Local Governance

This was an attempt by the federal government to further encourage Aboriginal groups to sell off portions of their reserve lands for settlement, as they would receive greater immediate financial benefit from the sale of their reserve lands. It also served to remove Indians from reserves next to a sizeable town. The inclusion of the Indian Advancement Act as part of the Indian Act created one overarching piece of legislation concerning Aboriginal people. With the amendment to section 70 of the Indian Act, monies owed to Indigenous peoples but held in trust were taken and used at the discretion of the government for what was perceived as improvement of reserves and Indigenous lives by construction and maintenance of schools, voluntary sector supports (charities), and local infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ditches and watercourses. Indigenous people were perceived as being socially and intellectually incapable of making these decisions on their own. The resultant loss of agency and autonomy had long-term consequences in terms of undermining their capacity to engage their decision-making skills in these areas. The building of government-authorized and church-run schools hastened the assimilative agenda. Voluntary sector supports such as charities became necessary as cycles of poverty became entrenched in Indigenous communities and previous cultural means of providing intra and inter-community financial support, such as the Potlatch, had become outlawed. During 1906 debates for the land surrender provision to be included in the Indian Act amendments of the same year, a speaker named R.S. Lake, a member of the North-West Territories Legislative Assembly, delivered his argument as to why the Crooked Lake reserve reduced in size. Pressure to open up nearby reserves for white settlement (Cowesses, Kahkewistahaw and Ochapawace) had begun as early as 1885, shortly after these bands had moved on to their allotted lands near Crooked Lake. Lake argued that “the people in that section are most anxious that a portion at any rate of that reserve should be placed on the market.” The anxiousness of the settlers was demonstrated by multiple petitions to Clifford Sifton, minister of the Department, asking him to at least open up a 3 mile strip along the southern edge of the reserve’s boundary. As such, the dominant EuroCanadian perspective was that the reserve was not being used to capacity and thus was not only hampering white settlement in the area, but was also placed next to the main line of the CPR, which cut off a great deal of business for the nearby towns of Whitewood and Broadview. As well, since the reserve’s use of the land did not conform to Eurocentric standards, which dictated that land existed to be “productive” (ie. cultivated through agriculture), it was being wasted by sitting idle and was decried as “worse than useless” by Broadview Justice of the Peace Thomas Evans. Lake believed that the amount of land available to the Indigenous people living on the reserve was far more than they could ever use, according to his own standards of what they were capable of cultivating for agricultural purposes, which belies an ignorance of Indigenous subsistence patterns and the volume of land needed to live off the land sustainably. He pronounced the supposed waste of land and obstruction to settlement to be a “great drawback to the progress of our country.” In the same debate, Mr. R.L. Borden acknowledged that western Canada was rapidly developing - it had indeed received an influx of approximately one million immigrants between the years of 1896 and 1905. In that case, Borden argued that it was the government’s responsibility to make every effort to bring about better conditions as far as the development of the white population was concerned. This prioritization of white settlement interests over any legal/treaty obligations to Indigenous peoples was echoed by Minister of the Interior Oliver, who noted that “it would never do to allow the possibility of constructing a railway to rest upon the good will of a body of men who have no interest whatever in its construction...there is a recognized public necessity in connection with a railroad which makes it proper that private rights should be to some extent overridden...of course the interests of the [white] people must come first, and if it becomes a question between the Indians and the whites, the interests of the whites will have to be provided for...in the last resort legislation would be necessary.” This foreshadowed the inclusion of the land surrender provision in the Indian Act amendments of that year. During the same debate, Mr. Fowler also noted that it was not in the best interests of the Indians, morally speaking, for them to be so close to the cities as they had a habit of picking up more of the vices of the whites than their virtues: “Moreover it is not particularly good for the morals of the Indians themselves that they should be so close to the towns as they are in these cases. As we know, the Indians are not so strong to resist temptation as are the whites; they more easily acquire the vices of the whites than they do their virtues. Of course, the rights and interests of the Indians must be considered and safeguarded by the Indian Department; but it would be a very important matter for the people of these communities which I know, and of which therefore I speak, for the department to take steps to remove these Indians from reserves, paying them a proper and reasonable price for their lands….I think this is a matter that might be well looked into.” By presuming to paternalistically act on behalf of the best interests of the local Indigenous people by opening up their reserve land and moving them back from the town site, as well as providing the opportunity for the destitute individuals on these reserves to receive much-needed income from the sale of the lands, the government was able to maintain the appearance of acting in good faith while also opening the area up for white settlement. It should be noted that in an 1886 correspondence between Indian Agent McDonald and Indian Commissioner David Laird, McDonald stated "the Indians will be giving up far more valuable lands than they will be receiving." McDonald reiterated these sentiments in an 1891 correspondence to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs: “although I am most anxious that the views of the people of Broadview should be met, still from my position as Indian Agent I am bound in the interests of the Indians to point out the difficulties in the way, which are tersely these. If these lands are surrendered by the Indians, no reasonable money value can recompense them, as their Hay lands would be completely gone, and this would necessitate no further increase of stock, which would of course be fatal to their further quick advancement, and would be deplorable, and the only alternative that I can see is to give them Hay lands of equal quantity and value immediately adjacent to the Reserves interested, which I do not think is possible now.” Chief Kahkewistahaw himself is recorded, in a 1902 letter between Commissioner Laird and Department Secretary J.D. McLean, as having told the representatives from the Department: “I will tell you what I think. I was glad when I heard that you were coming to see us. When we made the treaty at Qu'Appelle you told me to choose out land for myself and now you come to speak to me here. We were told to take this land and we are going to keep it. Did I not tell you a long time ago that you would come some time, that you would come and ask me to sell you this land back again, but I told you at that time, No.”

This is an example of the way in which Aboriginal groups had to negotiate complex and paternalistic bureaucratic structures in order to arrange communal gatherings. Such gatherings became particularly difficult to organize following the 1895 Sun Dance ban as a result of government paranoia about the detrimental consequences of participation in "pagan" Indigenous ceremonies. This event shows that Indigenous peoples were successful in asserting autonomy against the Canadian Government in new ways that evolved due to the colonial rule; Indigenous peoples negotiated ways in which they could celebrate with their communities even when the government's mission was to assimilate Indigenous peoples, thus attempting to remove their cultures and spiritualities.

It was Reed's intention that by dissolving the File Hills agency and reintegrating its members into other agencies, there would be less political power in the hands of members. This move would also open up more land for Euro-Canadian settlement and reduce the financial burden on Indian Affairs.

The Pass System was not enacted by legislation, and therefore authorities had no legal power to enforce it. Early on in its implementation, the NWMP protested the enforcement of this system due to its not being codified in law. They attempted to make an organizational decision to not enforce it. Hayter Reed, as head of the Department of Indian Affairs, fought this in court and ultimately won, reversing the decision of the NWMP to not enforce the system. Although Reed knew that the system had no basis in law, he believed that this should be kept secret from First Nations people for as long as possible. The decision to keep the unlawfulness of the pass system secret was widely understood by Indian agents and the NWMP. By keeping First Nations people out of cities and white settlements, it functioned as a system of racial segregation that was in effect for over 60 years, well into the 1940s. Isolating First Nations people on reserves made them easier to monitor and easier to control through distribution and withholding of rations, since it also allowed Indian Agents to control the ability of First Nations people to buy and sell their agricultural goods and other products that would contribute to making a livelihood. The intentional restriction from competition in the marketplace prevented their economic success and led to the failure of the agricultural project on reserves. Restricting Indigenous people from competing in the local marketplace also served to give the white settler population economic success. The pass system also functioned as a disciplinary device as it enabled the Agent to distribute or withhold access to goods or services as deemed necessary to maintain control. If an Indian did not behave in accordance with the Agent's wishes, the Agent could refuse or delay a permit or access to rations or other services. Indians who did behave in accordance with the Agent's wishes were favoured with various kinds of land and assistance. An Indian who fell out of the good opinion of the agent would be forced to sell his cattle and find debilitating work, often in the form of manual labor such as clearing bush or picking rocks, which was seasonal and thus not always available. In the long-term, the effect of this policy is such that it drove Indigenous people away from farming and more deeply into poverty.

This event was seen by the government as evidence of an incorrect perception that Aboriginal peoples were "violent in nature," and the difficulty inherent to governing them. As well, there history shows that the Agency perceived Aboriginal peoples were "lazy by nature," as correspondence from 1880 records the residents “loitering” while the farmhouse was kept in a very filthy condition. This was reiterated in a letter written by Indian Agent MacDonald on January 7, 1884: “There is no starvation, very little. Bacon has been issued during the last month, owing to the fact that a very large number of rabbits were caught and also fish. This month and February will be the most trying for the indians. The fish do not take bait as in other months, and the rabbits are very poor, and the Crees will not take the trouble to find them.” This demonstrates a tendency to blame Aboriginal peoples for issues beyond their control, despite acknowledging that the month of February would be “most trying” in regards to finding food. ---------------- Following the incident, a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs states: “After a close inspection of every family I decided that with two or three exceptions Yellow Calf’s band should not draw rations except as above mentioned as they were better circumstanced than any of the rest, having better chances for both fish and game as well as being fairly well provided with grain which was about being groomed into flour at a mill just about to start - Yellow Calf himself being better off than many white farmers - therefore it was not starvation which caused the band to commit the overt act of which they are accused.” The Commissioner’s letter is indicative of the overarching federal narrative that Aboriginal people were entitled, deceptive, obstinate and rebellious. -------------------- Notably, this governmental dialogue has an absence of first-person narrative from the Aboriginal participants in resisting the cutting of rations and demanding better government support. Euro-Canadians were notoriously unfamiliar with patterns of subsistence living and were likely unaware of the nuances of such lifestyles, such as demonstrating respect for animal populations by not exploiting or over-hunting to ensure that said population survived a season of low numbers.

Greater power over Aboriginal economic practices was given to Euro-Canadian officials as a means to force compliance with government policies. The government's paternalistic rationale is that it would protect Indians from being swindled by non-Indians and also prevented them from being able to barter for items the government perceived as dangerous to Indians, such as alcohol. Restrictions on sales of their agricultural products made it more difficult for Aboriginal people to make a living farming, as when they were able to produce agricultural surpluses they had difficulty selling them off-reserve. According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, there is evidence that in the 1880's non-Indigenous farmers complained about the competition provided by Indigenous farmers.

The Rupert's Land Transfer provided Canada with the right under British law to extract resources from the region, while also leading to a promotion of settlement and agricultural development of fertile areas. This initiated significant transformation in the West and it also incited anger amongst many Metis and First Nations peoples who were not consulted in the sale or transfer of their territories. While the transfer and desire to promote settlement in the North-West Territories led towards the negotiation of treaties with the region's First Nations inhabitants, the land rights of the Metis were ignored, eventually resulting in the resistances of 1870 and 1885.