C. Terms of the Prairie Treaties

The terms of the numbered treaties signed between the Indians of the Prairies and the Government of Canada in the 1870s were significantly influenced by the intentions and understanding of both parties. As such, the treaties did not constitute the full wishes of the government or the full wishes of the Indians. Since the treaties were signed, historians have debated the extent to which the government was exercising a benevolent plan towards the Indians as well as the extent to which the First Nations understood and participated in the treaty negotiations.

Traditionally, the terms of the numbered treaties on the Prairies were seen to reflect a benevolent plan which the government of Canada had developed to civilise and care for its aboriginal peoples, leading them towards a more advanced, agricultural lifestyle. For example, the terms that refer to agricultural aid and schooling were held as evidence that the government was benevolently and generously attempting to help the Queen's "red children". Recently, new interpretations have contested this theory and emphasised the government's dependence on precedent, their determination to concede only what it absolutely had to.

First and foremost, the government of Canada intended to deal with the Prairies First Nations according to the precedent set by the Robinson Treaties, signed in Upper Canada in 1850. These treaties provided for an initial cash settlement, annuities, and reserves for the Lake Huron and Superior bands. They formalised the right of Indian chiefs to choose their own reserve grounds and also enshrined hunting and fishing rights, provided the land was not needed for settlement. However, the Robinson Treaties contained no provisions for any other sort of governmental assistance to the First Nations. Thus, the government, on the basis of precedent, believed that the terms of the Robinson Treaties would be the only concessions necessary to procure binding agreements on the Prairies. In addition, Indian demands during the negotiations of the Robinson Treaties were largely denied, leading the government to believe that later negotiations would be equally smooth and easy. As a result, on the first day of negotiations for Treaty One, the government offered an agreement along the same lines as those given to the Eastern First Nations twenty years earlier. Negotiators for the government informed the Treaty One Indians that they could not expect to gain any more concessions than the First Nations in the East had gained, showing the governmental attempt to adhere to precedent. Although the government had been forced to make oral concessions during the discussions for Treaties One and Two, as well as written assurances, later negotiators offered only a gratuity, annuities, and reserves to the Treaty Three bands. It was the government's expectation that this treaty could still be formulated according to the precedent of the Robinson Treaties. Further, with the negotiation of Treaty Six, the government offered only the terms common to all of the previous numbered treaties. In each case, they were denied their attempt to follow precedent and additional terms were added.

Because of the Canadian government's attempts to adhere to the precedent of previous agreements and because of the precarious financial situation of the fledgling government, the negotiators for the Prairie treaties were determined to formulate terms as beneficial to the government as possible. In other words, the negotiators had directives from the government to concede as little as possible while ensuring the surrender of Native title to land in the West. Initially, government negotiators intended only to grant annuities and provide reserves for Western Indians. Thus, on the first day of negotiations for Treaty One, only those provisions were offered. All warnings that the Indians were awake to their own interests and would deal for the best agreement they could achieve were virtually ignored, and it was believed that the Indians would gratefully accept the offered terms. The negotiators met First Nation demands with little willingness to compromise or concede. They threatened the Natives with the spectre of approaching settlement and the possibility of receiving no compensation or protection from the government at all, if they did not accept the offered terms. Despite the beliefs of Indian acquiescence and the threat of settlement, negotiators soon realised that, unless last-minute concessions were made, a treaty would not be signed at all. As an agreement with the Treaty One peoples was necessary for the implementation of government policy, some oral concessions were made and the treaty was eventually signed (although the text did not include those concessions). Subsequent to the negotiation and signing of Treaty One, the government signed the next six treaties and, during each, insisted that negotiators could not grant more generous terms than existed in previous treaties. In spite of this, with the exceptions of Treaties Five and Seven, the government was forced to grant increasing concessions to each group of Indians. Thus, with the exception of the Treaty Five area, each First Nations group received more favourable terms than the treaty group before it. Clearly, resistance to granting terms not favourable to the government of Canada demonstrates that attitudes or plans of benevolence were a later invention of historians. It also demonstrates that the provisions of the treaties that best support an attitude of benevolence came from Native negotiation rather than governmental suggestion.

The other aspect of the Prairie treaties that has been widely debated among historians is the role that the First Nations played in negotiations, and the extent to which they understood what they were agreeing to. Traditionally, it was argued that they played a passive role in the formulation of the treaties and that most of the negotiations consisted of governmental explanation of the terms presented. Despite this, it was traditionally understood that the Natives did not, or could not, adequately understand the treaties. In addition, any indications of dissension between bands at the treaty negotiations were virtually ignored.

In contrast, more recent interpretation stresses the active role the First Nations played in the negotiation of the treaties. Contrary to older interpretation, the Indians of the Prairie treaties did not acquiesce gratefully to terms presented to them but fought for the best deal they could receive and, in some cases, refused to sign a treaty because of the inflexibility of the government's position. For example, Treaty One was initially intended to be signed with the Ojibwa (Salteaux), however, the first four attempts to sign a treaty resulted in a stalemate because the Natives refused to agree to the government's terms. This would never have occurred if the Salteaux had adopted a passive manner. Other bands in several different areas also threatened to walk out of treaty negotiations when they felt the government was being unreasonable.

Kyaiyi-stamik, Bear Bull, also called Sotai-na, Rain Chief,
a member of the Blackfoot Nation. Photographer: Edward S. Curtis
Courtesy of the National Archives of Canada

Through their active participation, the Indians were determined to achieve better terms and compensation through negotiation and, in most cases, succeeded in forcing government negotiators to concede to some demands. For example, government negotiators for Treaty One offered only an initial settlement, reserves, and annuities. Counter offers were made which included huge reserves, clothing for children, buggies for the chiefs, hunting and farming equipment, cattle, and exemption from taxation. Although both the First Nations and the government were forced to compromise on these items, the Indians secured many of the terms that are used to demonstrate the benevolence of the government. These promises, although initially included only as "outside promises" of Treaty One, were clearly in excess of the boundaries that the government negotiators had been given and therefore could only have been instigated by the Indians. Extra terms, established by the First Nation delegations, ensuring agricultural aid and schooling, became a common feature of the remainder of the western treaties, and other terms such as protections against pestilence and famine were included by the Indians in later treaties. In fact, it is argued that the terms that best support a governmental claim of benevolence were suggested and included at the insistence of the Native delegations. This pattern of the Indians forcing change in the terms of the treaties was repeated for most of the western treaties and established their active participation in the negotiations.

Another common aspect of the older interpretation of Indian participation in treaty negotiations was the assumption that the Indian treaty bands acted as a unified group. In reality, Indian bands brought together from a government-determined geographical area often experienced tensions in their relations. In many cases, such as Treaty Three, simply bringing the bands together in one place was difficult because they were not necessarily united. As a result, bargaining tactics at the negotiations were extensively debated in a Council of Chiefs but consensus was often hard to reach between leaders and between different nations. It was quite common for some bands to threaten to walk out of negotiations or to actually do so while other bands, refusing to take that action, finished negotiations and signed the treaties. In addition, there was often dissension between band chiefs about whether to accept and sign treaties that they had negotiated. For example, there was great debate between leaders of the Treaty Seven peoples and they were finally swayed to accept the treaty primarily because of the presence of the respected commissioner of the Northwest Mounted Police and the opinion of one respected Blackfoot chief. Thus, the appearance of unification between treaty bands could, at times, be regarded as illusionary.

Traditionally, many of the problems of interpretation and understanding have been explained as an inability on the part of the Indians to understand the negotiations and the terms they were agreeing to. Alternatively, the Natives are seen as victims, deliberately duped by the devious government of Canada. Each of these contains a portion of truth, however, neither tells a complete story. The traditional view that the Indians were unable to understand the negotiations was based on the premise that Native intellectual faculties were inferior to those of the negotiators. A newer interpretation stresses that there was no difference in mental abilities but a significant difference in cultural understanding. Analogies were often used to describe the relationship the government intended to foster between the First Nations and themselves. The analogy of the parent-child relationship was the most prevalent and, unfortunately, entailed very different concepts in the two societies. In Euro-Canadian society, the relationship of the parent to the child involved a great deal of control and supervision. Thus, the government expected that the Indians would be treated as children and therefore closely controlled and supervised. In contrast, the Native parent-child relationship entailed a great deal of freedom. It was the parents' duty to provide assistance when needed, however, parental control was very minimal. As a result of this understanding, the First Nations expected that they would be left to run their own affairs with suitable assistance from the government when it was needed. Understanding was further muddied by the incompatibility of English and the Native languages. Often, a statement in English could not be translated faithfully into the First Nation tongues and one word or prefix amiss could convey a very different meaning. Some writers attribute the misunderstandings to the poor ability of the interpreters who knew one language very well but were not fluent in the other. The claim has also been made that a long-term land treaty was not anything in the Natives' experience and their understanding of land surrender was more like a lease than a sale. Therefore, under this theory, it could not be understood as a permanent surrender.

Despite the difficulties encountered by both the government negotiators and the First Nation delegations, seven treaties were signed in the period from 1870 to 1877. Treaty One was concluded with an agreement for reserves, an initial cash settlement, and annuities. Also included were agreements for clothing for the chiefs and headmen, schooling, and some agricultural equipment, however, these terms were not included in the text of the treaty but were listed as "outside promises" in the chief government negotiator's report. No written mention was made of hunting or fishing rights in the original text. Treaty Two was concluded a few days later with the treaty bands accepting the same terms as those of Treaty One. Treaty Three granted greater reserves and annuities while agricultural assistance was guaranteed in the text of the treaty. Hunting and fishing rights were also guaranteed. Requests for more generous terms in Treaty Four were denied and it was finally agreed that the same terms as Treaty Three would apply. Treaty Five had very similar terms to Treaty Two with the addition of an annual grant for ammunition and twine for nets. Treaty Six contained several new clauses that were not repeated in later or previous treaties. The medicine chest clause provided for medical supplies to be kept at the home of each Indian agent to combat disease among the First Nations on the reservations. As well, additional money was to be given to ensure the survival of the Indians while they learned to farm, and a pestilence/famine clause was included which provided for assistance in times of natural disaster. Treaty Seven contained no new terms but contained an emphasis on ranching rather than farming. It did not include the extra terms that appeared in Treaty Six. After each treaty, adhesions were signed for bands that fell under the treaty area but did not attend the negotiations. No new terms were required.

Contrary to traditional interpretation, the negotiations and signing of the seven Prairie treaties were paved with disappointed expectations, misunderstandings, and tension on the part of both the government negotiators and the First Nation delegations. The precedents which the government expected to adhere to no longer applied and they had no benevolent plan to protect and care for the Indians of the Canadian West. In addition, they were surprised by the active role that the Indians played in negotiations. While the active participation of the Indians allowed them to gain some beneficial terms, misunderstandings in culture and language as well as conflicts between the bands weakened their position. Despite, or perhaps because of, these weaknesses, treaties were signed between the First Nations of the Prairies and the Canadian government.