Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 11. Post-Treaty Events 227Written texts also placed limits on the agreements and promises being made, unbeknownst to theIndian parties. For example, written texts limiting hunting and fishing to Crown lands stand incontradiction to the oral promise not to interfere, in any way, with their use of wildlife and fisheriesresources. These inherent conflicts and contradictions do not appear to have been explained to theIndian parties.One of the fundamental flaws in the treaty-making process was that only the Crown's version oftreaty negotiations and agreements was recorded in accounts of negotiations and in the written texts.Little or no attention was paid to how First Nations understood the treaties or consideration given tothe fact that they might have had a completely different understanding of what had transpired.Another fundamental problem was the Crown's failure to establish the necessary laws to uphold thetreaties it signed. Unlike the modern treaties of today, which have provisions for implementation,implementation of the historical treaties was virtually overlooked. Once treaties were negotiated, thetexts were tabled in Ottawa and the commissioners who had negotiated them moved on to otheractivities. …Nor did the government's corporate memory with respect to the historical treaties survive within theIndian affairs administration. Accordingly, after treaties were made, unless they were described andexplained explicitly and disseminated widely in government departments, the promises andunderstandings reached with First Nations would have been lost as officials changed jobs or movedon. This helps to explain the gradual distancing of officials from the treaties that they, as governmentofficials, were charged with implementing.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)… the Crown did not involve First Nations in decisions about how proceeds from their lands wouldbe used. The eclipse of treaties and the absenting of Indian people from decision making waspervasive, reinforced by Indian Act provisions that restricted Indian people to reserves and forbadethem to pursue legitimate complaints about the non-fulfillment of treaties.…… respect for the treaties and the obligation to fulfil them have not been priorities for governments inCanada or, indeed, for Canadians generally.Looking Forward, Looking Back, Part One, Section 6, Sub-Sections 5 and 6, Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples12. FINDINGS OF FACT, PART IIFindings re Identity of The Treaty PartiesRe Canada's and the Ojibway's Understanding of the Identity of Their Treaty Partner andtheir Duties to Each Other[1183] I have found that in 1873, the Ojibway understood the Commissioners had beenappointed by the Government at Ottawa and were representing it. They understood the Treatywas with the Queen's Government in Ottawa and it was the only Queen's Government theywould be dealing with. They understood they were not dealing literally with the Queen.[1184] In the years immediately following 1873, the behaviour of both the federal governmentand the Ojibway reflected a mutual understanding that they were to deal only with each other.