Introduction
Fisher River Cree Nation (“Fisher River”) recently submitted the following claims under Canada’s Specific Claims Policy and Process Guide (“Specific Claims Policy”):
- Treaty 5 Agricultural Benefits Claim filed October 20, 2025 (“Agricultural Benefits Claim”); and
- Treaty 5 Disparity Claim received May 9, 2025 (“Treaty 5 Disparity Claim”).
Fisher River is working on a third claim, intended to be completed in the upcoming month, which will address the Crown’s failure to fulfil its promise to set aside reserve lands suitable for farming under Treaty 5 (“Reserve Location Claim”). For an outline of the specific claims process, please see the last page of this document.
Treaty 5 Agricultural Benefits Claim
The Agricultural Benefits Claim arises from the Crown’s failure to fulfil its promise to provide agricultural and economic benefits under Treaty 5.
Fisher River’s ancestors adhered to Treaty 5 in 1875 and 1908 at Norway House and Fisher River, respectively. Fisher River sought a treaty with the Crown to gain assistance in the transition to an agricultural economy due to the decline in the fur trade. Through Treaty 5, the Crown promised to assist Fisher River through the provision of agricultural tools and implements, annual distributions of ammunition and twine, and relocation to more fertile agricultural lands south of Norway House.
The Agricultural Benefits Claim argues that the Crown failed to live up to its promises to provide agricultural and economic benefits, and as a result, Fisher River citizens faced insurmountable challenges in the relocation and transition to agriculture. While small amounts of initial provisions may have been distributed, these provisions were often of poor quality. There are also documented issues with Crown records during the claim period, including that the primary individual responsible for allocating agricultural benefits was determined by the Crown to have committed fraud in delivering supplies.
Canada has started its review of the Agricultural Benefits Claim and has provided the Nation with summaries of historical documents reviewed. The next steps in the Agricultural Benefits Claim are to wait for Canada to complete its legal review and notify Fisher River if the claim will be accepted for negotiation.
Treaty 5 Disparity Claim
The Disparity Claim arises from the Crown’s failure to negotiate equitable terms with the Nation in relation to the reserve land allocation and gratuity provisions in Treaty 5, and the Crown’s failure to honourably implement the terms of Treaty 5.
The terms of Treaty 5 were less favourable than the terms of the Numbered Treaties surrounding it. Fisher River’s ancestors were relocated to Fisher River and received even less reserve land than that promised in Treaty 5. Treaty 5 provided for reserves not exceeding 160 acres per family of five and a
$5 gratuity to each person. At Fisher River, the terms were reduced to 100 acres per family of five. This was substantially less than the 640 acres per family of five and $12 gratuity provided to adherents of Treaties 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
The Treaty 5 Disparity Claim argues that the Crown breached its obligations by securing Fisher River’s Treaty 5 adhesion on materially inferior terms, including a reduced reserve land allocation, without full disclosure, meaningful opportunity to negotiate, or diligence to prevent exploitation.
The next steps in the Treaty 5 Disparity Claim are to receive Canada’s notification if the claim will be filed in accordance with the Specific Claims Policy. In 2024, Black River First Nation proceeded through trial at the Federal Court in relation to a related Treaty 5 Disparity Claim. Canada may be awaiting that decision before it makes a determination.
Reserve Location Claim
The tentatively titled Reserve Location Claim is under development, and a draft for Chief and Council’s preliminary review will likely be completed in the coming weeks. This claim was originally titled a “Flooding Claim”, however review of the historical report indicates it is more properly considered a reserve location or reserve land quality claim.
The Reserve Location Claim argues that the Crown breached its treaty and honourable obligations to Fisher River by failing to act with diligence to pursue the purpose of the Treaty 5 reserve land promise, namely to assist Fisher River in its transition to agriculture. The Crown set aside reserve lands that it knew were unsuitable for agriculture, at the time the lands were set apart.
The reserve promised to Fisher River in the text of Treaty 5 was “on the west side of Lake Winnipeg in the vicinity of Fisher River.” This diaered from Fisher River’s original request for a reserve to the south, along Lake Winnipeg. The requested location was instead reserved for a proposed Icelandic settlement. The Crown oaered lands to Fisher River that did not meet the underlying purpose and intention of Treaty 5. The lands ultimately provided were plagued by constant flooding or were primarily boggy and underwater. In the years following the reserve land survey, Crown oaicials repeatedly reported that the lands were flood prone and not conducive for agriculture. The only action the Crown took in response to these reports was to set aside additional lands adjoining or in close proximity to the original reserve, much of which was also flooded routinely.
The Reserve Location Claim concludes that the Crown’s conduct demonstrates a lack of diligence in implementing its Treaty 5 promises. When the reserve was surveyed in 1877, the unsuitability of the lands was apparent, but Crown oaicials failed to consider whether setting aside such a reserve would breach the Crown’s Treaty 5 promise. The result was that Fisher River was left with reserve lands that routinely flooded and could not support agricultural development.
Legal counsel is completing the draft claim, which will soon be provided to Chief and Council for preliminary review.
