Fishing Lake First Nation: Treaty 4 Benefits Claim Settlement Agreement

The Big Picture: Treaty 4 "Cows and Plows"

The Fishing Lake First Nation Treaty 4 Agricultural Benefit Settlement, also known as "Cows and Plows," is a settlement offer from the Government of Canada to compensate for broken promises under the 1874 Treaty 4 agreement.

Key Events:

A Broken Promise: 1874 Treaty 4 "Cows & Plows" line_end_arrow_notch Financial Settlement Offer from the Canadian Government line_end_arrow_notch Settlement Agreement (Compensation offer + Trust + Loan) proposed by Chief and Council line_end_arrow_notch Ratification Vote to Accept or Reject the proposed Settlement Agreement from Chief and Council

A Broken Promise: 1874 Treaty 4 "Cows & Plows"

When Treaty 4 was signed in 1874, the Canadian government promised to support the Nation in agriculture on the reserve by providing livestock, tools, seeds, training, and the treaty annuities and salaries owed to Chiefs and Headmen:

Cows and oxen for farming and food production
Plows, harrows, and other tools for cultivating land
Seeds for wheat, barley, oats, and potatoes
Training and agricultural support to ensure long-term success

Financial Settlement Offer from the Canadian Government

The Government of Canada has offered a financial settlement to Fishing Lake First Nation as compensation for the broken promises under Treaty 4. This offer acknowledges the historical failures and is represented as a financial payout to the Nation. Importantly, this settlement does not impact other treaty rights or prevent the First Nation from pursuing future claims on different issues.

The acceptance of this offer is contingent on the community approval (Ratification Vote) of the Settlement Agreement proposed by Chief and Council.

Proposed Settlement Agreement by Chief and Council

ℹ️ Proposed Settlement Agreement = Financial Settlement Offer from Canada + Proposed Trust and Loan by Chief and Council

In addition to financial compensation, the settlement agreement includes key components proposed by Chief and Council, such as the establishment of a Proposed Trust and a Proposed Loan.

Proposed Trust

The trust is a structured financial system designed to preserve and grow the settlement funds. It is managed by an independent corporate trustee and follows strict guidelines to ensure financial stability. Annual payments from the trust provide a steady source of funding, while investments generate returns that protect the principal for future use.

Proposed Loan

A loan system within the trust allows the First Nation to access funds responsibly while maintaining financial stability. Borrowing is limited to prevent overuse, ensuring that funds remain available for future needs. The loan system works alongside the annual payments to provide both immediate and long-term financial resources.

Ratification Vote of the Settlement Agreement

The ratification vote is a crucial step in finalizing the Fishing Lake First Nation Treaty 4 Agricultural Benefit Settlement Agreement. This vote determines whether the agreement will be accepted and rejected. All registered members of Fishing Lake First Nation who are 18 years or older on the voting day are eligible to vote.

Requirements for a Valid Vote:

At least 25% of eligible voters must cast a ballot, no matter how they vote, for the vote to be considered valid.
A majority (50% +1) is required for the vote to be accepted (vote yes) or rejected (vote no).
If turnout is below 25% but a majority of those who did vote are in favor, Council may choose to hold a second vote.

3 key components to the proposed settlement agreement

1. Finiancial Settlement Offer

Offer from Canada

2. Proposed Trust and Loan

by Chief and Council

3.Ratification Vote

By the people

Canada’s financial settlement offer is compensation to address Treaty 4 "Cows and Plows" broken promises. Key points:

✅ Resolves the Treaty 4 Agricultural Benefits Claim.

✅ Becomes final once signed and ratified.

✅ Compensation is transferred within a set timeframe after approval.

The proposed Trust aims to provide long-term financial stability for the Fishing Lake First Nation while aligning with Canada’s preference for responsbile funds management. If implemented, it would be secured by a financial institution, and managed by an investment partner.

Key aspects include:

✅ It is governed by a legal framework entrusted by Chief and Council.

✅ A financial institution oversees and administers the Trust to ensure its integrity and management.

✅ An investment partner is appointed to manage assets and optimize returns.

✅ The Trust is structured to generate revenue, based on investment performance.

The ratification vote will determine whether the Fishing Lake First Nation accepts the proposed settlement agreement. Voting will take place both in person and electronically, providing multiple opportunities for members to participate. A set percentage of eligible voters must cast ballots for the vote to be valid, and a majority must vote in favor for the agreement to be approved.

✅ Determines acceptance or rejection of the settlement.

✅ Requires a minimum number of eligible voters to participate.

✅ Majority vote in favor is required for approval.

Understanding the Proposed Trust and Loan System

If the Ratification Vote passes, the Trust and Loan system will be established as outlined in the Settlement Agreement by Chief and Council (Refer to Appendix B: Article 7 – Authorized Loans and Authorized Loan Payments). The Trust will protect and manage settlement funds through investments (Refer to Appendix B: Article 5 – Investment of Trust Property), while the Loan system will allow the First Nation to access capital within the borrowing limits defined in the Trust agreement (Refer to Appendix B: Article 7.2 – Loan Limits and Restrictions) (Refer to Appendix B: Article 5 – Investment of Trust Property). The details of how the loan funds may be used will be determined through the governance structure of the Trust.

How the Trust Will Generate Revenue

Once implemented, the Trust will be managed by professional investment firm following financial policies. The goal will be to generate stable returns over time, ( ensuring that the settlement funds continue to grow through compound interest, reinvestment, and market gains over time. ensuring that the settlement funds continue to grow through compound interest and reinvestment, creating a sustainable financial resource.

Each year, a fixed percentage of the Trust’s total value (Refer to Appendix B: Article 6 – Annual Payments to the Revenue Account) will be distributed to the First Nation as an Annual Payment. This payment will be used in accordance with the Trust's governing policies, which include contributing to loan repayments and possibly funding community initiatives.

The Role of Authorized Loans

A key feature of the Trust will be its ability to provide Authorized Loans, allowing the First Nation to borrow against the trust following specific limits.

The total amount of Authorized Loans at any given time must adhere to the borrowing limits established in the Trust agreement (Refer to Appendix B: Article 7.1 – Loan Access Provisions) (Refer to Appendix B: Relevant Sections on Loan and Trust Operations)**
The annual repayment of loans (principal + interest) cannot exceed a majority portion of the Annual Payment as defined in the Trust agreement of the Annual Payment received from the Trust’s investments.
The remaining a remaining portion of the Annual Payment as determined by governance policies of the Annual Payment will be available for spending according to the Revenue Account Law.

The specifics of how loan funds may be accessed and applied will be determined based on the Trust's governance framework.

How Loan Repayments Will Work

If accepted, the loan repayment process will follow a structured cycle:

Investment Returns: The Trust will generate revenue through managed investments.
Annual Payment: Each year, a designated percentage of the Trust’s total value of the Trust’s total value will be allocated to the First Nation.
Loan Repayment: A portion of the Annual Payment will be used to repay any outstanding Authorized Loans.
Community Spending: The remaining portion of the Annual Payment will be used in accordance with governing policies.
Reinvestment: Any investment earnings beyond the Annual Payment will be reinvested into the Trust, allowing it to grow over time.

This process is designed to ensure that loan obligations do not jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the Trust.

Pros and cons of the Trust and Loan system

The proposed Trust and Loan system presents both opportunities and limitations. While it is designed to provide long-term financial stability and structured access to capital, there are factors to consider regarding accessibility, oversight, and financial management. Below is a comparison of the potential benefits and challenges of this system to help inform decision-making.

Pros	Cons
✔ Long-Term Financial Security: The Trust will ensure settlement funds are preserved and continue to grow.	✖ Limited Immediate Access to Funds: The Trust principal will be protected, meaning large withdrawals will not be possible.
✔ Sustainable Revenue Stream: Investments will provide a consistent source of funding for the First Nation.	✖ Investment Risks: While managed conservatively, market fluctuations could impact returns and affect available funding.
✔ Controlled Loan Access: Borrowing will be limited to a set percentage of the Trust’s value, ensuring responsible use.	✖ Loan Repayment Obligations: Borrowing from the Trust will require structured repayments, reducing the portion of Annual Payments available for direct use.
✔ Debt Protection: The structured repayment system will ensure financial obligations remain manageable.	✖ Ongoing Oversight Required: The system will require governance and financial management to maintain long-term stability.
✔ Community Benefits: Annual Payments will contribute to the First Nation’s financial resources.	✖ Restricted Spending: Trust and Loan funds will be regulated by specific policies, limiting unrestricted access.

What is the Trust?

A financial structure designed to protect and grow the First Nation’s wealth.
50% of the settlement ($50.64M) is invested into the trust.
The trust earns 4% annually to generate long-term financial stability.

Why Was a Trust Created?

Ensures future generations benefit from the settlement.
Protects funds from mismanagement or immediate depletion.
Provides a structured income source rather than spending the money all at once.

How Does the Trust Work?

Annual Earnings: 4% of $50.64M = $2.02M per year.
Who Manages It? The trust is overseen by an independent trustee.
Can Funds Be Withdrawn? No, but the First Nation receives annual payments from earnings.

Settlement Financial Breakdown

Step 1: Main Allocations

Category	Amount ($)
Total Settlement	101,282,000
50% into Trust	50,641,000
Per Capita Distribution (2,000 members x $20,000)	40,000,000
Remaining for Loans, Legal, & Insurance	10,641,000

Step 2: Loan Repayment & Trust Earnings

Category	Amount ($)
Total Loan Amount	40,000,000
Interest Rate on Loan	3% (assumed)
Annual Trust Earnings (4%)	2,025,640
90% of Trust Earnings to Loan Repayment	1,823,076
Loan Repayment Duration	~13.8 years

Step 3: Annual Trust Earnings & Member Share

Category	Amount ($)
Annual Trust Earnings (4%)	2,025,640
90% Used for Loan Repayment	1,823,076
10% Remaining for Other Use	202,564
Per Capita Share (if evenly split among 2,000 members)	101.28 per year

Key Takeaways

$50.64M is invested in a trust, generating 4% per year ($2.02M).
90% of earnings ($1.82M) is used for loan repayment on the $40M loan.
The loan is fully repaid in ~13.8 years at a 3% interest rate.
10% of trust earnings ($202.5K) is available for community use.
If this remaining 10% was split evenly among all 2,000 members, each would get $101.28 per year.

💲 Financial Considerations

Uncertain Legal Implications: The agreement might waive certain rights that could be valuable in future claims.
Long-Term Impact: A rushed decision could have generational consequences that limit future negotiations.
Inadequate Compensation: If similar agreements in other communities resulted in higher payouts, why should we accept less?
Who Benefits? Are external consultants, lawyers, or other parties gaining more from this than the people it affects directly?
Lack of Community Safeguards: No clear guarantees on how protections, funds, or support will be maintained over time.

How Much Do Members Receive?

$40M of the settlement is allocated for direct payments.
Each adult member (2,000 total) receives $20,000 as a one-time payout.

Why Was This Payment Structure Chosen?

Provides immediate financial relief and flexibility.
Recognizes that members deserve a direct benefit from the settlement.
Allows individuals to invest, save, or use the funds however they choose.

When Will Members Receive Their Payment?

After Canada deposits the settlement into the trust (which can take up to 8 months).
Payments will be made directly to eligible members.

📜 Considerations (Legal & Financial)

Uncertain Legal Implications: The agreement might waive certain rights that could be valuable in future claims.
Long-Term Impact: A rushed decision could have generational consequences that limit future negotiations.
Inadequate Compensation: If similar agreements in other communities resulted in higher payouts, why should we accept less?
Who Benefits? Are external consultants, lawyers, or other parties gaining more from this than the people it affects directly?
Lack of Community Safeguards: No clear guarantees on how protections, funds, or support will be maintained over time.

Why Did Fishing Lake First Nation Borrow $40M?

The trust holds 50% of the settlement, meaning funds are locked in for long-term use.
To pay members immediately, the First Nation took out a $40M loan.
The loan is repaid using trust earnings, ensuring future stability.

Loan Details

Loan Amount: $40M
Interest Rate: 3% (assumed)
Annual Repayment: $1.82M per year (from trust earnings)
Loan Repayment Time: ~13.8 years

Why Is This a Smart Financial Move?

Allows per capita distributions without draining the trust.
The loan is paid off using investment earnings instead of principal funds.
Preserves financial security while still providing immediate benefits.

🔍 Transparency

Information + Disclosure = Transparency

Without full transparency, we are making a decision in the dark.

Before agreeing to any deal, we must demand complete and clear information. The Agricultural Benefit Program will impact our community's future, yet key details remain undisclosed. If leadership cannot provide full transparency, how can we trust that this is the best decision for us? A No vote ensures we get the answers we deserve before committing to an irreversible agreement.

🚨 The Gaps in Transparency

📌 Lack of Clear Communication:

The current proposal fails to outline exactly how funds will be distributed or utilized. Without a clear breakdown, how can we be sure resources will be allocated in the best interests of the community?

📌 Unanswered Questions:

Leadership has yet to provide detailed explanations on the long-term impact of this decision. What safeguards are in place? Who benefits the most? What are the potential risks? Until these critical questions are answered, a decision cannot be responsibly made.

📌 Historical Precedents:

We have seen past agreements rushed through without full transparency, leading to unintended consequences for the community. When key details were left undisclosed, people were left dealing with the aftermath. We must learn from history and not repeat past mistakes.

📌 Demand for Accountability:

Without clear financial and legal documentation, we cannot make an informed choice. A No vote ensures that leadership is held accountable and that we have more time to ask the right questions before making a decision that affects generations to come.

Past examples that highlight a critical need for full transparency in decision making porocess for the best interests of the community.

For instance, the Enron scandal in the early 2000s serves as a stark example of how insufficient transparency in corporate governance can result in significant harm to stakeholders and the broader community. The lack of clear and honest communication about the company's financial health led to massive financial losses and eroded public trust.

Similarly, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite its noble intentions, has been associated with unintended negative outcomes in some contexts. Studies have found that in certain cases, ratification of this treaty correlated with worsened human rights practices and paradoxically, increases in child labor. This underscores the importance of thorough scrutiny and transparency in international agreements to prevent adverse effects.

🛑 Why Rushing This Decision is Risky

This agreement is being pushed forward without full transparency, but why the urgency? If this deal is truly in the best interest of the community, why isn’t leadership providing all necessary details?

A responsible decision is one made with complete information, open dialogue, and accountability. Rushing forward without transparency leaves us vulnerable—not only financially but also legally and structurally.

A No vote doesn’t mean rejecting progress; it means demanding the respect and clarity our community deserves before making a binding commitment.

💡 We Deserve a Voice. We Deserve to Know. We Deserve Transparency.

What Are These Costs For?

$10.64M of the settlement was set aside to cover legal, insurance, and administrative fees.
This ensures the First Nation does not have to use its own money to cover these costs.

Breakdown of Costs

Expense	Estimated Amount ($)
Legal Fees (Maurice Law Barristers & Solicitors)	Settlement negotiations, document review
Litigation Loan Repayment (RBC Loan)	Loan used to cover legal expenses
Insurance Premiums (AmTrust Europe Limited)	Covers financial risks & guarantees settlement security
Administrative Costs	Trust management, financial advisory services

Why Was This Necessary?

Ensured a strong legal case for the settlement.
Covered complex financial structuring costs.
Protected the trust and settlement from legal risks.

🔍 Transparency

Information + Disclosure = Transparency

Without full transparency, we are making a decision in the dark.

Before agreeing to any deal, we must demand complete and clear information. The Agricultural Benefit Program will impact our community's future, yet key details remain undisclosed. If leadership cannot provide full transparency, how can we trust that this is the best decision for us? A No vote ensures we get the answers we deserve before committing to an irreversible agreement.

🚨 The Gaps in Transparency

📌 Lack of Clear Communication:

The current proposal fails to outline exactly how funds will be distributed or utilized. Without a clear breakdown, how can we be sure resources will be allocated in the best interests of the community?

📌 Unanswered Questions:

Leadership has yet to provide detailed explanations on the long-term impact of this decision. What safeguards are in place? Who benefits the most? What are the potential risks? Until these critical questions are answered, a decision cannot be responsibly made.

📌 Historical Precedents:

We have seen past agreements rushed through without full transparency, leading to unintended consequences for the community. When key details were left undisclosed, people were left dealing with the aftermath. We must learn from history and not repeat past mistakes.

📌 Demand for Accountability:

Without clear financial and legal documentation, we cannot make an informed choice. A No vote ensures that leadership is held accountable and that we have more time to ask the right questions before making a decision that affects generations to come.

Past examples that highlight a critical need for full transparency in decision making porocess for the best interests of the community.

For instance, the Enron scandal in the early 2000s serves as a stark example of how insufficient transparency in corporate governance can result in significant harm to stakeholders and the broader community. The lack of clear and honest communication about the company's financial health led to massive financial losses and eroded public trust.

Similarly, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite its noble intentions, has been associated with unintended negative outcomes in some contexts. Studies have found that in certain cases, ratification of this treaty correlated with worsened human rights practices and paradoxically, increases in child labor. This underscores the importance of thorough scrutiny and transparency in international agreements to prevent adverse effects.

🛑 Why Rushing This Decision is Risky

This agreement is being pushed forward without full transparency, but why the urgency? If this deal is truly in the best interest of the community, why isn’t leadership providing all necessary details?

A responsible decision is one made with complete information, open dialogue, and accountability. Rushing forward without transparency leaves us vulnerable—not only financially but also legally and structurally.

A No vote doesn’t mean rejecting progress; it means demanding the respect and clarity our community deserves before making a binding commitment.

Fishing Lake First Nation: Treaty 4 Benefits Claim Settlement Agreement

📢 IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

Confidential Information Notice

What is the Ratification Vote?

If majority Vote Yes ✅

If majority Vote NO ❌

TREATY 4 BENEFITS CLAIM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Big Picture: Treaty 4 "Cows and Plows"

Key Events:

A Broken Promise: 1874 Treaty 4 "Cows & Plows"

Financial Settlement Offer from the Canadian Government

Proposed Settlement Agreement by Chief and Council

Ratification Vote of the Settlement Agreement

Requirements for a Valid Vote:

Understanding the Proposed Trust and Loan System

How the Trust Will Generate Revenue

The Role of Authorized Loans

How Loan Repayments Will Work

Pros and cons of the Trust and Loan system

What is the Trust?

Why Was a Trust Created?

How Does the Trust Work?

Settlement Financial Breakdown

Step 1: Main Allocations

Step 2: Loan Repayment & Trust Earnings

Step 3: Annual Trust Earnings & Member Share

Key Takeaways

💲 Financial Considerations

How Much Do Members Receive?

Why Was This Payment Structure Chosen?

When Will Members Receive Their Payment?

📜 Considerations (Legal & Financial)

Why Did Fishing Lake First Nation Borrow $40M?

Loan Details

Why Is This a Smart Financial Move?

🔍 Transparency

Information + Disclosure = Transparency

🚨 The Gaps in Transparency

📌 Lack of Clear Communication:

📌 Unanswered Questions:

📌 Historical Precedents:

📌 Demand for Accountability:

🛑 Why Rushing This Decision is Risky

💡 We Deserve a Voice. We Deserve to Know. We Deserve Transparency.

What Are These Costs For?

Breakdown of Costs

Why Was This Necessary?

🔍 Transparency

Information + Disclosure = Transparency

🚨 The Gaps in Transparency

📌 Lack of Clear Communication:

📌 Unanswered Questions:

📌 Historical Precedents:

📌 Demand for Accountability:

🛑 Why Rushing This Decision is Risky

💡 We Deserve a Voice. We Deserve to Know. We Deserve Transparency.

Share this page