1 | Page 2

[<< Previous]

There is no archival evidence that any overt distinction was made at the treaty negotiations between surface and subsurface rights. The closest any of it comes to the subject is the question raised by the Treaty Three chief about minerals. While the archival evidence is simply silent on the point, it is universally mentioned in the Treaty Six oral testimony. Most of that testimony expresses the view that subsurface rights were not surrendered. Some interviewees stated that Morris actually said he was only buying the surface or enough for farming and indicated by a gesture how deep this was. In contrast, some few interviewees said that the distinction between surface and subsurface rights was not mentioned.

In spite of this variation over the actual historical event, there is unanimity over the interpretation. The elders do not believe that the Indians surrendered the subsurface rights. They believe that their ancestors understood the treaty as providing for a limited surrender or sharing of territorial rights. Expected settlement was agricultural. Farmers used only the surface of the earth. The Indians had agreed not to molest settlers who came to farm. When non-Indians began to dig into the subsurface for minerals, oil, and natural gas, it seemed to them a breach of the treaty agreement on what it was they had surrendered.

Similarly, commercial use of timber, game, and fish by non-Indians was seen by some as a breach of the treaty. There was universal agreement amongst the interviewees that the animals, birds, and fish were not surrendered. Some explained that these things would not have been given up because they were needed in order to live. With regard to timber, there was a split between those who believed that it had been surrendered and those who did not. Amongst those who dealt with water (lakes and rivers) and the mountains, all said that they had not been given up. Some mentioned the spiritual significance of the mountains and said that Indians would never have surrendered them. Many of the informants said that water and mountains had not been mentioned at the treaty negotiations. This answer is more likely to mean that they were not given up than the reverse. They see the treaty negotiations in terms of certain things being requested by the commissioners. Only those specific items were surrendered.

This view is a complete contradiction of the literal meaning of the treaty text, but it is the understanding of the elders. There are evidently two divergent views on the meaning of Treaty Six. One of the elders explained the difference in this way. "When they [the treaty commissioners] took the papers back to Ottawa, they made them so that the government could claim all of Canada. They did not ask permission here to do that. So now Canada is owned by the white man as a whole." Whatever historical basis there might or might not be for this allegation, the important point about it is that it is an attempt to explain the existence of widely divergent views concerning what had been agreed upon at the treaty negotiations.

A notable difference in the Treaty Seven testimony from that given Treaty Six is that none of the informants saw the treaty as an instrument land surrender at all. It is most characteristically viewed as a peace treaty. "On the Peace Treaty, Tall White Man [David Laird] never mentioned land deal when he promised to pay twelve dollars every year as long as the sun shines and rivers flow." "Tall White Man spoke and every time he spoke he said, 'This is the Queen's word. Now we sit together to have treaty. We will have no more fighting-and we will all live in peace.'" (Taylor, 42-44)