Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 10. Findings of Fact Part I 158themselves to have exclusive proprietary rights to game and fish in a Western sense. (January 9,2010 at p. 58.) I have already outlined the basis and extent of the sharing anticipated by theOjibway and Chartrand's opinion that there was room to share with Euro-Canadians, given thatthe Ojibway harvested only to meet their needs and not to the maximum extent of the resources.[797] Chartrand agreed on January 25, 2010 the Ojibway were not buying into/accepting afuture involving progressive extinguishment of their harvesting rights. He gave the followingevidence at pp. 12-13:A…. the Ojibway have absolutely no intention of abandoning their culture wholesale. If they wantsocial and cultural change to happen, to the extent that they want that, they're expecting to be incontrol of that process.Q. But they're not buying into a process of progressive, if you wish, extinguishment by slices atthe behest of the government of their way of life?A. No.[Emphasis added.][798] Chartrand agreed with Lovisek that the Ojibway perceived that they would be able toderive benefits from Euro-Canadian activities.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[799] Chartrand's cross-examination on January 26, 2010 contains the following at pp. 77-79:Q. … But even in terms of the discussions about cattle and waters, I mean, it's framed not in terms ofwe're giving you the waters, we're giving you the lands or anything like that, it's framed in terms ofborrowing and lending, isn't it?A. Yes. Which is where I see the allegory coming in.Q. Well, that's not suggesting a giving up of their waters, for example, is it?A. The chief is alluding in allegory to a certain exchange of access to resources, without, I think -- Ithink it's a basic mistake to take the terminology of borrowing cattle or lending as being literal terms.The Ojibway understand that this potential treaty is going to be a permanent agreement that will last.Q. Right. But in terms of the subject matter of the agreement, the resources, they're not usinglanguage that, for example, says we give you our waters, we give you our land, and in exchange, yougive us cattle and money?A. The chief doesn't say that here. He's alluding to a post -- a potential post-treaty future in whichboth the Ojibway and Euro-Canadians will benefit.Q. Right. And talks about, quite literally, albeit using allegorical terms, a cross-cultural exchange ofknowledge through the lending of children?A. Yes, and again I believe that that is very much an allegorical reference.[Emphasis added.][800] By the end of the evidence, there was consensus between Lovisek and Chartrand on thisissue.[801] I find, based on the evidence of Lovisek (October 23, 2009 at p. 140) and Chartrand(January 21, 2010 at pp 119-120), the Ojibway knew and agreed they were giving up exclusiveuse of their lands and would be sharing the resources on them with the Euro-Canadians after theTreaty was signed. They expected Euro-Canadian and Ojibway uses to be compatible.[802] Away from the Dawson Route and CPR areas, I accept Lovisek's evidence and I find theOjibway did not accept that they would be required to curtail or change their traditionalsubsistence harvesting and trading activities. They did not understand that there would be