Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 12. Findings of Fact Part II 233illustrate that year after year, the principal occupations of the Treaty 3 Ojibway continued to behunting, trapping, fishing, wild rice harvesting and berry picking; occasionally supplemented byother activities.[1226] When the Ojibway made repeated complaints about interference with off-reserveHarvesting Rights, they clearly considered that it was incumbent on the federal government toaddress their concerns.[1227] Evidence of Ojibway discontent and complaints about unfair regulation by Ontario oftheir harvesting activities is not evidence of incompatibility between Ojibway harvestingactivities and anticipated Euro-Canadian land uses in my view. Rather, it is evidence of disregardand disrespect for the Ojibway harvesters and for their Treaty Rights and of the reality thatOntario did not consider itself obliged to respect Treaty Rights under the Honour of the Crown.[1228] Being able to pursue traditional Harvesting Rights as in the past continues to be of greatimportance to the Plaintiffs. It is central to their identity and culture to this day.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[1229] Even in the post-1915 period, the Department of Indian Affairs took a continued interestin the off-reserve harvesting activities of the Ojibway because if the hunt had failed, the federalgovernment would have had to support the Treaty 3 Ojibway.[1230] Other evidence of post-Treaty developments presented in this Court reflected acontinuing expectation that the Harvesting Rights granted under the Treaty and post-TreatyEuro-Canadian development activities would be compatible.Re Compatibility of Ojibway/Euro-Canadian Land Usage After 1873[1231] Post-Treaty communications and activities reflect that in 1873, away from the DawsonRoute and CPR right-of-way, the Commissioners had been correct in anticipating compatibilitybetween traditional harvesting and Euro-Canadian activities in the Treaty 3 area.[1232] I have already quoted the portion of Chartrand's report (Ex. 60) that contains thefollowing at p. 217:Dawson's letter [of March 2, 1874] reveals that he expected little to no conflict with respect to theselection and use of lands by Aboriginal signatories, the Dominion and non-Aboriginal settlers anddevelopers. As he indicated, at the time the only area where potential conflict might develop was inthe vicinity of Rainy River, where Aboriginal signatories had developed their own agriculturalpractices and where lands held the most promising potential for non-Aboriginal settlement andfarming. …In other Treaty 3 localities, such as Lake of the Woods, Dawson expected few conflicts …[1233] In the case of the Grassy Narrows Ojibway, the life of Fobister is illustrative of thecontinuing reality that they were still pursuing the seasonal round without significant Euro-Canadian interference, at least into the 1960s and that Euro-Canadian uses and traditionalharvesting were compatible.