Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 4. Euro-Canadian History 1758-1871 38It was not just that a provincial government was to be "a subordinate legislature". Theprovincial governments, he maintained, had been made fatally weak and were ultimately tocease to exist. He envisaged a Canada with one government and , as nearly as possible, onehomogeneous population sharing common institutions and characteristics.[References omitted.][213] Saywell opined that by 1872, it was well known by the political actors of the day thatthere was an active dispute between Ontario and Canada over where the boundaries werelocated. Saywell said that in 1873 it was likely that all three Commissioners were aware of theBoundary Dispute. (Saywell, April 7 and 9, 2009)5. THE OJIBWAY PERSPECTIVE - OJIBWAY HISTORY[214] As mentioned earlier, most of the extant documentation available to this Court is writtenin English by Euro-Canadians and obviously reflects the Euro-Canadian perspective.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[215] In considering mutual intention in 1873, it would not be acceptable, without more, touncritically adopt Euro-Canadian interpretations of Ojibway perception contained in thecontemporaneous documentation. Since the Ojibway could not speak or write English, and sincethe memory record of the negotiations taken by an Ojibway recorder has not survived, experthistorical, ethno-historical and anthropological evidence was called to assist this Court ingleaning the Aboriginal understandings, intentions, interests and objectives: in short, theOjibway perspective at the time Treaty 3 was entered into.[216] Dr. Joan Lovisek ("Lovisek") was called to give expert evidence by counsel for thePlaintiffs. She was qualified as an anthropologist with expertise about the Aboriginal peoples ofCanada, especially the Ojibway of the Boundary Waters Region, and with respect to theapplication of the ethno-historical method. She provided an ethnographic overview of the way oflife of the Treaty 3 Ojibway, an ethno-historical analysis of the negotiations and of the Ojibwayunderstanding of Treaty 3 in 1873. She also gave interpretive evidence on developments after theTreaty was signed, alleged by the Defendants to be relevant to that understanding.[217] Dr. Alexander von Gernet ("Von Gernet") was called to give expert evidence by counselfor Ontario. His speciality is ethno-history and archaeology of Aboriginal peoples in NorthAmerica. Von Gernet was qualified as "an anthropologist and ethno-historian specializing in theuse and analysis of archaeological evidence, written documentation and oral traditions toreconstruct the past cultures of Aboriginal peoples as well as the history of contact betweenAboriginal peoples and European newcomers throughout Canada and parts of the United States."He gave evidence about the ethno-historical context of the 1873 Treaty negotiations, focusedgenerally on the Aboriginal understanding of the raison d'être of treaty making. He also offeredan historical opinion on the background and purpose of s. 91(24) in reply to Milloy's evidence.[218] Mr. J.P. Chartrand ("Chartrand") was called to give expert evidence by counsel forOntario. He was qualified as an expert anthropologist and ethno-historian with particularexperience regarding the Algonquian peoples of Ontario, including the Ojibway. He provided an