A First Nation located west of Calgary is making headlines with its bold step to address what it describes as years of neglect over treaty obligations. The Bearspaw First Nation has launched a class action lawsuit against the federal government, seeking to correct what it terms a "historical wrong." The lawsuit, initiated on November 25, 2024, highlights the inadequacy of the $5 annuity payment established back when Treaty 7 was signed back in 1877.
Chief Darcy Dixon of the Bearspaw Nation is leading the charge, declaring, "We either do it today or we wait another 100 years." The lawsuit invites other Treaty 7 nations, including Chiniki, Siksika, Kainai, Piikani, Tsuut'ina, and Goodstoney, to join and fight for increase of these payments to reflect inflation. The annual payment of five dollars, which was once sufficient for families to survive winter months, is today nothing more than a symbolic gesture—hardly enough to buy even the most basic meal.
Throughout the years, the Bearspaw Nation has felt sidelined by the Crown, which has failed to honor what Dixon argues were mutual commitments made at the time the treaty was signed. The community is asking, effectively, for modernization of their entitlements, standing firm on the idea of equity when it was noted how other sectors have prospered following the treaty, surely benefiting from the land they agreed to share. "If Canada is going to prosper over 150 years, First Nations should be prospering at the same time — which hasn't happened," dictated Dixon with visible passion.
According to the assertion submitted through their legal representatives, the lawsuit is not just about seeking reparative payments; it targets the value of Canadian promises made through treaties and demands accountability for their longstanding failure to maintain those commitments. "Five dollars today can't buy you anything relevant,” Dixon stated, challenging the plausibility of the enduring relevance of such payments.
Bearspaw's legal counsel, Sonny Cochrane, reinforced this sentiment, emphasizing the significant disparity between what the treaty originally meant and its contemporary value. The lawsuit documents the stark reality: "The way Canada has treated this annuity payment has been reduced to empty promises..." He articulates this by noting the evolution of the cost of living since the treaty's inception yet accompanied with no corresponding adjustment to the annuity payments themselves.
The legal framework sets forth claims not only for the Bearspaw Nation but broadly covers rights for all citizens under Treaty 7, with options for other First Nations to opt-in as participants. Further hearings will determine how much these payments ought to be increased based on various factors, including inflation, to reflect what members truly deserve, having honored their agreement for generations.
This lawsuit is not occurring in isolation. There is growing momentum across the country calling attention to potential failures of the federal government to respect treaty agreements. Other nations have initiated their own claims under similar pretenses, building on recent precedents set by other Treaty cases. For example, last year, the Robinson-Huron treaty case reached settlement after nearly a decade, which could function as integral support to current cases like Bearspaw's.
University of Calgary law professor Kathleen Mahoney described the lawsuit as "a long time coming", emphasizing the exploitation felt by First Nations since the signing of the treaty over 140 years ago. She points to the fundamental obligations of the Crown, raising concerns over how past inequities have now culminated to future injustices for subsequent generations. "There's no way Treaty 7 chiefs at the time agreed on payments remaining stagnant," Cochrane reiterated, attaching gravity to their dispute.
Every summer, as dictated by the agreement, the federal government distributes the five dollars to Treaty 7 residents, typically done through scheduled trips by RCMP representatives to various locations. These rituals may imbue some sense of tradition, but they simultaneously reinforce the unnaturalness of contemporaneous obligations set forth centuries ago.
Part of the challenge is not solely financial; it's relational. There exists a desperate need for renewed respect between Indigenous communities and the federal authorities. The words echo: the agreement needs honoring. Dixon sought to open lines—sharing, once again, the central premise of Treaty 7 was not simply to delineate boundaries, but to build shared futures unto generations yet unborn. Today’s costs of living fundamentally betray such expressed intentions as communities knee-deep under the strains of unmet promises continue to struggle for stability.
For those involved with the Bearspaw Nation, anticipation looms. If successful, this lawsuit could not only reshape future annuity payments but also pave the way for renewed negotiation and reparative justice across other treaty provisions held throughout the country. This legal battle embodies both restitution and reclamation of heritage—a pivotal moment crying out for careful attention and resolution among all Canadians.
Going forward, the Bearspaw First Nation aims to unify Treaty 7 Nations, creating solidarity among historically marginalized communities fighting for recognition. The blurred lines of treaty expectations and realities remain painfully apparent as they stand resolute against systemic failures of their treaty partner, the Crown.
Moving forward, the hope remains high—change can happen, and perhaps, voices long muted may finally regain amplitude, echoing justice and recognition. Bearing witness to these demands could represent the dawn of reconciliation, not only for the Bearspaw and Treaty 7 nations but potentially heralding shifts toward proper acknowledgment of treaty agreements nationwide.
