Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 5. The Ojibway Perspective - Ojibway History 51They say: you cannot treat with Indians, nor can you hold the Indian country for many years at least,without the presence of troops ...It is probable that the works on the road here will be stopped by the Indians. … it is the opinion notonly of the Commissioners but everyone here, that until troops are sent into the district andpermanently kept there during the summer at any rate, the route will not be safe, and the Governmentworks are liable at any moment to be destroyed. The Indians must be afraid of the white people orthey will very soon make the white man fear them. Mr. Commissioner Simpson publicly said that hewould not again come here to negotiate with the Indians without the presence of troops; and Mr.Dawson declared that to carry on the public works without them was impossible ...[282] On July 27, 1872, the Manitoban newspaper reporter characterized the situation as "dire:"The IndiansSince the inception of Canadian connection with Rupert's Land difficulties have been generated ...when all at once we have a new development in the form of an Indian difficulty ... No wish tofrighten people ... unless the utmost caution be taken and the utmost skilll of manipulation isexercised, any day may find us plunged into ... an Indian war... Mr. Commissioner Simpson has beenobliged to depart from Fort Frances without effecting a treaty, leaving the Indians in an attitudeapproximating something very like hostility. The Dawson Route will be rendered too unsafe to beused, and the whole work of Indian treaties has been brought to a termination at least for (illegible)2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)As things now stand, Commissioner Simpson dare no more go amongst the [illegible] Indians andpropose a treaty than he dare go and denounce polygamy in the hall of the Sultan of Turkey ... theattempt would be futile ... the Indian logic and motive of action, the following: We don't wantCanada's money. … All we wish is the white man to keep away … With a good many people, whenthe Indian question is brought up, there seems to be an impression that there are only two ways ofdealing with it, either treating the Indians as children or treating them as outlaws ...To the idea of exterminating them, the matter assumes a much more serious aspect ... nothing is sosimple as to send 100 men to Fort Frances ... Suppose these tribes became hostile, what would 100men do .?..But is coercion necessary? ... We would suggest to the Ottawa Government that were they to appointa commission of such men ... who are thoroughly acquainted with the Indian character ... to deal withthe Indians ... with ample powers ... to appreciate anything beyond a three dollar annuity.[Emphasis added.][283] Saywell's evidence on April 6, 2009 contains the following:Q. … there was concern in Canada about the Indians and the Métis taking …military action againstthe Canadian government and settlers in the west; is that fair?A. Well, it's not just concern. There was military action against the Canadians in Red River.Q. Is it that there was an out-and-out uprising which required an expedition from the east to putdown; is that fair?A. Yes……Q. But when we look back to the 1870's…[a large scale military uprising by the Indians] was a veryreal concern?A. Yes … the events south of the border suggested that North American Indians were still capable ofopposing European advances…Q. …But I take it that the concern probably had two aspects to it. … the lesser concern -- of asuccessful uprising. … I would suggest that underneath all of this, there would be great expense