Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 11. Post-Treaty Events 226[1178] In recent years, clear-cutting activities of "quite large" areas of their traditional huntingterritories have, in Fobister's view, adversely affected their hunting and trapping. The Ojibwayhave complained that their Treaty Rights have been and are being violated. Modern day clearcuttinghas had greater impacts than earlier logging. It is done 24 hours a day, 7 days per weekby heavy machinery (not by men with saws and axes.) Everything is cut. The land is levelled. Notrees are left standing. In areas that have been clear-cut, no animals remain because their warrenshave been bulldozed. Fobister said, "Our way of life, how we hunted and fished, now it's beingslowly depleted."[1179] Today, Grassy Narrows hunters have to travel farther to hunt than they did in the '50s,'60s and '70s. They receive fewer benefits from Euro-Canadian logging activities. Now, treeplanting is now done by machinery. The Grassy Narrows people are left with almost nothing todepend on.[1180] Fobister has always hunted and trapped and continues to go into the bush to hunt andtrap. "It's still my way of life." Although welfare has "crippled" people within his community,many of the "new generation" want to hunt. He expressed the view on November 25, 2009 that itis "so important" for the future generation to maintain traditional practices and "to be able tofix…what's been happening to us lately."2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples[1181] The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples ("RCAP"), a Canadian Royal Commissionestablished in 1991 to consider Aboriginal issues, culminated in a final report of 4000 pagespublished in 1996.[1182] I did not review RCAP until after I had analyzed the evidence and reached my factualconclusions. My findings herein are not based on RCAP. They are all based on the evidencepresented in the case before me. RCAP, of course, did not deal specifically with Treaty 3 but wasmore general. Nevertheless, as I was completing writing the Reasons, I concluded the followingexcerpt from RCAP is worthy of mention here:The Crown asked First Nations to share their lands with settlers, and First Nations did so on thecondition that they would retain adequate land and resources to ensure the well-being of their nations.The Indian parties understood they would continue to maintain their traditional governments, theirlaws and their customs and to co-operate as necessary with the Crown. There was substantiveagreement that the treaties established an economic partnership from which both parties wouldbenefit. Compensation was offered in exchange for the agreement of First Nations to share. Theprinciple of fair exchange and mutual benefit was an integral part of treaty making. First Nationswere promised compensation in the form of annual payments or annuities, social and economicbenefits, and the continued use of their lands and resources.…First Nations were assured orally that their way of life would not change unless they wished it to.They understood that their governing structures and authorities would continue undisturbed by thetreaty relationship. They also assumed, and were assured, that the Crown would respect and honourthe treaty agreements in perpetuity and that they would not suffer — but only benefit — from makingtreaties with the Crown. ……