Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 5. The Ojibway Perspective - Ojibway History 43samples, and then directed them to take the main route. (Henry Hind, Ex. 1, Vol. 3, tab 42; Ex.45 at p. 250.)[239] Chartrand noted that while the Ojibway did not have Euro-Canadian concepts of buyingor selling land, comments they made during the Palliser, Hind [and Wolseley] expeditions aboutselling land reflected their ability to engage, to a limited extent, in cross-cultural communication.At the same time, the Ojibway emphasized that they were refusing to engage in similar practices.Relations and Contacts with Other OjibwayAmerican Ojibway[240] Von Gernet, Chartrand and Lovisek all opined that by reason of their social, cultural andkinship ties, the Ojibway were aware of the experiences of their Chippewa kin who lived inMinnesota just south of the U.S.-Canada border/the "Medicine line."2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[241] I have already mentioned Dawson's observation made in 1868 (Ex. 1, Vol. 4, tab 53), fiveyears after the conclusion of the Old Crossing Treaty between their American kin and the UnitedStates government, as follows:Some of those who assemble at Rainy River for the sturgeon fishing, in summer, come from RedLake, in the neighbouring State of Minnesota, where they possess hunting grounds; and, among theselatter, are some who have been parties to treaties with the United States for relinquishing certaintracts for settlement, for which they are now in the receipt of annual payments. The experience theyhave thus gained, has rendered them expert diplomatists, as compared to Indians who have never hadsuch advantages, and they have not failed to impress on their kindred and tribe, on Rainy River, thevalue of the lands which they hold on the line of route to Red River.(Ex. 35, Old Crossing Treaty with the Red Lake and Pembina Bands of Chippewa, 1863-1864;Lovisek, November 17, 2009 at p.56; Von Gernet, December 3, 2009 at pp. 126; See also Chartrandreport, Ex. 60, at pp 34 and 36.)[242] During the Old Crossing negotiations, Commissioner Ramsay advised their Americanrelatives that the United States government was only interested in the land for the purpose ofobtaining a right of way and he proposed a low price. He hoped they would propose a higherprice for a broader cession. In the discussion that followed, Ramsay assured them about theirtraditional harvesting activities. Von Gernet's cross-examination on December 4, 2009 includesthe following at pp. 157-160:Q. But then we go on and read what he says -- this is Ramsey speaking, correct?A. Yes.Q. (Reading):"When a man sells his horse, he loses the use of him, and has to do without a horse or buy another;but in this case we pay them the value of the horse, and then give them back the horse, to use as muchas they choose. So we buy their land, and then permit them to use it as heretofore, to hunt for gamein the woods and prairies, and to fish in the streams. So that they lose nothing whatever by thearrangement which they now possess, while they will gain many things of great value to them whichthey do not now have."[Emphasis added.][243] Von Gernet agreed (December 7, 2009) that Ramsey was attempting to assuage theirconcerns about the loss of their traditional livelihood in the event they entered into the treaty.