Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 4. Euro-Canadian History 1758-1871 114. EURO-CANADIAN HISTORY 1758-1871The Historical/Political Evidence[72] In gleaning the perspective and understanding of the Treaty Commissioners at the time ofthe negotiations and signing of Treaty 3 in 1873, the historical and political evidence is relevant.[73] Later in these Reasons, Alexander Morris' understanding of Canada's role vis-à-visIndians under s. 91(24) is examined in the context of the 1873 Treaty negotiations and hismention of the Dominion in the Harvesting Clause.[74] Morris would have had firsthand knowledge of the contemporaneous historical matterscovered here. They are relevant to his and Canada's understanding and intent at the time theTreaty was made.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[75] Professor Milloy ("Milloy"), a Professor of History and Canadian Studies, was called togive expert evidence by counsel for the Plaintiffs. He was qualified as an historian withparticular expertise in Canadian history and the history of the development of Indian policy inCanada. He provided context, not only with regard to the reasons for the assignment to thefederal government of s. 91(24) of the Constitution, but also about the Treaty Commissioners'intent and their understanding of Canada's proper role vis-à-vis Indians/Indian lands.[76] Professor Saywell ("Saywell"), a retired Professor in Canadian History, was called bycounsel for Ontario and was qualified as "an expert in the political and Constitutional history ofCanada, particularly as it relates to federalism and federal/provincial relations, including theperiod from Confederation to 1912." His evidence was given in advance of trial pursuant to Rule36.[77] Professor Vipond ("Vipond"), called to give evidence by counsel for Canada, wasqualified as a political scientist who studies constitutions. He gave evidence about federalprovincialrelations in the period following Confederation.Factors Leading to Federal Control Over Indian Affairs[78] In interpreting the Treaty, the history behind the placement of s. 91(24), Indians andLands Reserved for Indians, under federal jurisdiction is germane to intent and understanding ofthe Treaty Commissioners in 1873.1756 - ConfederationBritish Military Policies[79] Milloy gave evidence about why the federal government assumed responsibility forIndians and Indian lands at Confederation, the perceived scope of s. 91(24) and the TreatyCommissioners' understanding in 1873 of Canada's role vis-à-vis Indians. That evidence was