As a result of Canadian expansion, construction of a national railway, and increased activity in mining, the Canadian government wished to promote settlement in Northern Ontario. However, because the area was already inhabited by First Nations peoples the Government entered into negotiations in the effort to construct a treaty that would relocate the First Nations peoples to a dedicated land claim elsewhere. As a result, Treaty Nine (also referred to as “The James Bay Treaty”) was established on July of 1905, between the Government of Canada, in the name of King Edward II, and various First Nations groups in Northern Ontario (Treaty Texts, n.d.). The Ojibwa and Cree were two key groups involved in the signing of this treaty, representing their people in agreement with the government's terms. They had the basic idea that the treaty was one of sharing and friendship and their goal was to establish a relationship with the government of the day, where they could share the land and take part in the decisions affecting it (The Mushkewgowuk and Anishinaabe Peoples, 2009). They were poor and needed assistance, blindly welcoming the opportunity to start a discussion and enter into a treaty with Canada, which was thought to be an agreement that would bind each party together in good faith (George MacMartin's Big Canoe Trip, 2014). Hunting, fishing and trapping rights were of great significance and needed to be secured in an agreement with the government but the Indians also needed monetary help, schools for their children and to know that they would not be interfered with in their traditional lifestyles on the land and waters. Nevertheless, oral understandings of the treaty show that what was discussed and agreed to by the Indian peoples was not reflected in the written treaty; there is a problem concerning the verbal promises and especially the written treaty, in that there is no agreement. During this time the Indians didn't fully understand what they were asked for, they were simply unaware of resources and had no understanding of English, as it had to be translated to them, in ways that were likely explained and translated improperly, as depicted by the commissioners' journals (Long, n.d.). They believe now, that the government of the time is responsible for the manner in which the treaty was poorly negotiated, improperly explained, and written without the input or consent of their people; and suspect that their elders never agreed to give away vast tracts of land and resources (George MacMartin's Big Canoe Trip, 2014). Rather, they agreed to share the land and resources and expected newcomers to do the same. In addition, increasing settlement, activity in mining and railway construction, in accordance to 'His Majesty', rendered it advisable to extinguish the Indian title, the objective of the Government was to acquire First Nation land in northern Ontario beyond what had already been gained in previous treaties, as well as to redistribute the First Nations peoples to specified tracts of land (Treaty Texts, n.d.). The Government wanted this land for European settlers to continue their expansion throughout the province and reserved such right to build it (Louttit, n.d.). Railways and other buildings or public works could therefore be built as the government saw fit, whether at the time of the treaties signing or at any point due in the future. Civilization, settlement, and progress were viewed as being inevitable in the North and the government desired such land for resource potential, knowing it could make Canada wealthy and economically stable (Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation, 2011). However, they first needed to extinguish Indian claims and secure the title of their land so that development and settlement was unobstructed. Frank Pedley, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs wrote in 1904, “The strong reason by which this Government is actuated in the making of the treaty is the old and well-established rule that a way must be smoothed for exploration, location of railway lines and construction, by extinction of the Indian title” (Asch, 1997). In relation to Dr. Findlay's criteria for assessing a treaty, we can conclude that Treaty Nine and it's implementation are relatively poor, in the sense that the treaty serves the government and fails to serve the many needs of the Indian peoples. However, this isn't to say that the treaty did not assist in supporting these peoples during the time it was implemented; for instance, it secured education, protected hunting, fishing and trapping rights, and ensured healthcare. Furthermore, this reasoning behind the relatively poor implementation of the treaty is simple and can be explained by five factors. “First, the aspirational argument about treaty success is somewhat glib. In the real world many states join treaties not because of aspirations for a more orderly, better world, or because they have a burning desire to tackle a particular international issue by such means, but because universality is expected” (Findlay, 2006). In this sense, the Indian people were expected to sign the treaty and were given, in return, such benefits as eight dollars in cash and annually afterwards the sum of four dollars, paid only to the heads of families for those belonging thereto (Treaty Texts, n.d.). Such gifts, or presents rather, were those unrelated to the core aspirations to the treaty and intended to win over said Indians, allowing the Canadian government the right to collect such resources from their land, knowing it could make Canada wealthy and economically stable. In addition, civilization, settlement and progress were viewed as being inevitable in the North (Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation, 2011), and because so many other Indian groups were entering into treaty those of Treaty Nine were simply following. “A second significant reason for treaty failure is that they are badly crafted, providing wiggle-room for states seeking to avoid compliance or to keep their options open” (Findlay, 2006). A clear example of this is that the treaty was written by the Canadian government before being presented to the Indian peoples. Oral agreements were arranged, as proven through the journals of the commissioners, but were not upheld or proven to be legitimate because they were not physically written and added into the treaty itself (George MacMartin's Big Canoe Trip, 2014). Furthermore, during this time, the Indian peoples had no understanding of the English language and although translators, whom worked for the Hudson Bay Company, were present it's clear that there was still a degree to which they explained and translated improperly. This, in turn, relates to the fact that the elders whom signed the treaty viewed it as one being of sharing and friendship. However, before signing the treaty, the signatures are preceded by the words “having been first interpreted and explained” (Treaty Texts, n.d.), which can arguably be our entry into the treaty. How was it interpreted and how was it explained? “A third reason for the failure of treaties is the absence or weakness of verification provisions” (Findlay, 2006). The Mining Act, Forestry Act, Far North Act (Bill-191), and The Migratory Birds Act, for instance, are proof of the governments disrespect and dishonour of the real agreement and proof of the lack of verification provisions (Louttit, n.d.). Furthermore, we can relate such an absence or weakness to the “presents” the Canadian government gave the Indian peoples in exchange for entering into the treaty. This was done without fully disclosing the value of Indian land to said peoples, whom didn't understand they were living on lands that had tremendous mineral, forest and hydroelectric potential and proves the perspective of the Canadian government, in that the treaty was one of surrender and the taking of land for development. “A fourth reason for treaty failure is the lack of sturdy compliance mechanisms” (Findlay, 2006). However, this particular treaty does not necessarily prove to have any arrangements that deal with cases of non-compliance, in that the Indian peoples were willing to enter into treaty strictly because they were poor and needed assistance from the government. This isn't to say that that the Indian peoples had no concern in entering into the treaty, but when concern was raised negotiation was effectively used in helping the two parties come to an agreeable conclusion; as the commissioners were empowered to offer certain conditions but were not allowed to alter or add them into the treaty itself. Finally, “a fifth reason for treaty failure is the lulling effect that the absence of exposed non-compliance can have and the natural tendency of bureaucracies to ossify over time if left to their own devices,” (Findlay, 2006) or in other terms, the absence of people being exposed. For example, if I have a treaty with someone else, than exposing this other person would be telling others that they aren't holding up their end of the treaty. We can conclude that Treaty Nine and its implementation are relatively poor in that numerable measures can be taken to improve it. For instance, in order to reflect the needs of the Aboriginal population a process should be launched that includes community consultation, empowering said peoples to express their thoughts and opinions, with the goal to obtain community input on such issues as lands and resources, and governance. However, these peoples have learned to be cautious in taking political issues into the legal arena, where non-indigenous judges may or may not rule in their favour and when the cost of fighting the unlimited resources of the Crown is so great. Regardless to say, prosperity, protection, and law and order were mentioned each time that Treaty Nine was signed but the conflicting understandings of this treaty have not brought any prosperity to the Aboriginal population. Some see change coming, with the negotiated agreement of the first (Victor) diamond mine in Ontario, but much more needs to happen (The Mushkewgowuk and Anishinaabe Peoples, 2009). Such legislations as The Mining Act, Forestry Act, Far North Act (Bill 191), and The Migratory Birds act are proof of the governments disrespect and dishonour of the treaty as initially, orally agreed to (Louttit, n.d.). Furthermore, we can simply merge the commissioners journals and the treaty itself to include negotiations that were orally arranged and not included into the treaty.

References
Findlay, T. (2006, January 25). Why Treaties Work, Don’t Work and What to do About It? Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://carleton.ca/npsia/wpcontent/uploads/ciia_ present_06.pdf The Mushkewgowuk and Anishinaabe Peoples and Treaty No. 09.(2009, January 1). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.pathoftheelders.com/history/chapter3
Louttit, S. (n.d.). The Real Agreement As Orally Agreed To. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.mushkegowuk.com/documents/jamesbaytreaty9_realoralagreement.pdf
Improving the Treaty Process. (2002, February 25). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/reports/down/tripartite_working_05_15.pdf
Long, J. (n.d.). Treaty No. 9. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://books.google.ca/books? id=tEZKacUWnKMC&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=how to improvetreaty9&source=bl &ots=SZA_tLDPN&sig=VbSl1gLJYBjgS_mUJRC56mUbdIY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X6x7 VMGgNqvdsASpy4KIDg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=how to improve t reaty 9&f=false
Treaty Texts - Treaty No. 9. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028863/1100100028864
George MacMartin's Big Canoe Trip | Ideas with Paul Kennedy | CBC Radio. (2014, December 2). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/12/19/ george-macmartins-big-canoe-trip/
Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult - March 2011. (2011, March 1). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1100100014675
Asch, M. (1997, January 1). Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from https://books.google.ca/books?id=qGIzvRlb55YC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA10 4&dq=The strong reason by which this Government is actuated in the making of the treaty is the old and well-established rule that a way must be smoothed for exploration, location of railway lines and construction, by extinction of the Indian