Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 9. Credibility of the Experts 136that the Ojibway who negotiated Treaty 3 did not have any detailed knowledge of a CanadianConstitutional distinction between Dominion and Provincial authorities. As Dr. Chartrandacknowledges however, that does not mean that the Ojibway did not appreciate the distinctionbetween the Queen and that there was a central government referred to in the treaty as the Dominionof Canada.[175] In my view, considering the totality of the evidence of Dr. Chartrand, there is certainlysupport for the plaintiffs' position that the phrase "Dominion Government" at the time was the federalgovernment and that that is how the parties to the Treaty understood it.[Emphasis added.][648] After that decision was released, and before this trial commenced, Chartrand issued anumber of "corrections," including one retracting that answer and asserting that the Ojibway didnot understand there was a central government referred to in the Treaty as the Dominion ofCanada. Chartrand asserted he should not have referred to the federal government as a centralgovernment because the Ojibway were not aware that there was more than one level of Queen'sgovernment operating in Canada. Although they knew they were dealing with a government inCanada, there is no clear indication they knew they were dealing with a federal government "inthe Euro-Canadian sense of the federal government." When he had earlier prepared his report(Ex. 60), Chartrand had not been so sure. It contains the following:… As no documents for the 1868-1872 period presenting verbatim quotes of Ojibway terms ofaddress, attribute any significant number or consistent and clear references by Ojibway leaders to the'Government of the Dominion of Canada', the nature and extent of Ojibway understanding of the'government' with whom they were dealing, is obscured in the available documentary records. Itremains unclear if the Ojibway understood the 'Dominion government' as a national-level governmentdistinct from other governments in Canada.[649] He maintained during cross-examination that the Ojibway were unaware of the existenceof other levels of government in Canada, on the basis that he didn't see that knowledge reflectedin the documents. While Chartrand said at trial that the Ojibway had a concept of a genericQueen's government operating within Canada distinct from the American government, they didnot understand that there were multiple Queen's governments in Canada or that the DominionGovernment was a central national level government. He later said that they had an "underlyingcognition that they were dealing with sovereigns through various representatives in Canada"(Chartrand, January 21 and 25, 2010.)2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[650] During his cross examination, Chartrand resisted a suggestion that in 1870 Simpson wascorrect in concluding the Red River Indians/Métis had been tampering with the Treaty 3Ojibway. He refused to acknowledge that the Treaty 3 Ojibway's refusal to cooperate withWolesley's troops in the summer of 1870 was as the result of speaking with the Red RiverIndians. While he said he was "not in a position to prove there had been no communicationbetween Red River and Treaty 3," he also said he did not dispute the Ojibway "had receivedinformation from somebody." He insisted that there was "no evidence" to support the conclusionthat the Red River Indians were "tampering with the Treaty 3 Ojibway." (January 21, 2010 atp.31.)[651] That evidence seemed odd. I wondered what was behind it. When he later gave evidenceabout the lack of Ojibway knowledge about other levels of government in Canada, and explainedthat the Ojibway were unaware that there was more than one level of Queen's government in