenous peoples.
Date
1874-09-08
Theme(s)

Treaty 4 Negotiations

Summary

Lieutenant-Governor Alexander Morris asserted that on multiple occasions Saulteaux signatories of Treaty 1 sent messengers to Qu'Appelle to prevent a treaty from being concluded. Treaty 1 signatories were angered that the Canadian government was not recognizing promises agreed to orally in treaty negotiations.

Implications
Morris realized that due to the close connection of the Plains Indigenous peoples resolving conflicts with aggrieved parties was vital to confirming positive relations with other communities. Because of this, Morris agreed to implement the requested treaty revisions the following year and addressed annuity grievances that had not been paid. The effort of Treaty 1 leaders to disrupt Treaty 4 negotiations led to revisions of Treaties 1 and 2 circa 1875.
Sources

In Morris' report from "The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories Including the Negotiations on which they were based, and other Information relating thereto" he details the negotiations between himself and Salteaux signatories of Treaty 1, pages 134-137.

Sub Event
Potential signatories informed of government failure by Treaty 1 signatories.
Date
1871-00-00
Theme(s)

Treaty 4

Summary

Speakers and representatives from Aboriginal groups present at Fort Qu’Appelle for the first five days of treaty talks emphasized their displeasure with the way Rupert’s Land was transferred to the Dominion of Canada. The issue revolved around the Hudson’s Bay Company’s pretension that it had the right to dispose of First Nations lands to Canada, and also opposed the surveying of tracts of land for the company, as they had never ceded the land to the HBC.

Implications
This case highlights the Aboriginal understanding of land rights compared to the European understandings. The differing European and Aboriginal understanding of land rights would come to a head in the aftermath of treaty negotiations. Aboriginal signatories had agreed to share the land with settlers and the Canadian Government, while Canadian officials argue they had relinquished their land claims. European understandings of land rights revolved around the liberal ideology of private property, and the development of "unused" land. These two world views were highly incompatible in the eyes of the Canadian Government, and the European style of property rights would prevail as the government would implement reserve systems, relocate Indigenous peoples, and create policies that would greatly hinder Indigenous peoples land and treaty rights.
Sources

Morris, Alexander. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North- West Territories Including the Negotiations on which they were based, and other Information relating thereto. Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1991. 77-115.

Sub Event
Aboriginal Assertion of Land Rights in the Aftermath of the Rupert's Land Transfer
Date
1874-09-08
Theme(s)

Treaty 4

Summary

A key aspect of the Treaty 4 discussions was Lieutenant-Governor Alexander Morris’ offer to teach Indigenous signatories “the cunning of the white man.” Two key aspects of this educational assistance was meant to be the provisioning of agricultural assistance and establishment of schools.

Implications
Agricultural assistance and schooling was to be implemented on a voluntary basis. Highlighted by Morris’ statement during the treaty negotiations: “when they [the treaty signatories] are ready for it she [the Queen] will send schoolmasters on every reserve and pay them.” However, through an Indian Act amendment these programs became mandatory. The Severalty Policy was put in place to discourage communal farming in order to assimilate Indigenous farmers into the European style of individual, nuclear family, run plots. The Peasant Farming Policy was also implemented that made it mandatory for Indigenous farmers to use subpar and out of date tools. Additionally, schools were to be controlled by Indigenous governments, instead the federal Residential School system was used to undermine Indigenous cultures, languages, and lifestyles. This change was contrary to the treaty negotiations and was meant to further Canada’s goal of assimilation.
Sub Event
Negotiating Schooling and Agricultural Assistance
Date
1874-09-08
Theme(s)

Treaty 4 Adhesion

Summary

The final adhesion to Treaty 4 occurred in September, 1877 at Fort Walsh. Although Indigenous people did not cede their rights to the land, government officials recorded in the written document that they had. In exchange for transfer of title, the Dominion of Canada on behalf of the Queen promised to provide one-time presents, annual annuities, reserves, farming implements, the construction of schools, and guaranteed hunting, trapping and fishing rights.

Implications
As they did not speak or write English fluently, First Nations leaders relied on interpreters and oral agreements during the negotiations. Some of these agreements were not included in the written documents. As well, the Canadian Government avoided implementing aspects of the written treaty document to curb their spending. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discontentment surrounded the implementation of Treaty 4. In the subsequent years and decades many First Nations signatories complained that the government was not preventing starvation, preserving their livelihoods, or their sovereignty. The government was continually reluctant to uphold their end of the negotiations, in fact, utilizing discriminatory policies that would cause undue harm to Indigenous peoples.These issues stemmed from differing interpretations of the treaty and its intentions by First Nations signatories compared to the Canadian Government. The debate over the intentions of the treaties continued throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty first century. However, while the government claimed ignorance to the true intention of treaties, they were assertive and completely aware of the assimilative policies implemented, and aimed to remove Indigenous peoples from Canadian society altogether.
Sub Event
Fort Walsh
Date
1877-09-25

Treaty 4 Adhesion

Summary

Additional adhesions to Treaty 4 occurred at Fort Pelly in the summer of 1876 under the supervision of A. McKay and W.H. Nagle. The First Nations communities agreed to the same terms initially agreed upon on September 15, 1874. Although First Nations leaders did not cede their rights to the land, government officials recorded in the written document that they had. In exchange for transfer of title, the Dominion of Canada on behalf of the Queen promised to provide one-time presents, annual annuities, farming implements, the construction of schools, and guaranteed hunting, trapping and fishing rights.

Implications
As they did not speak or write English fluently, First Nations leaders relied on interpreters and oral agreements during the negotiations. Some of these agreements were not included in the written documents. As well, the Canadian Government avoided implementing aspects of the written treaty document to curb their spending. -------------------------------------------------------- Discontentment surrounded the implementation of Treaty 4. In the subsequent years and decades many First Nations signatories complained that the government was not preventing starvation, preserving their livelihoods, or their sovereignty. The government was continually reluctant to uphold their end of the negotiations, in fact, utilizing discriminatory policies that would cause undue harm to Indigenous peoples. These issues stemmed from differing interpretations of the treaty and its intentions by First Nations signatories compared to the Canadian Government. The debate over the intentions of the treaties continued throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty first century. However, while the government claimed ignorance to the true intention of treaties, they were assertive and completely aware of the assimilative policies implemented, and aimed to remove Indigenous peoples from Canadian society altogether.
Sub Event
Fort Pelly
Date
1876-08-24

Treaty 4 Adhesion

Summary

At Swan Lake W.J. Christie (Indian Commissioner) and M.G. Dickieson (Acting commissioner) oversaw a new adhesion to Treaty 4. The Aboriginal communities agreed to the same terms initially agreed upon on September 15, 1874. Although they did not cede their rights to the land, government officials recorded in the written document that they had. In exchange for transfer of title, the Dominion of Canada on behalf of the Queen promised to provide one-time presents, annual annuities, reserves, farming implements, the construction of schools, and guaranteed hunting, trapping and fishing rights.

Implications
As they did not speak or write English fluently, First Nations leaders relied on interpreters and oral agreements during the negotiations. Some of these agreements were not included in the written documents. As well, the Canadian Government avoided implementing aspects of the written treaty document to curb their spending. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discontentment surrounded the implementation of Treaty 4. In the subsequent years and decades many First Nations signatories complained that the government was not preventing starvation, preserving their livelihoods, or their sovereignty. The government was continually reluctant to uphold their end of the negotiations, in fact, utilizing discriminatory policies that would cause undue harm to Indigenous peoples.These issues stemmed from differing interpretations of the treaty and its intentions by First Nations signatories compared to the Canadian Government. The debate over the intentions of the treaties continued throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty first century. However, while the government claimed ignorance to the true intention of treaties, they were assertive and completely aware of the assimilative policies implemented, and aimed to remove Indigenous peoples from Canadian society altogether.
Sub Event
Swan Lake
Date
1875-09-24

Treaty 4 Adhesion

Summary

One day after a new adhestion had been signed to Treaty 4, there were various additional signatories to the treaty at the Qu’Appelle Lakes. The Aboriginal communities agreed to the same terms initially agreed upon on September 15, 1874. Although they did not cede their rights to the land, government officials recorded in the written document that they had. In exchange for transfer of title, the Dominion of Canada on behalf of the Queen promised to provide one-time presents, annual annuities, reserves, farming implements, the construction of schools, and guaranteed hunting, trapping and fishing rights.

Implications
As they did not speak or write English fluently, First Nations leaders relied on interpreters and oral agreements during the negotiations. Some of these agreements were not included in the written documents. As well, the Canadian Government avoided implementing aspects of the written treaty document to curb their spending. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discontentment surrounded the implementation of Treaty 4. In the subsequent years and decades many First Nations signatories complained that the government was not preventing starvation, preserving their livelihoods, or their sovereignty. The government was continually reluctant to uphold their end of the negotiations, in fact, utilizing discriminatory policies that would cause undue harm to Indigenous peoples.These issues stemmed from differing interpretations of the treaty and its intentions by First Nations signatories compared to the Canadian Government. The debate over the intentions of the treaties continued throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty first century. However, while the government claimed ignorance to the true intention of treaties, they were assertive and completely aware of the assimilative policies implemented, and aimed to remove Indigenous peoples from Canadian society altogether.
Sub Event
Fort Qu'Appelle
Date
1875-09-09

Treaty 4 Adhesion

Summary

Six days after the conclusion of talks at Fort Qu’Appelle, Lieutenant Governor Alexander Morris and his delegation traveled to Fort Ellice and met with various other Aboriginal groups. After a brief discussion and an explanation of the treaty’s terms, the adhesion was signed. The Aboriginal communities agreed to the same terms initially agreed upon on September 15, 1874. Although they did not cede their rights to the land, government officials recorded in the written document that they had. In exchange for transfer of title, the Dominion of Canada on behalf of the Queen promised to provide one-time presents, annual annuities, reserves, farming implements, the construction of schools, and guaranteed hunting, trapping and fishing rights.

Implications
As they did not speak or write English fluently, First Nations leaders relied on interpreters and oral agreements during the negotiations. Some of these agreements were not included in the written documents. As well, the Canadian Government avoided implementing aspects of the written treaty document to curb their spending. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discontentment surrounded the implementation of Treaty 4. In the subsequent years and decades many First Nations signatories complained that the government was not preventing starvation, preserving their livelihoods, or their sovereignty. The government was continually reluctant to uphold their end of the negotiations, in fact, utilizing discriminatory policies that would cause undue harm to Indigenous peoples.These issues stemmed from differing interpretations of the treaty and its intentions by First Nations signatories compared to the Canadian Government. The debate over the intentions of the treaties continued throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty first century. However, while the government claimed ignorance to the true intention of treaties, they were assertive and completely aware of the assimilative policies implemented, and aimed to remove Indigenous peoples from Canadian society altogether.
Sources

Morris, Alexander. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North- West Territories Including the Negotiations on which they were based, and other Information relating thereto. Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1991. 124-125.

Sub Event
Fort Ellice
Date
1874-09-21