Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 11. Post-Treaty Events 206A. I don't recall.Q. And you don't recall any mention of them saying that the Treaty 3 rights were going to beextinguished, for example?A. No.Q. Or that the powers of the federal government around Treaty 3 were going to be changed?A. Well, since Treaty 3 hadn't been mentioned there couldn't be any mention of that, could there?Q. And the same in the cabinet documents that we see, there is no discussion of extinguishing Treaty3 rights, correct?A. No.[1064] Saywell's report, Ex. 137-2 contains the following at p. 57:However, the Indians had been on the mind of officials in the Department of Indians Affairs. Afterthe passage of Laurier's Resolution in 1908 the official concern worked its way up through thebureaucracy to a Report to a Committee of the Privy Council from the Superintendent General ofIndian Affairs approved on 17 January 1910:In a memorandum dated 6th December, 1909, from the Superintendent General of IndianAffairs, stating that the proposed extension of the boundaries of the Provinces of Manitoba,Ontario and Quebec…renders it expedient that full and careful attention should be given tothe Indian claims on the territory proposed to be annexed to the Provinces and thatrepresentations should be made to the Governments of the said Provinces to ensure theirfavourable consideration.[Emphasis added.][1065] Vipond said the first mention he found of Indians in the record was in a report to thePrivy Council (tab 751) dated January 17, 1910. During his evidence on February 25, 2010,Vipond said that as of January 17, 1910, Ontario's focus was on the question of unceded lands.There was no mention of Treaty 3.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[1066] Vipond was then referred to a September 20, 1911 memorandum from the DeputyMinister to the Minister of Lands re Indian Affairs containing the following: "As directed byyou, I have made a careful search for all papers, regulations and documents relating to themanagement of Indian affairs, and I have brought together a large collection which I think willcover all that is of importance in connection with Indian affairs." It mentioned Treaty 3 asfollows: "[T]here are a great many reserves covered by Treaty No. 3, which have never beendefinitively approved or accepted by the Ontario Government. It would be well if this questioncould be taken up and settled as soon as possible." In the same memo, the Deputy Minister raisedthe following issue:There is the interesting question of the language of the treaties with respect to hunting and fishing onwild lands. Are these treaty obligations void when the land comes under the Province, or has theIndian any rights or privileges under the various treaties which places him in a different position fromthe white man with respect to the killing of fish and game.[1067] Vipond opined on February 25, 2010 that the Deputy Minister was raising a concernabout ensuring that the Treaty Rights would continue if the Treaty 3 land came under provincialadministration.[1068] After the agreement was reached in February 1912, the newly elected government ofBorden prepared legislation to move the extension forward.