New book could strengthen Rupert’s Land case

New information, published in Treaty No. 9: Making the Agreement to Share the Land in Far Northern Ontario in 1905, could help strengthen the Rupert’s Land case.
Mushkegowuk Council launched the claim against Canada and Ontario Nov. 18.
The basis of the claim surrounds a pledge made by Queen Victoria of England to protect the First Nations interests in land.
She wanted assurances this would happen before she would sign the Rupert’s Land Act of 1868.
After there was assurance by representatives of Canada to protect Aboriginal interests in the region, a land order transferred Rupert’s Land – which includes parts of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Quebec, Minnesota and North Dakota – to the control of Canada under agreed terms.
“The new evidence as a result of the treaty diaries has resulted in the chiefs discussing this issue and strategizing on approaches on how to best move forward,” said Mushkegowuk Council Grand Chief Stan Louttit. “We are currently in the process of engaging our member First Nations regarding this issue and having discussions and presentations with government officials as well.” 
The book, by John S. Long, includes the neglected account of a third commissioner – George McMartin – and traces the treaty’s origins, negotiation, explanation, interpretation, signing, implementation and recent commemoration.
For more than a century, the vast lands of northern Ontario have been shared among the governments of Canada, Ontario and the First Nations who signed Treaty 9 in 1905.
For just as long, details about the signing of the constitutionally recognized agreement have been known only through the accounts of two of the commissioners appointed by the government of Canada, according to Long.
Long set out to restore nearly forgotten perspectives to the historical record.
In the book, he outlined how many crucial details about the treaty’s contents were omitted in the transmission of writing to speech, while other promises were made orally but not included in the written treaty.
The book also reveals contradictions that suggest the treaty parchment was never fully explained to the First Nations who signed it by reproducing the three treaty commissioners’ personal journals in their entirety.
Armed with this new information, Louttit said Mushkegowuk is exploring legal strategies with a possible test case. Mushkegowuk Council also hosted a regional conference in Fort Albany Feb. 1-3 on the treaty where the diaries were presented and discussed.  
“With this new evidence, this has allowed us to look at an overall strategy including putting the Rupert’s Land claim on hold while we gather and strategize with the goal of strengthening our positions and the Rupert’s Land claim,” Louttit said.