Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 11. Post-Treaty Events 191[988] The experts disagreed on the use to be properly made of Ojibway complaints made yearsafter the Treaty was signed.[989] Lovisek wrote in Ex. 28At p. 96:This memory record does not appear to have been transcribed to paper. The treaty terms memorizedby the anonymous Indian Reporter were likely transmitted orally to other Saulteaux and may havebeen recorded indirectly in the form of written complaints, some of which survive in the historicalrecord.At p. 145:The historical record contains a number of recorded grievances or complaints from the [Ojibway]about the non fulfillment of the terms of Treaty 3. These complaints routinely refer to restrictions onhunting and fishing, especially after the establishment of commercial fisheries in Lake of the Woodsc. 1880s and after Ontario imposed game and fish regulations. From this corpus of historical recordsit is possible to access if partially, the understanding of the [Ojibway], and sometimes of both parties,particularly with respect to the taking-up clause.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)At pp 163-164:Although the Treaty 3 Indian Reporter's memory may be lost to history, the substance of what theSaulteaux remembered and understood remained alive and was recorded in their complaints.[Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.][990] Chartrand gave evidence on January 19, 2010 at p. 115 that as time passed, and theOjibway were subjected to outside influences, their recollections became less and less reliable.He used the term "feedback" to describe that phenomenon.[991] There was disagreement among the experts as to the effect of feedback in Ojibwaycommunications recorded in English after 1873. As the Ojibway could not speak English, theircommunications were subject to filtering and editing by the scribe, often the Indian Agent.Therefore, all such communications have to be viewed with caution.[992] Further, as time passed and the Ojibway learned to read and write, their own recollectionscould have been affected by failing memories and information gained from learning to read andwrite, e.g., information gained from reading the Treaty.[993] In the mid-1880s, a clause forbidding ceremonials was inserted into the Indian Act.Potlatch laws, introduced in 1885, were used to suppress traditional ceremonial practices centralto maintaining oral tradition. They seem to have restricted the Midewiwin as well, preventing theOjibway from gathering in the usual areas. Federal legislation forbidding the Ojibway to practicetheir traditional ceremonies or even to speak their own language disrupted the chain of oralhistory handed down from generation to generation.[994] Von Gernet gave evidence about attempts made to stifle "Indianness," which in turnwould have had the effect of hampering the passing on of oral tradition. Von Gernet's evidenceon December 9, 2009 contains the following:Q. And particularly given the Potlatch Laws, which notionally on their face didn't apply to them, butwere de facto applied to them, they weren't carried on as openly either?