TREATY NO. 6 TERRITORY (FORT PITT) – Exactly 150 years after their ancestors entered Treaty No. 6 at Fort Pitt, four First Nations along the Alberta-Saskatchewan border are heading back to court over nearly 18,000 acres of land they say were protected as part of the Crown’s Treaty promises.

Onion Lake Cree Nation, Cold Lake First Nations, Kehewin Cree Nation and Frog Lake Cree Nation will file an application for judicial review with the Federal Court of Appeal on Sept. 9, challenging an Aug. 10 decision by the Specific Claims Tribunal involving approximately 17,895 acres historically known as the Haylands.

The filing date marks exactly 150 years since the Nations’ ancestors adhered to Treaty No. 6 at Fort Pitt on Sept. 9, 1876.

For the four Nations, the case is about more than ownership of a historical parcel of land or potential financial compensation. They say it raises a larger question about whether the Crown’s Treaty promises concerning land, agriculture and the future livelihoods of their people continue to carry legal meaning today.

The four Nations have pursued the Haylands claim together for more than a decade as the Onion Lake Agency First Nations, reflecting their historical connection as bands within the former Onion Lake Agency, previously known as the Fort Pitt Agency.

At the centre of the dispute is a disagreement over what the Crown promised and what lands were protected through the implementation of Treaty No. 6.

The Specific Claims Tribunal found the Haylands were not established as reserve lands under Treaty No. 6. According to the Nations, the Tribunal instead interpreted the Crown’s obligation more narrowly as ensuring the Nations had sufficient access to hay for their livestock.

The four Nations disagree.

They maintain the approximately 17,895 acres were themselves set aside and protected as part of the Crown’s implementation of Treaty promises involving land and agriculture.

Frog Lake Cree Nation said Treaty No. 6 was intended to establish a relationship that would continue well beyond the generation that entered the agreement.

“Treaty No. 6 was not an agreement for one moment in history. Our ancestors entered into Treaty believing they were establishing an enduring relationship with the Crown — one built on mutual respect, shared responsibility and promises that would continue for generations,” Frog Lake Cree Nation stated.

The Nations argue that the historical circumstances surrounding Treaty No. 6 are essential to understanding the Haylands dispute.

Treaty No. 6 included commitments involving reserve lands and agricultural assistance at a time when First Nations were facing the disappearance of the buffalo economy and profound changes to their traditional livelihoods.

The Nations maintain the Haylands were part of how the Crown put those commitments into practice and helped provide for their people into the future.

They are concerned that considering the Haylands separately from the broader Treaty relationship risks reducing Treaty promises to historical commitments without meaningful legal effect today.

“Our ancestors did not enter Treaty for promises that Canada could later narrow, redefine or walk away from,” Cold Lake First Nations Chief Kelsey Jacko said. “The commitments concerning land, agriculture and livelihood were intended to help our people survive and prosper for generations.”

Jacko said the four Nations are united in pursuing the judicial review.

“One hundred and fifty years later, Canada still has an obligation to honour those commitments,” he said.

Elders’ evidence central to Nations’ concerns

The four Nations are also raising concerns about how Indigenous oral history and Treaty understandings are considered within Canada’s Specific Claims process.

Nineteen Elders from the four Nations provided oral history evidence during the proceedings, sharing their Nations’ collective memory of the Haylands and their understanding that the lands were protected under Treaty.

Kehewin Cree Nation Chief Vernon Watchmaker said that knowledge has been carried through generations.

“Our Elders carry the spirit and intent of Treaty through our languages, ceremonies and oral histories passed from generation to generation,” Watchmaker said. “Nineteen Elders came forward in this process to share that knowledge.”

Watchmaker said the Nations are concerned when those voices are heard but the resulting interpretation of the Crown’s obligations does not reflect their understanding of Treaty.

“This judicial review is about ensuring our Treaty history, teachings and understandings receive the respect and legal recognition they deserve,” he said.

The Nations say the issue also raises questions about confidence in the Specific Claims process itself.

The process was established to provide First Nations with a specialized alternative for resolving historical claims rather than relying solely on lengthy and costly litigation.

The four Nations say having to return to court to seek recognition of what they consider the Treaty foundation of their claim undermines that objective.

‘These promises mattered in 1876’

Onion Lake Cree Nation Okimaw Pete Chief said the four Nations are standing together because they view the Haylands dispute fundamentally as a Treaty issue.

“Our Nations are standing together because this is about our sacred Treaty,” Chief said. “The Haylands were connected to the promises made to our ancestors to protect our people and sustain our Nations into the future.”

He said the Nations cannot accept an interpretation that separates the lands from the Treaty relationship that gave rise to them.

“On the 150th anniversary of our ancestors entering Treaty No. 6 at Fort Pitt, we are seeking judicial review because the Treaty perspective must be heard, understood and respected. These promises mattered in 1876, and they matter today.”

Frog Lake Cree Nation said pursuing the judicial review is also about responsibility to future generations.

“We have a responsibility to our ancestors, our Elders and the generations that will follow us to ensure those promises are honoured,” the Nation stated. “This judicial review is about accountability. It is about making sure Canada cannot interpret its Treaty obligations in a way that diminishes what was promised to our people 150 years ago.”

The application for judicial review is expected to be filed with the Federal Court of Appeal on Wednesday, Sept. 9.