Treaty Information
In 1867, Canada began systematically drafting and implementing Treaty agreements with the original occupants of the land. This process moved across modern day Canada in response to settlement needs, the requirement for a national railway system, and natural resource exploration. In Saskatchewan, First Nations and the Crown entered into numbered Treaties between 1871 and 1906. While there were many reasons individual First Nations entered into treaty, they were, with few exceptions, concluded under the duress of disease, starvation, and the loss of traditional economies.
From the perspective of First Nations, the Treaties are international agreements between sovereign nations to share the lands and resources therein and affirmed the inherent authority of First Nations to govern themselves. As such, they are interpreted as Peace and Friendship Treaties whereby two parallel governance systems would co-exist with each party respecting the authority of the other. The Treaties were not then, nor are they now understood to be land surrender agreements, rather they recognize the inherent rights of First Nations bestowed upon them by the Creator, reinforcing their way of life and control over their lands and waters.
In contrast, the Canadian government approached the Treaty making process largely as a formality, believing that they already had sovereignty over First Nations and their lands and resources as a result of the transfer of lands between the Hudson’s Bay Company and the colonial British government in 1689. This understanding is rooted in the inherently racist Doctrine of Discovery which the United Nation Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) admonishes as “scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.” In early 2023, the Vatican repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery and “announced solidarity with Indigenous Peoples and its support for the principles contained in the UNDRIP.”
First Nations were heavily reliant on the oral tradition and practices of oral communication. As such, the leadership of the day did not understand what was written in the Treaty texts and were reliant on the good-faith interpretation of the agents of the Crown. Accompanying the written terms of the Treaties, were verbal promises exchanged at signing. These verbal promises were used to convince First Nation leaders that they would have a better life which did not necessarily occur and were captured by the commissioners in separate reports which are now considered part of the terms of the Treaty, where applicable. As a result of these initial misunderstandings there remain ongoing disputes on the spirit and intent of the treaties, the extent of Treaty rights, and implementation of Treaties.
From the perspective of First Nations, the Treaties are international agreements between sovereign nations to share the lands and resources therein and affirmed the inherent authority of First Nations to govern themselves. As such, they are interpreted as Peace and Friendship Treaties whereby two parallel governance systems would co-exist with each party respecting the authority of the other. The Treaties were not then, nor are they now understood to be land surrender agreements, rather they recognize the inherent rights of First Nations bestowed upon them by the Creator, reinforcing their way of life and control over their lands and waters.
In contrast, the Canadian government approached the Treaty making process largely as a formality, believing that they already had sovereignty over First Nations and their lands and resources as a result of the transfer of lands between the Hudson’s Bay Company and the colonial British government in 1689. This understanding is rooted in the inherently racist Doctrine of Discovery which the United Nation Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) admonishes as “scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.” In early 2023, the Vatican repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery and “announced solidarity with Indigenous Peoples and its support for the principles contained in the UNDRIP.”
First Nations were heavily reliant on the oral tradition and practices of oral communication. As such, the leadership of the day did not understand what was written in the Treaty texts and were reliant on the good-faith interpretation of the agents of the Crown. Accompanying the written terms of the Treaties, were verbal promises exchanged at signing. These verbal promises were used to convince First Nation leaders that they would have a better life which did not necessarily occur and were captured by the commissioners in separate reports which are now considered part of the terms of the Treaty, where applicable. As a result of these initial misunderstandings there remain ongoing disputes on the spirit and intent of the treaties, the extent of Treaty rights, and implementation of Treaties.
Click Image for more detail
First Nations view their Inherent rights as being much broader in scope and the spirit and intent of the Treaties should be defined according to First Nations’ oral traditions and understandings. However, the Crown continues to rely on the mistaken assumption that First Nations’ rights at the time of the signing of the Treaties were limited in scope and therefore continue to rely exclusively on the written text of the treaties for their implementation. First Nations in Saskatchewan are firm in their resolve that by signing Treaty, they did not relinquish their Aboriginal title to the land (including surface rights to resources such as standing timber and subsurface rights to minerals and oil and gas). According to this interpretation, the land cannot be used in ways that would substantially reduce its value for future generations. While there are more rights referenced within the Treaty texts, the most recognizable Treaty rights to non-Indigenous people are harvesting rights; namely the unencumbered right to hunt, trap, fish or gather within the Treaty area.
In 1930, the federal government unilaterally transferred administration of natural resources within Treaty lands to the nascent governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba via the Natural Resources Transfer Act, 1930 (“NRTA”). The NRTA, outlined the province’s obligations to fulfill the Crown’s Treaty promises to ensure First Nations’ continued practice of rights on Crown lands or private lands not subject to a visible or incompatible use. First Nations view this transfer of jurisdiction from the Federal to provincial governments as illegal and a direct breach of the Treaties and therefore an infringement of their rights.
There are six (6) Treaty areas within Saskatchewan. Within these Treaty areas, First Nations have defined shared traditional territories and within those territories are typically First Nations reserve lands. There are five linguistic groups of First Nations in Saskatchewan which include Cree, Dakota/Lakota, Nakoda (Assiniboine), Dene (Chipewyan), and Saulteaux.
Treaty 8 covers the northwestern area of the province and includes three First Nations, while Treaty 10 covers most of the northern and northeastern areas and includes five First Nations. Treaty 6 covers the central area of the province including the cities of Prince Albert and Saskatoon. There are 28 First Nations located within Treaty 6 and one First Nation signatory to the Treaty 6 adhesion located in Treaty 10 territory (Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation). The region comprises the largest population of First Nations in Saskatchewan. Treaty 4 covers most of the southern area of the province, including the cities of Regina, Swift Current and Estevan. There are 26 First Nations in Treaty 4. Treaty 5 and Treaty 2 cover relatively small portions of the eastern part of the province. There are three First Nations in Treaty 5. There are three First Nations in Treaty 2, though these three First Nations are signatory to Treaty 4 adhesions (White Bear First Nation, Pheasant Rump First Nation and Ocean Man First Nation).
