Community Breaking/Fracturing

Mosquito/Grizzly Bear's Head/Lean Man Land Surrenders

Summary

14,400 acres of land on the Mosquito/Grizzly Bear’s Head/Lean Man was sold, apparently at the band’s request because of their dwindling and aging population that required more government aid. More than half of the band's reserve was surrendered.

Result

The request for the surrender apparently came from the band, but there was also external demand for it, and because there was no elected band leadership at the time, it is unclear who is speaking for the band in the request. There is a possibility of external/government influence.

Implications
In the 1870s, the Government of Canada negotiated various treaties with Indigenous peoples of the Prairies. One of the crucial elements promised in these treaties was land that would be reserved for the Indians. And yet, less than a dozen years into the new century, almost a quarter of those valuable reserves that were considered essential to enable Indians to make the transition to an agricultural economy had been surrendered back to the government. Many of the land surrenders that occurred on the Prairies raise arguments regarding the validity of the surrender. Indigenous communities often allege non-compliance with the Indian Act surrender procedures, being pressured to surrender under duress, undue influence on behalf of Indian agents and government officials, unconscionability, lack of informed consent, and breach of fiduciary obligations in the taking of the surrender itself and in the management and administration of the land and the proceeds after the surrender. Over 100 surrenders were obtained on the Prairies between 1896 and 1911, making way for western expansion and an influx of immigrants. Although government officials often argued that Indians had more land than they could use, many of these bands had experienced population loss due to epidemics - a population loss that was in part a product of the government's refusal to provide promised farming implements or food rations. The government played an active part in creating the conditions leading to population loss on reserves, and subsequently took advantage of the situation to gain reserve land from Indian bands. In addition, many of the nations that surrendered their land were in difficult financial situations, and were often indebted to the government. The sale of land was seen as a means to pay back their debts or to purchase much needed food, clothing and farming implements.----------------Evidence collected through various Indian Claims Commission inquiries suggest the land was often bought from the bands at a cost much lower than what it was resold at. For example, the government would offer the band $1.50/acre, and would then sell it to farmers or land developers for $3.00/acre. The government took advantage of the fact that the bands were in dire need of money and knowingly offered them less than what the land was worth. Most bands had little experience with real estate, land development and speculation, while government officials were well aware of the factors affecting land value and were well connected to the business community. In addition, the notions of private property and land division differed greatly from Indigenous philosophies of communal land use, ownership and responsibility. As with the signing of the numbered Treaties, historians and Indigenous community members have argued that cultural differences and power imbalances allowed for confusion and abuse in the processes of land surrender. As the buffalo populations were dwindling, many Indigenous nations were facing starvation, and entering into treaties was deemed by some leaders to be the best solution to avoid the complete loss of their bands. In this situation, government officials were in a position of power to negotiate treaty terms that were favourable to the Canadian state, although many Indigenous leaders did press the officials for better terms for their bands, and requested additional farming tools, schools and medicine chests. However, the government's failure to abide by the terms of the legally binding treaties was not uncommon; many bands never received promised farming implements / livestock, and food rations. Denied the opportunity and the proper tools to succeed in developing agricultural economies, many bands faced hardship and starvation as they once again negotiated the terms to land surrenders with government officials. As settler interest in western lands increased, the federal government responded with a series of Orders in Council and amendments to the Indian Act which increased the government’s control over reserve affairs and facilitated the surrender of treaty reserves. One such measure occurred in 1911 when an amendment to the Indian Act allowed the government to take reserve land without consent when the reserve was in or near a town of more than 8000 people, or where the land was needed for public purposes (please see database entry entitled: Laurier Government Gives Itself Power to Claim Reserve Land for further information on this subject). Although more research is required regarding this subject, some evidence suggests personal interest of Department officials played a part in generating demand for the surrender of Indian lands. The 1915 Ferguson Commission was appointed by the federal government to investigate Indian Affairs officials who were suspected of conflicts of interest in their dealings with reserve land surrenders. Please see database entry entitled: Ferguson Royal Commission for further information on this subject.-------------------------Finally, as aforementioned, Indigenous leaders and historians have pointed to issues pertaining to consent in the context of reserve land surrenders. The Indian Act of 1876 specified that consent for reserve land surrender had to be obtained from the "majority of the male members of the band at the full age of twenty-one years, at a meeting or council thereof summoned for that purpose according to their rules." Although it was clear from the Indian Act that a majority vote was required, there was much debate within government circles as to whether the “majority” referred to in the Act was a majority of only the qualified members attending the surrender meeting or an absolute majority of all eligible members of the band. Consequently, many land surrenders were premised on loosely interpreted consent rules. Evidence gathered through various Indian Claims Commissions suggests government officials employed coercive measures when negotiating reserve land surrenders. On occasion, cash was offered to band members to bribe them into accepting proposed land surrenders. In addition, as some deliberations lasted several days, and votes were taken multiple times, instances occurred where a majority of band members were absent or had left the negotiations, allowing the government to secure a vote in favour of land surrender. -------------------------The loss of reserve land had many detrimental consequences for Indigenous communities, who were already faced with traditional land base dispossession as European settlement increased rapidly on the Prairies. Despite the professed goals of the federal government to assist Indigenous people in their transition to agricultural economies, many bands were left with little to no farmable land, as the best fertile land was often part of the surrender. Evidence collected throughout various Indian Claims Commission inquiries also found that several bands failed to receive the payment amounts promised by the government, if any payment at all. The loss of large parcels of land also meant a reduced access to resources and traditional hunting grounds, loss of identity and cultural disconnection. It also signified a loss of self-sufficiency and autonomy. As fertile lands were surrendered, many bands struggled to provide sufficient food for their populations, increasing their dependency on the federal government. Federal economic policies such as an 1881 amendment to the Indian Act prohibiting the sale of agricultural products by Indian bands without the consent of the Indian Agent greatly contributed to the hardship many bands faced. Please see database entry entitled Indian Act Amendment: Regulations of sale of agricultural products for further information on this subject. To conclude, in the past 30 to 40 years, many Indigenous communities on the Prairies have undertaken negotiations with the federal government to obtain compensation, either land, financial or both, as a means to redress government wrongdoings in the cases of reserve land surrenders. The Indian Specific Claims Commission, which has investigated many reserve land surrenders in Canada, was established as a temporary independent advisory body authorized to review specific claims rejected by the government and to issue non-binding decisions.
Sources

NA, RG 10, vol. 4013, file 271245, Pedley to Laird, April 4, 1905

Date
1905-04-00

Coté Land Surrenders

Summary

In 1904, the Cot. band surrendered 272 acres for the creation of a townsite and 30.06 acres for station grounds along the Canadian Northern Railway. This was only the first of many land surrenders on the Coté reserve that would significantly reduce the band's land base in the 1900s. In 1905, 18,043 acres of the eastern part of the Coté reserve was surrendered to feed the growing townsite of Kamsack. In exchange for the 18,043 acres surrendered, the band was granted approximately 6000 acres of hayland, which officials deemed more necessary for the band. Officials decided that the band would make better use of haylands, and settlers would make better use of the surrendered reserve lands. The band was also granted significantly less land than they surrendered, which suggests the deal was one-sided.

In 1907, Indian Affairs requested that the 1905 land surrender be nullified, and a new land surrender take place as the originally surrendered land was of poor quality and did not attract settlers. The new land surrender (10,740 acres) also created a boundary between the reserve and the town of Kamsack.

Result

The new surrender returned the non-ideal farmland to the band, and removed a section of the reserve closest to Kamsack, which limited the band's access to the townsite. This event demonstrates that settlers were given priority as it related to quality of farmland, despite the professed goals of the federal government to assist Indigenous people with a transition to an agricultural livelihood. It should also be noted that this transition was a legal obligation - included in the numbered treaties.

In the 1870s, the Government of Canada negotiated various treaties with Indigenous peoples of the Prairies. One of the crucial elements promised in these treaties was land that would be reserved for the Indians. And yet, less than a dozen years into the new century, almost a quarter of those valuable reserves that were considered essential to enable Indians to make the transition to an agricultural economy had been surrendered back to the government. Many of the land surrenders that occurred on the Prairies raise arguments regarding the validity of the surrender. Indigenous communities often allege non-compliance with the Indian Act surrender procedures, being pressured to surrender under duress, undue influence on behalf of Indian agents and government officials, unconscionability, lack of informed consent, and breach of fiduciary obligations in the taking of the surrender itself and in the management and administration of the land and the proceeds after the surrender. Over 100 surrenders were obtained on the Prairies between 1896 and 1911, making way for western expansion and an influx of immigrants. Although government officials often argued that Indians had more land than they could use, many of these bands had experienced population loss due to epidemics - a population loss that was in part a product of the government's refusal to provide promised farming implements or food rations. The government played an active part in creating the conditions leading to population loss on reserves, and subsequently took advantage of the situation to gain reserve land from Indian bands. In addition, many of the nations that surrendered their land were in difficult financial situations, and were often indebted to the government. The sale of land was seen as a means to pay back their debts or to purchase much needed food, clothing and farming implements

Evidence collected through various Indian Claims Commission inquiries suggest the land was often bought from the bands at a cost much lower than what it was resold at. For example, the government would offer the band $1.50/acre, and would then sell it to farmers or land developers for $3.00/acre. The government took advantage of the fact that the bands were in dire need of money and knowingly offered them less than what the land was worth. Most bands had little experience with real estate, land development and speculation, while government officials were well aware of the factors affecting land value and were well connected to the business community. In addition, the notions of private property and land division differed greatly from Indigenous philosophies of communal land use, ownership and responsibility. As with the signing of the numbered Treaties, historians and Indigenous community members have argued that cultural differences and power imbalances allowed for confusion and abuse in the processes of land surrender. As the buffalo populations were dwindling, many Indigenous nations were facing starvation, and entering into treaties was deemed by some leaders to be the best solution to avoid the complete loss of their bands. In this situation, government officials were in a position of power to negotiate treaty terms that were favourable to the Canadian state, although many Indigenous leaders did press the officials for better terms for their bands, and requested additional farming tools, schools and medicine chests. However, the government's failure to abide by the terms of the legally binding treaties was not uncommon; many bands never received promised farming implements / livestock, and food rations. Denied the opportunity and the proper tools to succeed in developing agricultural economies, many bands faced hardship and starvation as they once again negotiated the terms to land surrenders with government officials. As settler interest in western lands increased, the federal government responded with a series of Orders in Council and amendments to the Indian Act which increased the government’s control over reserve affairs and facilitated the surrender of treaty reserves. One such measure occurred in 1911 when an amendment to the Indian Act allowed the government to take reserve land without consent when the reserve was in or near a town of more than 8000 people, or where the land was needed for public purposes (please see database entry entitled: Laurier Government Gives Itself Power to Claim Reserve Land for further information on this subject). Although more research is required regarding this subject, some evidence suggests personal interest of Department officials played a part in generating demand for the surrender of Indian lands. The 1915 Ferguson Commission was appointed by the federal government to investigate Indian Affairs officials who were suspected of conflicts of interest in their dealings with reserve land surrenders. Please see database entry entitled: Ferguson Royal Commission for further information on this subject

Finally, as aforementioned, Indigenous leaders and historians have pointed to issues pertaining to consent in the context of reserve land surrenders. The Indian Act of 1876 specified that consent for reserve land surrender had to be obtained from the "majority of the male members of the band at the full age of twenty-one years, at a meeting or council thereof summoned for that purpose according to their rules." Although it was clear from the Indian Act that a majority vote was required, there was much debate within government circles as to whether the “majority” referred to in the Act was a majority of only the qualified members attending the surrender meeting or an absolute majority of all eligible members of the band. Consequently, many land surrenders were premised on loosely interpreted consent rules. Evidence gathered through various Indian Claims Commissions suggests government officials employed coercive measures when negotiating reserve land surrenders. On occasion, cash was offered to band members to bribe them into accepting proposed land surrenders. In addition, as some deliberations lasted several days, and votes were taken multiple times, instances occurred where a majority of band members were absent or had left the negotiations, allowing the government to secure a vote in favour of land surrender.

The loss of reserve land had many detrimental consequences for Indigenous communities, who were already faced with traditional land base dispossession as European settlement increased rapidly on the Prairies. Despite the professed goals of the federal government to assist Indigenous people in their transition to agricultural economies, many bands were left with little to no farmable land, as the best fertile land was often part of the surrender. Evidence collected throughout various Indian Claims Commission inquiries also found that several bands failed to receive the payment amounts promised by the government, if any payment at all. The loss of large parcels of land also meant a reduced access to resources and traditional hunting grounds, loss of identity and cultural disconnection. It also signified a loss of self-sufficiency and autonomy. As fertile lands were surrendered, many bands struggled to provide sufficient food for their populations, increasing their dependency on the federal government. Federal economic policies such as an 1881 amendment to the Indian Act prohibiting the sale of agricultural products by Indian bands without the consent of the Indian Agent greatly contributed to the hardship many bands faced. Please see database entry entitled Indian Act Amendment: Regulations of sale of agricultural products for further information on this subject. To conclude, in the past 30 to 40 years, many Indigenous communities on the Prairies have undertaken negotiations with the federal government to obtain compensation, either land, financial or both, as a means to redress government wrongdoings in the cases of reserve land surrenders. The Indian Specific Claims Commission, which has investigated many reserve land surrenders in Canada, was established as a temporary independent advisory body authorized to review specific claims rejected by the government and to issue non-binding decisions.    

Sources

NA, RG 10,vol. 4011, file 260260-1, Report of July 19, 1905; NA, RG 10, vol. 4011, file 260260-2

Fill

 

Date
1904-07-00

Carry the Kettle Land Surrender

Summary

In 1901, Indian Agent Thomas Aspdin proposed a land surrender to band membership, who told him they did not want to surrender any of their reserve. In 1904, the band requested the surrender of 5760 acres of land in exchange for the Department paying its debts from the purchase of a threshing outfit.

Result

In 1901, the band did not want to surrender any of their land, and Indian Affairs records depict the reserve favourably, noting their self-sufficiency. It is unknown why the band changed their mind three years later and agreed to surrender part of their reserve.

Sources

NA, RG 10, vol. 4001, file208590-1, letters of February 12 and 25; letter of December 16, 1904.

Date
1905-00-00
Community

Broadview Petition for Crooked Lakes Land Sale

Summary

Some 200 citizens of Broadview sent a petition to Ottawa to open up the sale of a three-mile stretch of land in the Crooked Lakes reserve, claiming it was impeding the growth of the town. This petition followed one penned in 1891 by Broadview residents urging the government to open reserve land for settlement.

Implications
Euro-Canadian citizens internalized colonial narratives perpetuated by the government and media as it related to the rights of non-Indigenous people to occupy the lands of "uncivilized" or "barbaric" peoples. One underlying tenet of this Western philosophy of non-Indigenous expansion, domination and control was the Lockean belief that land must be "productive", that is, properly cultivated in a European agricultural manner. As well, such land must be commoditized and subdivided into plots of ownership that could be individually owned, allowing for participation in the capitalist, cash-based economy as the value of the land was leveraged through mortgaging and/or the fruits of agricultural labor sold for a profit. Those who did not participate in Western systems of capitalistic commoditization were deemed "uncivilized," thus necessitating their assimilation through oppressive government policy and sequestration on small reserves.
Sources

RG 10, vol. 3732, file 26,623, Petition from the Residents of Broadview and Whitewood,1902; J.D McLean to Rev. J.G Stephens, 2 April 1902.

Date
1902-00-00

Pheasant Rump and Ocean Man Amalgamation to White Bear

Summary

First reserve land surrender in Saskatchewan. Clifford Sifton forced Pheasant Rump and Ocean Man First Nations to surrender their entire land base (46,720 acres) and move onto White Bear’s reserve. It is suggested from an interpreter’s records that Indian Affairs superintendent James A. Smart may have threatened the band with forcible removal if they did not agree to the terms of surrender. The land was sold for a price of $1.23 an acre, while nearby non-reserve lands were being sold for approximately $3 an acre.

Implications
The band received less than market value for their land, suggesting that finding a non-Indigenous buyer was more important than ensuring that Indigenous people received a fair price. Thus, after having been threatened with forcible removal, the band's inability to enforce a sale price at par with market value resulted in their economic exploitation. Several sociocultural problems arose because of this amalgamation, which resulted in the combination of four distinct Indigenous nations (Saulteaux, Cree, Nakota, Dakota) being restricted to one reserve. In the 1970s Ocean Man descendants were part of a land claim launched against the federal government that eventually saw the successful re-establishment of both the band (1988) and their reserve (1992).
Sources

Laird to the minister of the interior, 10 August 1877, LAC RG 10, vol. 3650, file 8347.

Sub Event
Pheasant Rump and Ocean Man Land Surrenders
Date
1901-00-00

Subdivision of Crooked Lakes and Muscowpetung Agency Reserves

Summary

Subdivision surveys, following Reed’s severalty policy, began with the creation of 40 acre plots to be divided among individuals/families.

Implications
Severalty policies were intended to discourage communal farming, instead encouraging the nuclear, single household, family unit. The government rationalized that Severalty policies would discourage communal farming practices (already undertaken by some Indigenous peoples); they feared that the organization and success of Indigenous communities would result in similar occurrences that started North-West Resistance. Severalty was also a tool of assimilation, forcing Indigenous peoples into "acceptable" forms of colonial/European farming. Please see other database entries on the Severalty Policy for more information on its impacts.
Date
1889-00-00

Plan to Eliminate File Hills Agency

Summary

Hayter Reed noted in a communication with Vankoughnet that he intended to dissolve the File Hills agency, combining its remaining reserve population with the Crooked Lakes, Muscowpetung, Touchwood, and Pelly agencies.

Implications
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.
Sources

Reed to Vankoughnet, November 1889 [NA, Reed Papers, vol. 21, large letterbook file, no.94]

Date
1889-11-00

Introduction of Severalty Policy

Summary

In his annual reports of 1886 and 1888, Indian Commissioner Hayter Reed introduced his plan for the subdivision of reserve lands into individual farms with the goal of making ‘self-reliant farmers,’ eliminating reserves, and the cultural make up of Prairie peoples. The subdivision of reserves in Treaty 4 and 6 territories began in 1889, starting with the Piapot, Muscowpetung, and Pasqua Reserves.

Implications
The policy of Severalty was created to eliminate the tribal system, specifically by creating family-run private farms, replacing communal and cooperative farming efforts. This policy was part of the government's assimilation plan by implementing capitalist economic systems on reserves, which undermined values of collectivity and also restricted Indigenous peoples from the benefits of communal knowledge sharing, organization of community resources, and farming that better addressed hunger.

Sources

Canadian House of Commons, Sessional Papers, vol. 22.16 (1888), 28. Canada. Sessional Papers. “Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Year ended 31 December 1889.” Canada, Sessional Papers (No. 12) 1890, 165, Reed to Superintendent General, 31 October 1889.

Date
1888-00-00

Memo Recommends Abolishment of Tribal System

Summary

Following the 1885 resistance, Assistant Commissioner Hayter Reed issued a memo that classified bands into “loyal” and “disloyal,” corresponding with a system of reward and punishment for loyalty or disloyalty. The memo also advocated for the abolishment of the tribal system for all bands, loyal or disloyal - when Reed became the Indian Commissioner in 1888, he put his policy of tribal system abolishment – “severalty” – into place on a large scale. This policy contributed to the political disintegration of First Nations.

Implications
For more information on "severalty" policies, please read "Lost Harvests: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy."
Sources

McCord Museum, McGill University, Reed Papers, “Address,” 30. Canadian House of Commons, Sessional Papers, vol. 23, no. 12 (1889), 165.

Date
1885-00-00

Disintegration/Amalgamation of Disloyal Bands

Summary

The Canadian Government determined a list of "unloyal Bands" after the 1885 resistance, these Bands were dissolved and amalgamated with existing bands. One Arrow combined with Beardy, Muskeg Lake distributed between Ahtahkakoop and Mistawasis, Lucky Man spread among others in the Battleford and Peace Hills agencies, and Big Bear’s band was broken up, with many joining Thunderchild and others joining other Bands in Battleford and Fort Pitt agencies.

Sources

Canada. Sessional Papers. “Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Year Ended 31 December 1885.

Fill

 

Date
1885-00-00