This letter is in rebuttal to the letter by the nameless author who is a representative of the mining sector (Government Using Companies As Pawns To Avoid Treaty Compliance, Jan. 23). We need to put issues into context when it comes to aboriginal and treaty rights. We should also examine both sides of the parties‘ obligations and commitments. After all, this is what a treaty is – an agreement that both sides are obligated to live up to.
We should examine how Treaty 9 was understood by the native leaders during that era. We, as First Nations descendants of the treaty signers, have a different understanding of the treaty. We can take the treaty document and see what it says at face value, and this is what is done by the lawyers. But native people understand what our forebears have said of Treaty 9, and what is recorded by the Treaty 9 commissioners. In the day-to-day parlay that accompanied the treaty discussions, this is often referred to as the spirit and understanding (intent) of the treaty.
The following is taken straight from the accompanying notes from the treaty commissioners:
“In the discussions that followed, the signing of the Treaty Nine, many chiefs questioned the signing of the document. Especially one chief, Moonias, questioned why the government officials were willing to give treaty presents for signing the document to the Native people, when they would not be able to give anything in return. It was explained by the interpreter to him, that whatever they were giving in terms of signing over the land title; he and his people would receive equal benefits in return, as they were to count on the King‘s benevolence, and immediately, become the King‘s subjects.”
Has the Crown, in right of Canada, been benevolent to the native peoples in our region or Canada? In the media and news, one seems almost immune to First Nation life on the reserve; there is poverty, brought on by a lack of economic opportunity and unemployment, along with the social ills that accompany it, under the current government regimes. Poverty, in a country as rich in resources as Canada, is rooted in a number of factors but the main reason is failure of governments to address the issues at hand. In this regard, I agree with the writer. We need initiative to discuss the issues outstanding with all parties involved.
Does Canada want to be remembered as a nation that plotted one of the largest land grabs through a legal scheme during that era, or does Canada wish to do the right thing and honour the treaty agreement‘s spirit and intent?
I do not think anyone wishes to see development stop but First Nation leaders only wish to see real partnerships, and a fair share of resources to be counted upon to make economic opportunities succeed. We need the governments that co-signed the treaty to set accountable processes and initiatives that protect the environment, and peoples‘ rights to the lands and resources. This may also be considered part of the treaty implementation process and a mutual interest with the larger Canadian society.

Bruce Achneepineskum
Councillor, Marten Falls First Nation
From the Greater Algonkin Nation