Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 11. Post-Treaty Events 218Duncan Campbell Scott, an Act had been passed, it was a federal Act, that went so far as to preventAboriginal peoples in Canada from raising funds to press for political -- political grievances, to pressfor rights, without the fundraising being expressly approved by the Superintendent General --actually, it was the Minister of Indian Affairs, which was the common -- the common time.… that, to me, is likely the most repressive, 1927 to, in law, 1951……Q. And so what we see here at this period of time is that in fact the government, the federalgovernment, as part of this policy, was really trying to say… we are the ones who will decide whatcases or interests or positions should be advanced on the part of the Indians, and in particular, to sortout what are the frivolous, vexatious types of claims that are being advanced and essentially we'lldeal with the serious issues.A. I believe a long time ago, in a pretrial cross-examination, I think it was 2009, I alluded verygenerically to a hypothetical situation where a policy of protection can become oppressive. I thinkthis is what we're -- this is what we're dealing with here by this time period.Q. But I think internally the government dressed it up as, we're just protecting the Indians from thesedastardly lawyers who are going to advance all sorts of frivolous and vexatious claims, isn't that it?A. In some cases that was actually expressly written out.At p. 101Q. And the central concern may just be this idea that legal counsel would put overinflated ideasabout the scope of the rights and strength of the rights into the Indians' heads, making the Indians takeon unreasonable or irrational positions, that's the way the government thinks?A. All of that, including possible problems of corruption or bad behaviour, uncontrolled behaviour,may very well have been underlying various -- various instances. Underlying it all is the concept thatthe Euro-Canadian concept that Aboriginal peoples had -- essentially were minors under the law --At p. 103:Q. This actually becomes -- this policy is really the ultimate culmination of the idea that the properchannels for the Indians is to take their complaints to the federal government and then the federalgovernment, as their guardian, essentially, will deal with it as appropriate?A. That's certainly how the federal government perceived the process to work…Chartrand, January 19, 2010[1141] Jim Netamequon of the Assabaska Band wrote to the Department of Indian Affairs in hissecond language, English, on October 10, 1927:… During the first treaty was made the way I thing it took [ink blotch] me you Sold some thing that Ishould be owned for ever that is what I am writing to you again the white man Sweep off Every thingon which I should owned and I am kind of afraid if I dont see what I can make my livings and mywishes what have been Sold I wish you could let me have something so I can feeled we were toldwhen first treaty made time we Shake hands we Said that we never have any change and if it happensto be change we will talk over again Settled that up over again [Emphasis added.][1142] On September 17, 1929, J. H. Bury, Supervisor of Indian Timberlands in the Departmentof Indian Affairs, wrote a memorandum (Ex. 1, Vol. 18, tab 845) to the Deputy Minister ofIndian Affairs, blaming Ontario for the conditions facing the Lake of the Woods Indians:I desire to draw your attention to the deplorable state of affairs that is existing at present among theIndians of the Lake of the Woods area (Treaty No.3) due entirely to the action of the Province ofOntario in curtailing their hunting and fishing rights.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)I have seen many Indians practically starving on the shore, whilst they watched white men fishingcommercially in the bays, adjacent to their reserves, the Indians themselves being refused fishinglicenses by Ontario, although quite willing to pay the license fee and purchase their nets andequipment.