Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 11. Post-Treaty Events 197fisheries question, presumably as a panacea to retain some of the fishery in Lake of the Woods andsome areas for the growing and harvesting of wild rice as food sources for the Ojibwa. By extendingthe existing shoreline boundaries to a line, drawn from headland to headland, the Indian reserveswould be greatly increased in size and the Indian bands would have exclusive control of the fisheryand wild rice in that area.[1021] Counsel for the Plaintiffs quoted the November 18, 1890 report (Ex. 1, Vol. 12, tab 588)of E. McColl, Superintendent of Inspecting Indian Agencies, reflecting that thus far, attempts to"civilize" the Ojibway were proving fruitless:Only two of the thirteen life chiefs appointed in this agency at treaty time in 1873 are now living. Thedeath of Blackstone, Mawintopenesse –[Mawedopenais]… and other prominent chiefs has effectuallybroken the by chain of traditional pagan observances, which exerted such a baneful influence overtheir deluded followers in preventing them from adopting the enlightened habits of civilization.[1022] In cross-examination on January 19, 2010, Chartrand commented on that passage asfollows at pp. 33-37:Q. … the author …is expressing the hope that finally by getting these old pagan chiefs out of theway, progress towards enlightened western behaviour will be soon to be seen. Is that fair?A. Yes, certainly a very ethnocentric statement, very much in line with what at the time was thegeneral long-term goal of the Department of Indian Affairs, essentially pressing Aboriginal peoplestowards cultural assimilation. And certainly the passing away of what appear to be a generation ofkey traditional religious leaders was seen as an opportune moment in implementing and in furtheringcultural assimilation.[1023] Canada and Ontario agreed that confirmation of the Treaty 3 reserves was to be thesubject of further negotiations at a federal/provincial conference to be held in November 1890.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[1024] Chartrand in his report, Ex. 60, wrote at pp. 356-357:The Treaty 3 related matters discussed and provisionally agreed to by the Dominion and Ontariorepresentatives at the November 28th conference, were reviewed by federal and Ontario officials inDecember 1890 and January 1891. Following an endorsement of a tentative Dominion-Ontarioagreement establishing procedures for settling outstanding Treaty 3 issues, the respectivegovernments enacted parallel legislation in the spring of 1891 confirming the need to negotiate abinding agreement.[1025] 1891. There were further drafts of the Agreement. On April 13, 1891 Thompson sentcomments to Mowat on a draft of "the proposed agreement" including the following:… (4), "There should also, I think, be a stipulation by the provincial Government to confirm andsecure to the Indians, by all means in its power, all and any rights and privileges intended to be cededto them by the Treaty and as to which confirmation by the Ontario Government or Legislature may benecessary or desirable, and especially the rights and privileges in respect to hunting and fishing in thesurrendered territory." [Emphasis added.][1026] Saywell's report (Ex 137-2) contained the following at pp. 38-40: "It would seemevident…that Mowat was not sympathetic to Thomson's concerns and rejected his proposedrevisions. The bill that went to the Assembly a week later – on 21 April and was assented to on 4May 1891 – reflected neither." [Emphasis added.][1027] In the negotiations with Ontario after St. Catherine's Milling was decided, Canada did notconsult the Treaty 3 Ojibway.