Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada
The James Bay Treaty-Treaty No. 9 was unique among the numbered treaties of Canada in that there was a need for the concurrence of the Province of Ontario. Last-minute negotiations by the Dominion of Canada to gain said concurrence led to an agreement with the Province of Ontario, and this agreement...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Arctic 2021-09, Vol.74 (3), p.372-395 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 395 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 372 |
container_title | Arctic |
container_volume | 74 |
creator | Tsuji, Stephen R.J. Tsuji, Leonard J.S. |
description | The James Bay Treaty-Treaty No. 9 was unique among the numbered treaties of Canada in that there was a need for the concurrence of the Province of Ontario. Last-minute negotiations by the Dominion of Canada to gain said concurrence led to an agreement with the Province of Ontario, and this agreement became part of the Treaty No. 9 package at Ontario’s insistence. However, since the agreement was not executed until after the Treaty No. 9 expedition had left for the field, an incomplete Treaty No. 9 package that lacked the agreement was presented to and signed by the First Nation groups in 1905. Furthermore, spaces had been left in the vellum copies of Treaty No. 9 and the agreement to add in the date of the agreement when fully executed. In the spaces that were left for this purpose, the date of the agreement was backdated to 3 July. This act of deception was suggested by the Treasurer of the Government of Ontario, A. Matheson in order to date of the agreement earlier than the date in the Treaty. Thus, the common law legality of the Treaty No. 9 package must be questioned, especially since officials of the Governments of Canada and Ontario left documentation of their deception. Without the agreement being attached as specified in the Treaty No. 9 document that left Ottawa in 1905, consideration of the terms of the agreement by the First Nation signatories of the treaty could not have occurred prior to signing. It follows that there exists a question of whether the land south of the Albany River was ever ceded in Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective, unless documentation can be presented indicating that the complete Treaty No. 9 package was presented to the First Nation signatories; the written record indicates otherwise. In the end, the courts will have to decide the legality of Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective.
Le Traité de la Baie James, ou Traité no 9, est unique comparativement aux autres traités numérotés du Canada en ce sens qu’il devait être accompagné de l’accord de la province de l’Ontario. Des négociations de dernière minute par le Dominion du Canada visant à obtenir ledit accord se sont conclues par une entente avec la province de l’Ontario, et cette entente a fait partie de l’ensemble du Traité no 9 à la demande insistante de l’Ontario. Toutefois, puisque l’entente n’a été exécutée qu’après le départ de l’expédition du Traité no 9 pour le terrain, l’ensemble du Traité no 9 était incomplet et il a été présenté ainsi, sans l’entent |
doi_str_mv | 10.14430/arctic73466 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2583615288</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A680550503</galeid><jstor_id>27088590</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A680550503</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-b6c46c299c8e6532ce8a4804f96a39271f219621b5dbb9f25f18e6e8bb2c6c5d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqV0s1uEzEQAOAVAolQuHFFsuCE1A3-j32MogIRUQtNe7a8Xjt1lNip7UXk1geBl-uTsCEIGikH0BwsjT_PjKWpqpcIDhGlBL7TyRRvRoRy_qgaIIlJjTBlj6sBhJDWUFDytHqW8xJCBNEIDqrlVbK6bMF5HAIJdGhBubHgS2dz8TGA6MD93ffrYGxr2_u7H2C2I_PYlZvd3c6OV40OW3Dpv9oEfADzrtmPAS5C0cnHUzDRQbf6efXE6VW2L36fJ9X1-7Orycd6dvFhOhnPasOQLHXDDeUGS2mE5YxgY4WmAlInuSYSj5DDSHKMGtY2jXSYOdRDK5oGG25YS06qN_u6mxRvdx9Ry9il0LdUmAnCEcNC_FULvbLKBxdL0mbts1FjLiBjkEHSq_qIWthgk17FYJ3v0wf-9RFvNv5WPUTDI6iP1q69OVr17cGD3hT7rSx0l7P69Hn6z3Y6v_wPe35oT_fWpJhzsk5tkl_rtFUIql_bpx5sX89f7fkyl5j-WDyCQjAJyU9ue9GV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2583615288</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Tsuji, Stephen R.J. ; Tsuji, Leonard J.S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tsuji, Stephen R.J. ; Tsuji, Leonard J.S.</creatorcontrib><description>The James Bay Treaty-Treaty No. 9 was unique among the numbered treaties of Canada in that there was a need for the concurrence of the Province of Ontario. Last-minute negotiations by the Dominion of Canada to gain said concurrence led to an agreement with the Province of Ontario, and this agreement became part of the Treaty No. 9 package at Ontario’s insistence. However, since the agreement was not executed until after the Treaty No. 9 expedition had left for the field, an incomplete Treaty No. 9 package that lacked the agreement was presented to and signed by the First Nation groups in 1905. Furthermore, spaces had been left in the vellum copies of Treaty No. 9 and the agreement to add in the date of the agreement when fully executed. In the spaces that were left for this purpose, the date of the agreement was backdated to 3 July. This act of deception was suggested by the Treasurer of the Government of Ontario, A. Matheson in order to date of the agreement earlier than the date in the Treaty. Thus, the common law legality of the Treaty No. 9 package must be questioned, especially since officials of the Governments of Canada and Ontario left documentation of their deception. Without the agreement being attached as specified in the Treaty No. 9 document that left Ottawa in 1905, consideration of the terms of the agreement by the First Nation signatories of the treaty could not have occurred prior to signing. It follows that there exists a question of whether the land south of the Albany River was ever ceded in Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective, unless documentation can be presented indicating that the complete Treaty No. 9 package was presented to the First Nation signatories; the written record indicates otherwise. In the end, the courts will have to decide the legality of Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective.
Le Traité de la Baie James, ou Traité no 9, est unique comparativement aux autres traités numérotés du Canada en ce sens qu’il devait être accompagné de l’accord de la province de l’Ontario. Des négociations de dernière minute par le Dominion du Canada visant à obtenir ledit accord se sont conclues par une entente avec la province de l’Ontario, et cette entente a fait partie de l’ensemble du Traité no 9 à la demande insistante de l’Ontario. Toutefois, puisque l’entente n’a été exécutée qu’après le départ de l’expédition du Traité no 9 pour le terrain, l’ensemble du Traité no 9 était incomplet et il a été présenté ainsi, sans l’entente, aux groupes des Premières Nations qui l’ont signé en 1905. Par ailleurs, des espaces avaient été laissés dans les exemplaires sur vélin du Traité no 9 et de l’entente afin de permettre l’ajout de la date de l’entente une fois entièrement exécutée. Dans les espaces laissés à cette fin, la date de l’entente a été antidatée au 3 juillet. Cette supercherie avait été suggérée par le trésorier du gouvernement de l’Ontario, A. Matheson, afin que la date de l’entente soit antérieure à la date du traité. Par conséquent, il y a lieu de mettre en doute la légalité de l’ensemble du Traité no 9 en vertu de la common law, surtout parce que les représentants des gouvernements du Canada et de l’Ontario ont laissé des documents attestant de leur supercherie. Puisque l’entente n’était pas jointe au document du Traité no 9 qui est parti d’Ottawa en 1905, comme stipulé, les signataires du Traité faisant partie des Premières Nations n’ont pas pu prendre connaissance des modalités de l’entente avant d’apposer leur signature. Il faut donc se poser la question à savoir si les terres au sud de la rivière Albany ont vraiment été cédées en vertu du Traité no 9 du point de vue de la common law, à moins que des documents ne soient présentés selon lesquels l’ensemble complet du Traité no 9 a été remis aux signataires des Premières Nations. Pour l’instant, les écrits attestent du contraire. Au bout du compte, c’est aux tribunaux qu’il incombera de décider de la légalité du Traité no 9 en vertu de la common law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0004-0843</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1923-1245</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.14430/arctic73466</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Calgary: Arctic Institute of North America</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Analysis ; Canadian history ; Common law ; Cultural heritage ; Documentation ; Expeditions ; Native North Americans ; Oral history ; Provinces ; Questions ; Rivers ; Treaties</subject><ispartof>Arctic, 2021-09, Vol.74 (3), p.372-395</ispartof><rights>The Arctic Institute of North America</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Arctic Institute of North America of the University of Calgary</rights><rights>Copyright Arctic Institute of North America Sep 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-b6c46c299c8e6532ce8a4804f96a39271f219621b5dbb9f25f18e6e8bb2c6c5d3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27088590$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27088590$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tsuji, Stephen R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuji, Leonard J.S.</creatorcontrib><title>Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada</title><title>Arctic</title><description>The James Bay Treaty-Treaty No. 9 was unique among the numbered treaties of Canada in that there was a need for the concurrence of the Province of Ontario. Last-minute negotiations by the Dominion of Canada to gain said concurrence led to an agreement with the Province of Ontario, and this agreement became part of the Treaty No. 9 package at Ontario’s insistence. However, since the agreement was not executed until after the Treaty No. 9 expedition had left for the field, an incomplete Treaty No. 9 package that lacked the agreement was presented to and signed by the First Nation groups in 1905. Furthermore, spaces had been left in the vellum copies of Treaty No. 9 and the agreement to add in the date of the agreement when fully executed. In the spaces that were left for this purpose, the date of the agreement was backdated to 3 July. This act of deception was suggested by the Treasurer of the Government of Ontario, A. Matheson in order to date of the agreement earlier than the date in the Treaty. Thus, the common law legality of the Treaty No. 9 package must be questioned, especially since officials of the Governments of Canada and Ontario left documentation of their deception. Without the agreement being attached as specified in the Treaty No. 9 document that left Ottawa in 1905, consideration of the terms of the agreement by the First Nation signatories of the treaty could not have occurred prior to signing. It follows that there exists a question of whether the land south of the Albany River was ever ceded in Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective, unless documentation can be presented indicating that the complete Treaty No. 9 package was presented to the First Nation signatories; the written record indicates otherwise. In the end, the courts will have to decide the legality of Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective.
Le Traité de la Baie James, ou Traité no 9, est unique comparativement aux autres traités numérotés du Canada en ce sens qu’il devait être accompagné de l’accord de la province de l’Ontario. Des négociations de dernière minute par le Dominion du Canada visant à obtenir ledit accord se sont conclues par une entente avec la province de l’Ontario, et cette entente a fait partie de l’ensemble du Traité no 9 à la demande insistante de l’Ontario. Toutefois, puisque l’entente n’a été exécutée qu’après le départ de l’expédition du Traité no 9 pour le terrain, l’ensemble du Traité no 9 était incomplet et il a été présenté ainsi, sans l’entente, aux groupes des Premières Nations qui l’ont signé en 1905. Par ailleurs, des espaces avaient été laissés dans les exemplaires sur vélin du Traité no 9 et de l’entente afin de permettre l’ajout de la date de l’entente une fois entièrement exécutée. Dans les espaces laissés à cette fin, la date de l’entente a été antidatée au 3 juillet. Cette supercherie avait été suggérée par le trésorier du gouvernement de l’Ontario, A. Matheson, afin que la date de l’entente soit antérieure à la date du traité. Par conséquent, il y a lieu de mettre en doute la légalité de l’ensemble du Traité no 9 en vertu de la common law, surtout parce que les représentants des gouvernements du Canada et de l’Ontario ont laissé des documents attestant de leur supercherie. Puisque l’entente n’était pas jointe au document du Traité no 9 qui est parti d’Ottawa en 1905, comme stipulé, les signataires du Traité faisant partie des Premières Nations n’ont pas pu prendre connaissance des modalités de l’entente avant d’apposer leur signature. Il faut donc se poser la question à savoir si les terres au sud de la rivière Albany ont vraiment été cédées en vertu du Traité no 9 du point de vue de la common law, à moins que des documents ne soient présentés selon lesquels l’ensemble complet du Traité no 9 a été remis aux signataires des Premières Nations. Pour l’instant, les écrits attestent du contraire. Au bout du compte, c’est aux tribunaux qu’il incombera de décider de la légalité du Traité no 9 en vertu de la common law.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Canadian history</subject><subject>Common law</subject><subject>Cultural heritage</subject><subject>Documentation</subject><subject>Expeditions</subject><subject>Native North Americans</subject><subject>Oral history</subject><subject>Provinces</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Treaties</subject><issn>0004-0843</issn><issn>1923-1245</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>KPI</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqV0s1uEzEQAOAVAolQuHFFsuCE1A3-j32MogIRUQtNe7a8Xjt1lNip7UXk1geBl-uTsCEIGikH0BwsjT_PjKWpqpcIDhGlBL7TyRRvRoRy_qgaIIlJjTBlj6sBhJDWUFDytHqW8xJCBNEIDqrlVbK6bMF5HAIJdGhBubHgS2dz8TGA6MD93ffrYGxr2_u7H2C2I_PYlZvd3c6OV40OW3Dpv9oEfADzrtmPAS5C0cnHUzDRQbf6efXE6VW2L36fJ9X1-7Orycd6dvFhOhnPasOQLHXDDeUGS2mE5YxgY4WmAlInuSYSj5DDSHKMGtY2jXSYOdRDK5oGG25YS06qN_u6mxRvdx9Ry9il0LdUmAnCEcNC_FULvbLKBxdL0mbts1FjLiBjkEHSq_qIWthgk17FYJ3v0wf-9RFvNv5WPUTDI6iP1q69OVr17cGD3hT7rSx0l7P69Hn6z3Y6v_wPe35oT_fWpJhzsk5tkl_rtFUIql_bpx5sX89f7fkyl5j-WDyCQjAJyU9ue9GV</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Tsuji, Stephen R.J.</creator><creator>Tsuji, Leonard J.S.</creator><general>Arctic Institute of North America</general><general>Arctic Institute of North America of the University of Calgary</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>KPI</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada</title><author>Tsuji, Stephen R.J. ; Tsuji, Leonard J.S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-b6c46c299c8e6532ce8a4804f96a39271f219621b5dbb9f25f18e6e8bb2c6c5d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Canadian history</topic><topic>Common law</topic><topic>Cultural heritage</topic><topic>Documentation</topic><topic>Expeditions</topic><topic>Native North Americans</topic><topic>Oral history</topic><topic>Provinces</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Treaties</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tsuji, Stephen R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuji, Leonard J.S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Global Issues</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Arctic</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tsuji, Stephen R.J.</au><au>Tsuji, Leonard J.S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada</atitle><jtitle>Arctic</jtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>372</spage><epage>395</epage><pages>372-395</pages><issn>0004-0843</issn><eissn>1923-1245</eissn><abstract>The James Bay Treaty-Treaty No. 9 was unique among the numbered treaties of Canada in that there was a need for the concurrence of the Province of Ontario. Last-minute negotiations by the Dominion of Canada to gain said concurrence led to an agreement with the Province of Ontario, and this agreement became part of the Treaty No. 9 package at Ontario’s insistence. However, since the agreement was not executed until after the Treaty No. 9 expedition had left for the field, an incomplete Treaty No. 9 package that lacked the agreement was presented to and signed by the First Nation groups in 1905. Furthermore, spaces had been left in the vellum copies of Treaty No. 9 and the agreement to add in the date of the agreement when fully executed. In the spaces that were left for this purpose, the date of the agreement was backdated to 3 July. This act of deception was suggested by the Treasurer of the Government of Ontario, A. Matheson in order to date of the agreement earlier than the date in the Treaty. Thus, the common law legality of the Treaty No. 9 package must be questioned, especially since officials of the Governments of Canada and Ontario left documentation of their deception. Without the agreement being attached as specified in the Treaty No. 9 document that left Ottawa in 1905, consideration of the terms of the agreement by the First Nation signatories of the treaty could not have occurred prior to signing. It follows that there exists a question of whether the land south of the Albany River was ever ceded in Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective, unless documentation can be presented indicating that the complete Treaty No. 9 package was presented to the First Nation signatories; the written record indicates otherwise. In the end, the courts will have to decide the legality of Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective.
Le Traité de la Baie James, ou Traité no 9, est unique comparativement aux autres traités numérotés du Canada en ce sens qu’il devait être accompagné de l’accord de la province de l’Ontario. Des négociations de dernière minute par le Dominion du Canada visant à obtenir ledit accord se sont conclues par une entente avec la province de l’Ontario, et cette entente a fait partie de l’ensemble du Traité no 9 à la demande insistante de l’Ontario. Toutefois, puisque l’entente n’a été exécutée qu’après le départ de l’expédition du Traité no 9 pour le terrain, l’ensemble du Traité no 9 était incomplet et il a été présenté ainsi, sans l’entente, aux groupes des Premières Nations qui l’ont signé en 1905. Par ailleurs, des espaces avaient été laissés dans les exemplaires sur vélin du Traité no 9 et de l’entente afin de permettre l’ajout de la date de l’entente une fois entièrement exécutée. Dans les espaces laissés à cette fin, la date de l’entente a été antidatée au 3 juillet. Cette supercherie avait été suggérée par le trésorier du gouvernement de l’Ontario, A. Matheson, afin que la date de l’entente soit antérieure à la date du traité. Par conséquent, il y a lieu de mettre en doute la légalité de l’ensemble du Traité no 9 en vertu de la common law, surtout parce que les représentants des gouvernements du Canada et de l’Ontario ont laissé des documents attestant de leur supercherie. Puisque l’entente n’était pas jointe au document du Traité no 9 qui est parti d’Ottawa en 1905, comme stipulé, les signataires du Traité faisant partie des Premières Nations n’ont pas pu prendre connaissance des modalités de l’entente avant d’apposer leur signature. Il faut donc se poser la question à savoir si les terres au sud de la rivière Albany ont vraiment été cédées en vertu du Traité no 9 du point de vue de la common law, à moins que des documents ne soient présentés selon lesquels l’ensemble complet du Traité no 9 a été remis aux signataires des Premières Nations. Pour l’instant, les écrits attestent du contraire. Au bout du compte, c’est aux tribunaux qu’il incombera de décider de la légalité du Traité no 9 en vertu de la common law.</abstract><cop>Calgary</cop><pub>Arctic Institute of North America</pub><doi>10.14430/arctic73466</doi><tpages>24</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0004-0843 |
ispartof | Arctic, 2021-09, Vol.74 (3), p.372-395 |
issn | 0004-0843 1923-1245 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2583615288 |
source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Agreements Analysis Canadian history Common law Cultural heritage Documentation Expeditions Native North Americans Oral history Provinces Questions Rivers Treaties |
title | Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T19%3A30%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treaty%20No.%209%20and%20the%20Question%20of%20%E2%80%9CUnceded%E2%80%9D%20Land%20South%20of%20the%20Albany%20River%20in%20Subarctic%20Ontario,%20Canada&rft.jtitle=Arctic&rft.au=Tsuji,%20Stephen%20R.J.&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=372&rft.epage=395&rft.pages=372-395&rft.issn=0004-0843&rft.eissn=1923-1245&rft_id=info:doi/10.14430/arctic73466&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA680550503%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2583615288&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A680550503&rft_jstor_id=27088590&rfr_iscdi=true |