User:Kitchikesik

The name became used in the signing of Adhesion to Treaty Number Five (5) for the people inhabiting the lands on the Nelson River near the Hudson Bay in Northern Manitoba. The traditional Chief, who made his mark on the Treaty documents was given the name, Chief/Headman William Ketchi - Kesik. . I suspect his traditional name was simply "Kitchikesik" which is a traditional language (Cree) and means: "Great Sky", "Great Day" or "Heaven". It could also mean: “Grand Sky” and “Grand Day”! No, it would not mean "Happy Hunting Ground" as per Hollywood! This signature was used to give up interest or ownership in the lands in question in 1908 which had already been confiscated by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) when it purchased all of the shares in the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) which had been trading furs with the Indians on lands known as Rupertsland and the North West Territory. How and when was this accomplished? It was completed prior to 1870, or 38 years earlier, but because of the Red River Rebellion the deal was not official until 1870 and three (3) years after the adoption of the British North America Act (BNA Act) (which is now called the Canadian Constitution of 1867 and 1982.) The Royal Proclamation of 1763 (Proclamation) was a prohibition of anyone to purchase Indian lands or otherwise to gain control of such lands and only the British Government was allowed to do this. However, there was a big exception and that was in the lands and waters flowing into Hudson Bay or Rupertsland and the North West Territory. The Proclamation applied to all of North America except to the lands granted to the HBC in 1670! Lands which the HBC was granted the monopoly to trade but not to acquire the lands of the people they were trading with. There is no record of Great Britain buying or otherwise obtaining the lands in question and there is no record of the HBC acquiring the lands of the Indians prior to 1870! So, the parties involved in this major land swindle (Canada calls it the largest land sale in America!) and which was against the BNA Act at section 91(24) which also triggered section 53 of the same British legislation. This action by Great Britain actually moved Indians from the citizenship section of section 92 before moving them to section 91. Section 92 provides for the Canadians the right to vote for the federal government, the provincial government, and the municipal and school boards in Canada. The removal of Indians from this section also removed their right to vote for members of parliament, members of the legislatures, municipal councils and school boards throughout Canada. This fact is virtually unknown by the Canadian legal system including the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. Removing Indians from the right to vote via the Constitution cannot be remedied by subsequent legislation such as the Elections Acts of the provinces and the federal government. The Constitution must be amended first and it has not been amended to date. The attempt to give Indians the “right to vote” for “democratic reason” may not be for democratic reasons but to enable Canada and provinces to impose taxation upon a people who cannot vote for their MP’s, MLA’s, City Councils and School Boards contrary to another section of the Constitution which is section 53. Section 53 is a USA “Boston Tea Party” ruling which provides for “No taxation without representation”, so Indians who cannot vote are also exempt from all taxation including import duties and all hidden taxes while in Canada. So, the reason for the foregoing discussion is to demonstrate Great Britain and Canada acquired a BNA Act “duty” or Constitutional Act “obligation” towards Indians in 1867 as per section 91(24). Some argue that transferring Indians from section 92 to 91 created a Trust Obligation to Great Britain and its successors, the Dominion of Canada and Canada. Therefore, the interest of the Indians as per section 91(24) and the Proclamation was already operational when Great Britain, the Dominion of Canada, and the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) owned HBC formed a conspiracy to keep Indians from the benefits of their lands and resources and this conspiracy carried over to the making of the Eleven Treaties regarding the lands of Rupertsland and the North West Territories. The first of the Eleven Treaties was signed at Lower Fort Gary in 1871 and there were no lawyers, financial planners, legal interpreters, business persons to insure the Indians were provided with lands to not only sustain individuals and families but communities of Indians now known as Indian Bands or First Nation Governments in Canada. There were no experts or advisors provided to the Indians to insure their immediate and long term needs were recognized and affirmed by Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada. This oversight has carried over to the present day and has resulted in the “extreme poverty” of individuals and families of Indians. Needless to say, the communities or Indian Bands or First Nations government are also in “extreme poverty” living off a department of the federal government set up for Indians and lands reserved for the Indians. When Great Britain decided to remove Indians from section 92 and relocate them under section 91 of the BNA Act, they were also to take the services they were to receive as section 92 citizens as per provincial, municipal and school boards. But, this was actually not done in spite of the Treaty Promise in Treaty No. 8 Report which stated: We assured them that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life, that it did not open the way to the imposition of any tax, and that there was no fear of enforced military service. (p3) Indeed, the Indians were generally averse to being placed on reserves. It would have been impossible to have made a treaty if  we had not assured them that there was no intention of confining them to reserves. We had to very clearly explain to them that the provision for reserves and allotments of land were made for their protection, and to secure to them in perpetuity a   fair portion of the land ceded, in the event of settlement advancing. So, this section actually states the government of Great Britain and Canada guarantees Indians and Indian Bands: “... and to secure to them in perpetuity a fair portion of the land ceded, in the event of settlement advancing. So, Indians and Indian Bands can secure a fair portion of the land ceded for social and economic sustainability, which is common sense and also in view of the lands being held by Canada as an Indian reserve. This is critical because an Indian Band with a land base restricted to 160 acres for a family of five cannot sustain many individuals, families and especially Indian Bands or First Nations Governments. This promise by Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada and Canada has got to be a real Treaty Benefit at this time in history where Indian must earn royalties and a share of their natural resources.