11 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 August 18th, 2004 25
21 Appearances 2 3 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 4 Susan Vella ) 5 Donald Worme, Q.C. ) 6 Katherine Hensel ) 7 8 Murray Klippenstein ) The Estate of Dudley 9 Vilko Zbogar ) (np) George and George Andrew 10 Andrew Okin ) Family Group 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 14 15 Anthony Ross ) Residents of 16 Kevin Scullion ) Aazhoodena 17 (Army Camp) 18 19 William Henderson ) Kettle Point & Stony 20 Jonathon George ) Point First Nation 21 22 Walter Myrka ) Government of Ontario 23 Kim Twohig ) (np) 24 Sue Freeborn ) 25
31 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 3 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 4 David Nash ) Lambton Shores 5 6 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 7 Bill Hourigan ) (Np) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Nancy Spies ) (Np) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) (Np) 12 13 Harvey Stosberg ) (Np) Charles Narnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Trevor Hinnegan ) (Np) 18 19 Mark Sandler ) Ontario Provincial 20 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) (np) Police 21 22 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 23 Karen Jones ) Police Association & 24 K. Deane 25
41 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 3 Julian Falconer ) (np) Aboriginal Legal 4 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 5 Julian Roy ) 6 7 Al J.C. O'Marra ) Office of the Chief 8 Coroner 9 10 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 11 Matthew Horner ) (Np) 12 Kathleen Lickers ) (Np) 13 14 Mark Frederick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 15 Craig Mills ) 16 17 David Roebuck ) (Np) Debbie Hutton 18 Anna Perschy ) (Np) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
51 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 4 JOAN MARGARET HOLMES, Resumed 5 Continued Examination-in-Chief 6 by Ms. Susan Vella 6 7 8 9 10 Certificate of Transcript 199 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
61 --- Upon commencing at 10:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: Order, all rise, please. 4 This Public Inquiry is now in session. The Honourable 5 Mr. Justice Linden presiding. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. 8 THE REGISTRAR: Please be seated. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning, 12 Commissioner. Just before we resume Ms. Holmes' 13 testimony, I have a couple of matters. The first, if 14 you'll recall that yesterday we discovered that the slide 15 5 of the PowerPoint presentation that had been 16 distributed was incorrect. 17 And so, this morning I have distributed to 18 counsel, a hard copy of slide 5, which contains the 19 correction, which mirrors what was on the screen 20 yesterday. And we also have a revised PowerPoint 21 presentation, which mirrors the presentation you're 22 seeing today and yesterday. 23 I'd like to tender the new CD as a 24 replacement Exhibit P-9, and -- and as well, the 25 replacement for your Tab 2 of the Expert Brief, slide 5.
71 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Exhibit T-9; 2 is that what it is? 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P. 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: P. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 6 I'm sorry, 9. Yes, P-9. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: As a second item, Ms. 11 Holmes has advised me of some typographical errors in the 12 report, which should be corrected, and I propose to do 13 that right now. So, perhaps all counsel can retrieve the 14 expert brief, and I will review for the record, the 15 corrections. 16 And we will start with page 16, footnote 17 43. The last sentence reads: 18 "His direct ancestors have the family 19 names Shawnoo and Shawkence." 20 It should read his direct descendants. So 21 replace the word "ancestors" with "descendants." 22 Next, page 29, the first full paragraph 23 sentence reads: 24 "Similar petitions were sent in 1892." 25 The date should be corrected to 1885.
81 Next, go to page 42, first full paragraph; first sentence 2 reads: 3 "In 1992, the Chippewas of Kettle and 4 Stony Point First Nation, initiated a 5 Court action alleging that the 1928 6 surrender was invalid." 7 Replace 1928 with 1927. 8 Last, page 69, fifth paragraph; currently 9 the first sentence, currently reads: 10 "Shortly after Camp Ipperwash was 11 created in 1932." 12 It should read: 13 "Shortly after Ipperwash Park was 14 created in 1936." 15 And for the record, those are the 16 corrections to the report. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much, Ms. Vella. Did everybody get those? Thank 19 you very much. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 21 22 JOAN MARGARET HOLMES, Resumed: 23 24 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 25 Q: Ms. Holmes, perhaps -- Ms. Holmes,
91 perhaps you can put on the computer. And I believe that 2 we left off yesterday, when we concluded at the creation 3 of the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point in 1919 and 4 you were going to proceed with slide 15? 5 A: Yes, I'll just bring up that slide 6 now. I'd like to -- to now focus then on the -- the 7 Kettle and Stony Point Band and, in particular, the 8 reserve lands assigned to that band. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: Okay. So, if you remember where we 11 left off yesterday, Kettle and Stony Point had just been 12 divided from the -- the rest of the Sarnia Band and 13 created as one Indian Act Band. 14 This slide that -- that you have up on the 15 screen is about the 1927 purchase from the Kettle Point 16 Reserve and I'll just explain to you a little bit about 17 what I'm going to talk about and then I will -- I will 18 point out the -- the location on the map. 19 So, in 1927 part of the beachfront of the 20 Kettle Point Reserve was surrendered for sale. It was a 21 total of eighty-three (83) acres and it was sold for 22 eighty-five dollars ($85) per acre; that represented 23 about 3 percent of the Kettle Point land base. 24 And I'll just show you the -- oh, I don't 25 seem to have my pointer. I'll --
101 Q: Ms. Holmes, just a minute. I have an 2 extra. 3 A: What you see on the -- on the slide 4 is the two (2) reserves, the Kettle Point Reserve and the 5 Stony Point Reserve. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, I 7 don't want to interrupt you but there's a little bit of a 8 hum in the room, is everybody hearing it or am I the only 9 one who's hearing it? Are you hearing a hum? No? Is it 10 just the air conditioning; is that all it is? 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think it's just the 12 air conditioner, Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Let's 14 carry on. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: Thank you. 18 A: Okay, on the left this is the Kettle 19 Point Reserve which I'm showing you. I'm going along the 20 -- the -- the western boundary of the reserve with Lake 21 Huron, the shoreline. This -- this is Kettle Point 22 itself and this is the -- the continuation of the 23 shoreline of Lake Huron. 24 The area that was surrendered is shown in 25 red on the -- on this plan and that's the eighty-three
111 (83) that comprises eighty-three (83) acres. On this 2 side, on the right side of the -- the reserve, just to 3 keep you oriented on the -- on the plan, this -- this 4 area that I'm showing with the pointer is the Stony Point 5 Reserve and it is on the right -- the far right of the 6 slide. 7 Q: And just for the record, the -- on 8 the left side it's marked "Kettle Point Reserve" and on 9 the right side you point -- the place that you outlined 10 is actually marked "The Stony Point Reserve". 11 A: That's correct. And just for 12 interest, this plan that we made in our office to -- to 13 show these two (2) locations, it's a modification of that 14 1900 plan of survey that Davidson did. 15 Q: And in which way did you modify it? 16 A: We -- we modified it by putting the - 17 - the area that was surrendered on it, to mark it for 18 people's information because, of course, that wasn't 19 surrendered in 1900. 20 Q: Of course. Thank you. 21 A: So, I would just -- before I -- I go 22 into the process of how that land was surrendered for 23 sale, I just wanted to recall to you that by the terms of 24 the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which we had discussed 25 yesterday morning, land -- Indian reserve land can only
121 be surrendered directly to the Crown by a First Nation. 2 So, the Royal Proclamation introduces that 3 -- that concept that -- that land that was reserved for 4 Indians in settled areas could only be taken by the 5 Crown, not by any third parties. 6 And that principle was elaborated through 7 the years by various instructions to Indian agents and 8 then when the Indian Acts were written, starting in -- 9 starting before Confederation, but -- but consolidated in 10 the First Indian Act of 1876. The Department was given 11 particular instructions and guidelines and requirements 12 for taking surrenders of Indian land. 13 From a fairly early period, starting 14 around 1912, there was local pressure to open up part of 15 the beach front at Kettle Point for development and 16 settlement. And the -- there were -- there were a couple 17 of attempts in 1912, and then again in 1923, but none of 18 those were carried through. 19 But in -- in 1927, a party by the name of 20 Mackenzie Crawford, approached the Indian Agent and 21 asking -- stating that he wanted to buy part of the beach 22 front at Kettle Point. And at that time the Indian Agent 23 was favourably disposed towards there being a surrender, 24 because he felt that that beach front land at Kettle 25 Point was worthless; he says it's white drifting sand and
131 he says, worthless for agricultural purposes. 2 And I think that you -- you have to recall 3 that at this -- this period in history, the attitude -- 4 the general attitude of the Department of Indian Affairs 5 was that reserve land was the -- the primary value of it 6 was as agricultural land, or as land that you could cut 7 timber off, or -- or sell other resources for. 8 So, when this -- this local land 9 developer, Mackenzie Crawford was looking at this land as 10 a -- a development potential for recreational 11 development, this wouldn't be something the Department of 12 Indian Affairs would think of was value to the band, they 13 just thought of it as being of no value, because they 14 couldn't use it for agricultural purposes. 15 So, the Indian Agent was approached by -- 16 by Crawford, and he -- and -- and the Indian Agent had a 17 favourable attitude towards taking a surrender. 18 And what we see when we look at the 19 historical record is within the community there was a 20 divided opinion on whether or not this surrender was -- 21 was a good idea. 22 Q: And -- and when you say "community," 23 which community are you referring to? 24 A: I'm referring to the Stony Point and 25 -- and Kettle Point communities.
141 Q: All right. Earlier in your testimony 2 when you started out with respect to the 1912 and 1923 3 attempts to open up the land, you said it was from the 4 local community; what local community were you referring 5 to then? 6 A: At first it was the Thedford Board of 7 Trade that -- that wanted to open up land, and they were 8 particularly looking at the Stony Point Reserve at that - 9 - at that time. So, really the -- the pressure to get 10 land is -- is in relation to both of those reserves. 11 And the -- the approach in 1912 was more 12 specific to Kettle Point, and this -- this proposal that 13 Mackenzie Crawford brought to the Indian agent in 1927, 14 that was specific to Kettle Point, to the beach front. 15 So, I'm just going to draw your attention 16 to one (1) -- one (1) piece of correspondence that was 17 sent in by a portion of the -- of the band, and it's -- 18 it's Document 189 and it's at Tab 45. 19 Q: That would be Inquiry Document 20 4000189. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: Okay. So, are we ready? 25 Q: Yes, go ahead.
151 A: Okay. So, this document was written 2 in February 1927 by Chief John Millikin, Bressette and 3 Robert George. And it's signed, there's a little bit cut 4 off on the bottom of the page but it looks it's signed 5 also by William George who appears to be the secretary. 6 And it's written from Raven's Wood which 7 is the little town on the highway just outside of the 8 reserve. And there it -- it starts off: 9 "Sir, 10 We have been anxiously awaiting for the 11 decision of the Indian Department 12 regarding the sale of the parcel of 13 land applied for by McKenzie Crawford 14 and Son of Sarnia, Ontario. Whatever 15 conclusion the Department has come to, 16 please advise us if you are in favour 17 of the sale of the land. 18 Please give us permission to hold a 19 general council as soon as possible. 20 The majority of the voters are in 21 favour of the sale of this land and are 22 anxiously waiting for a general 23 council. 24 If the letter sent by Cornelius 25 Shawanoo have anything to do with the
161 delay of the sale, please do not pay 2 any attention to them. No doubt the 3 most of his letters are fictions. 4 Waiting for a favourable reply at an 5 early date, we remain as ever yours." 6 And then there's the signatures. 7 Now there's a couple of very interesting 8 things about this letter. First of all, at this time, 9 all that we know from the written record is that McKenzie 10 Crawford who's a private developer has approached the 11 Indian agent saying that he wants to buy this land. 12 There has been no formal application to 13 the Department to make a purchase. And there hasn't been 14 a -- the Department hasn't raised with the First Nation 15 the -- the prospect or the possibility of surrendering 16 the land. So, when I read this letter it -- it suggests 17 to me that either Mr. Crawford has approached some of the 18 -- the band members, probably the chief himself or the 19 Indian agent has already been talking to the -- probably 20 the chief and council perhaps some other members about 21 this proposed surrender. 22 Now, the second thing is you'll notice by 23 the language of it that the chief and these two (2) other 24 men who appear to be councillors, they're asking the 25 Indian Department what should we do? And do you favour
171 the sale and do you have permission for us to have a 2 general council? 3 And a general council would be a meeting 4 of the entire band membership to -- to vote on the 5 surrender. So, the chief is asking Indian Affairs for -- 6 for permission, for advice and it shows how at this 7 period of time the Department of Indian Affairs has a 8 tremendous amount of influence over what a chief and 9 council might do. So, it show -- it shows the degree of 10 -- it shows the degree of -- of control that the 11 Department has in band -- in band affairs. 12 The second part of the letter where he's 13 talking about letters from another band member, Cornelius 14 Shawanoo, is raising the -- the flag that there is 15 descent or -- or a difference of opinion within the 16 community on -- on this whole question -- potential 17 question of surrendering the land. 18 And the -- and Shawanoo did in fact write 19 some letters and I'm going to take you to one of those 20 next so that you can see the other -- the other view on 21 this -- this topic. And the -- one of the letters from 22 Shawanoo is -- it's at Tab 48 and it's Document Number 23 196. 24 Q: That would be Inquiry Document Number 25 4000196. And this is a letter dated March the 1st, 1927?
181 A: Yes. Actually it's March 21st. 2 So, a little bit -- a little bit of time 3 has passed before this letter comes in, and there is some 4 activity prior to this letter, which I'm going to talk 5 about later, because the Indian agent has -- has started 6 to make some -- some advances to call a General Council, 7 and to -- and to get the surrender processed, or the 8 consultation for the surrender process underway. 9 But this is what Cornelius Shawanoo 10 writes, and the letter is a little bit difficult, because 11 there's many archival records, it's -- it's torn on the 12 corners. And it's also -- the author of the letter is 13 not a fluent English speaker, so the letter's not -- is 14 always -- is sometimes a little bit difficult to follow. 15 But he's writing directly to the 16 Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa, he's not going 17 through the Indian agent. And again, just to -- to help 18 you to understand the significance of that in this time 19 period when a -- an individual of a -- of a First Nation 20 would write to the Department, they were always 21 instructed to go through their Indian Agent, they were 22 not supposed to write directly to the Superintendent 23 General of Indian Affairs. Always the instruction was 24 you deal with your Indian Agent, you deal through the 25 Indian Agent, it was part of the Indian Affairs
191 hierarchy. And it was one (1) of the ways in which 2 Indian Affairs wanted to keep the Indian agent to be the 3 first line person in control of local disputes. 4 But -- but in this case he writes directly 5 to the -- the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa, 6 perhaps as an indication that he's not confident that the 7 Indian agent will give proper weight or -- or take his -- 8 his request seriously. 9 So, I'll read you -- I'll read from the 10 letter. It starts off: 11 "Dear Sir. We wish to find out if an 12 Indian agent has authority to notify 13 Indians to hold General Council and 14 propose to sell Indian land. He came 15 to Kettle Point last week, distributing 16 notices that a General Council is to be 17 held on the 30th of the month, for a -- 18 for a purpose of selling a certain 19 parcel of ground at Kettle Point. 20 And the Chief said they never pass a 21 resolution at the Council for Council 22 to be held. This is the second time 23 [It's cut off] does this, this winter. 24 It looks to us that he [It's cut off 25 again]
201 "-- not care anything about the 2 original --" 3 Looks like members of Kettle Point: 4 "Our boys are refused from [And I 5 believe it's] taking up land. And 6 they're -- and they -- and they're put 7 [A word I can't read] almost in the 8 same position of an Indian woman who 9 has married a non-Treaty Indian or a 10 white man, all be --" 11 Cut off. And I think that's supposed to 12 be, rights: 13 "They have is to get their annuity, 14 money, and will not --" 15 Excuse me, it's a -- an Indian woman 16 married to a non-Treaty Indian or a white man, and then I 17 think that there's a period there, and then the new 18 sentence starts: 19 "All the right they have is to get 20 their annuity money and will not vote 21 any land dealing." 22 And I think it's supposed to be: 23 "And will not be able to vote in any 24 land dealing, because they not entitled 25 to any land on our reserve."
211 I'll come back and explain that after. 2 Then the letter goes on: 3 "This affair arose from our Indian 4 agent by the Council, that the Indian 5 Department is holding certain part of 6 the Kettle Point for the purpose 7 selling the ground. He even does one 8 (1) of the Indian --" 9 And it's cut off again: 10 "-- of the Indians [I'm not sure of the 11 word, sorry] to sell. That the 12 Department was --" 13 This is a little bit difficult So, he 14 goes on to say: 15 "same and [okay] that the Department 16 will sell it just the same." 17 So I think what he's saying here is that, 18 if -- okay -- if he -- sorry, I'm just going to start 19 the sentence again because I'm -- I -- I'm losing the 20 sense of it for you. 21 Okay, so he's talking about the Council to 22 sell the ground: 23 "He even told one (1) of the Indians, 24 If the Indians refused to sell that the 25 Department will sell it just the same
221 and the supposed [I think it's supposed 2 to be -- buyer, or buy] amount to pay 3 fifteen dollars ($15.00) each of those 4 who will go to the meeting on the 5 thirtieth (30th). I suppose those in 6 favour of the sale, as I have said many 7 times, our property is going fast 8 enough without selling land because we 9 have not the majority to stop it, sorry 10 to say. I want to know if that is the 11 case on the --" 12 Q: letter -- letter? 13 A: I think it is letter --" 14 Q: Which I wrote. 15 A: "-- which I wrote to the Honourable 16 Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior, 17 Ottawa, where I have mentioned all our 18 troubles. I can say it is positively no 19 use for us to try to stop the land sale 20 and I ask the Department to stop the 21 General Council, which is called up by our 22 Indian agent without the Council passing a 23 resolution or without [and then the word, 24 "without" is repeated] the original 25 members' consent. I am sorry to acquire a
231 few more facts about this reservation." 2 And then he goes on. There is something 3 there at the beginning and I think it might be, "if" or 4 "I" -- I'm not sure but it -- then it says: 5 "Does half-breeds of a white father 6 residing at Kettle Point entitled to 7 hold office if there was not --" 8 And it's supposed to be, "if they were": 9 "-- not admitted in the Band by 10 Council. 11 And in number 2, right up there where I 12 didn't know what it is, it's actually number 1. Number 13 2: 14 "Does a member of the American 15 Potawatomi, who hold a claim -- a share 16 of that million dollars in U.S. -- has 17 right to hold office on Canadian Treaty 18 Indians' property and do as he likes on 19 the reservation without the original 20 members' consent?" 21 Moving on the last page: 22 "Who is the original members on Indian 23 reserve [And, two (2) little words I 24 can't read] descended of the first 25 Indian that will settle on parcel of
241 ground have -- and have improvements on 2 already. When the reserves were first 3 set apart, or those that came in 4 afterwards as visitors between fifty 5 (50) and seventy (70) years ago, we 6 want to have a full understanding of 7 this." 8 So, there's a lot of information in this 9 letter and I -- I'm -- I want to go back and -- and point 10 out some of the particular features of it. You know, 11 first of all, he's talking about -- he's asking -- he's 12 asking what kind of rights and what kind of procedure is 13 required and necessary, which I think is a measure and 14 indication of how difficult it was for the -- the general 15 population on a reserve to understand exactly what rights 16 there were and what rights they had and exactly what 17 procedures were required for anything as monumental as 18 taking away part of the reserve. 19 So -- and this -- you know, in this 20 period, like in 1927, there was very little -- there was 21 very little education of the Indian population about what 22 their rights were, and -- and while they were controlled 23 and managed under very strict and specific legislation, 24 there was very little understanding amongst the general 25 population of -- of what there were -- what those things
251 were, and even amongst a council. 2 So, this first part of the letter he's 3 asking that you know, does the Indian agent have the 4 right to do that, to come and call a general council 5 meeting, when the chief and council have indicated that 6 they didn't pass a resolution saying, we're going to have 7 a general council meeting. So, that's the first thing he 8 wants to know. Does the Indian agent have the right to 9 initiate this -- this surrender process. 10 He goes on talking about the original 11 members of the reserve, and this comes back to that issue 12 that we talked about yesterday, about the -- the rights 13 of the so called Potawatomi, foreign Indians, American 14 Indians on the reserve, and we can see how this was an 15 issue, which really hasn't gone away and really hasn't 16 been resolve. 17 So, he's asking about that, and in that he 18 uses this analogy of some of their boys not having any 19 more rights. He talks about Indian women who've married 20 out. 21 And here -- here the reference is to that 22 the -- the lack of rights that women had, who -- who 23 married non -- non-Indians or non-band members, how they 24 lost a lot of their rights on the reserves. 25 So, he's saying that there are people
261 here, what he calls our boys, our original members who 2 aren't getting what he considers to be the proper right 3 and access to -- to land on the reserve. 4 And the -- again, this -- this issue of -- 5 of people not having full rights is one (1) that -- 6 that's at the fore. 7 So, he's -- he's asking again, you know, 8 do they have the right to sell it. Now, at the beginning 9 of page 2, he raises the -- he raises what becomes a huge 10 controversy in this surrender about the fact that 11 somebody has been told that even if the -- the band 12 refuses the vote, the Government is going to sell the 13 land anyway. 14 So, this is a common fear on the reserve, 15 this is a -- an idea that's going around, is that the 16 reserve is going to be sold out under them that they -- 17 even if they refuse a surrender. So, it goes back again 18 to the fact that people are not very aware of what their 19 legal rights are, because their legal rights under the 20 Indian Act are the only way that the land can be 21 alienated from them and sold, is if, in fact, they give a 22 voluntary surrender. 23 It -- he also starts talking about this 24 money that -- that's being circulated, and -- and money 25 being paid to people if they -- if they will go and vote
271 for the surrender. 2 So, he raises here the -- the whole issue 3 and what becomes a very contentious issue in this whole 4 1927 Kettle Point surrender, of whether there was some 5 kind of undue influence or he -- he refers to it later as 6 -- as bribery. 7 Again, at the bottom of that second page, 8 he raises that the issue of what rights do people have, 9 what he calls half breeds that are born of a white 10 father. And again, the issue of -- of Potawatomis. And 11 when he's talking about this million dollar claim, what 12 he's referring to is there was -- around this time there 13 was a claim in the United States that Potawatomi 14 descendants had -- there was a compensation claim going 15 on. So, that -- that's what that reference is -- is to 16 that. 17 Q: I'm sorry, can you just explain that 18 a little more; a compensation scheme with respect to 19 what? 20 A: Well, I don't know a huge amount 21 about it, but in the United States, in this time period, 22 there were a number of Indian claims being considered, 23 where the American Government looked at claims that a 24 number of tribal groups had against the American 25 Government, for displacing them for -- from their lands.
281 And this would be a reference to one (1) of those, that 2 there was -- there was some kind of a compensation coming 3 from the American Government, due to certain -- certain 4 tribal groups. 5 So, it's obvious this is -- this is in the 6 news, and he's aware of this and -- and there's likely 7 discussion of it on the reserve and if there are people 8 who are living on the reserve who have an interest in 9 that claim. So, that's the reference to that. 10 So, basically I wanted just to take you to 11 that document because it -- it shows you again, sort of 12 the roots of -- of some of the division in the community 13 in general which is carrying on, which has never really 14 been resolved. And more specifically in terms of the 15 surrender, he's raising issues already about how this 16 surrender is being approached in terms of procedure. 17 And he's raising the flag about the 18 feeling that -- that people have the idea that if they 19 don't vote for the surrender that the land is going to be 20 sold anyway. And that there is -- there is the 21 suggestion that there's -- there's money being offered to 22 people to go and vote at the surrender. 23 So, what -- what had happened between that 24 -- that first letter that I read to you, the letter from 25 the chief, and asking the Indian Department if they were
291 in favour of the surrender and the -- the letter from 2 Shawanoo against the surrender the Indian agent had gone 3 and put up notices calling for a -- a general council to 4 -- to start the vote, to -- to seek a vote for the 5 surrender. 6 And what's of -- of particular interest I 7 think is that the local -- the local MP had written to -- 8 to the Department and supporting the application from 9 Crawford and the -- he -- he writes in a document and I - 10 - I quoted it on page 39 of the report in that second 11 last paragraph. 12 Goodi -- the name of the MP is Goodison, 13 the MP for Lambton West. And the -- the officer in -- in 14 charge of lands at Indian Affairs writes that Mr. 15 Goodison very -- was very strongly in favour of Mr. 16 Crawford's proposition and has requested the Department 17 to give it every consideration. 18 So, what you see and again this was a 19 fairly common occurrence of this -- this period in 20 history is that local MP's would write to the -- to the 21 Minister of Indian Affairs and support a -- an 22 application by a particular person who was seeking to -- 23 to buy Indian land. So, the local MP has promoted -- 24 promoted the -- the application by Crawford. 25 So, shortly after that there was a
301 resolution in -- in council from the chief to -- to 2 endorse the idea of getting a surrender. And they were 3 looking for a cash payment of eighty-five dollars ($85) 4 an acre for that land. 5 Q: So, that's eighty-five dollars ($85) 6 for each of eighty-three (83) acres? 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: That was the subject of this 9 application? 10 A: That's right. And so, the Department 11 went ahead with the usual kind of procedure for taking a 12 surrender and the -- the Department drew up a -- a 13 voter's list. And a voter's list would be a list of all 14 the individuals on the reserve who had a right to vote in 15 -- in a surrender. And they would be men, twenty-one 16 years (21) of age or older. Women did not have the right 17 to vote. 18 And on that voter's list that was drawn up 19 there were thirty-nine (39) individuals. They had the 20 vote. Twenty-seven (27) of them voted in favour of the 21 surrender and there were no votes against the surrender. 22 And if you look at the poll list, the -- 23 the -- the list of voters, what you'll see is that the 24 thirty-nine (39) names are listed and they include -- 25 these are -- these are band members, so they would be
311 members that were potentially residing on either the 2 Stony Point or the Kettle Point Reserve. 3 Q: And is that at Tab 49? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: That's Inquiry Document Number 6 4000197. It's the poll book? 7 A: And the first -- the first page of 8 the poll book is a general memorandum for agent's 9 guidance. This is not specific to this surrender. This 10 would be something that was a standard Indian Affairs 11 circular or memorandum that would be put in the front of 12 the poll book. 13 And then if you look -- if you look on the 14 second page, the third, the fourth and the fifth page, 15 this -- this document, the first and the second page, 16 actual -- are actually one (1) page because it's a wide, 17 like a ledger-sized page. 18 So -- and what the agent has actually used 19 here is -- is a sheet which is the standard sheet that 20 was used for making annuity payments; that's what the 21 columns and everything that are in there. And they've 22 just used that sheet as a poll book for the -- the vote 23 on the surrender. 24 So, down the left-hand side is the names 25 of all the voters, you'll see that on the second page and
321 the fourth page. And then in the columns, over to the 2 right, you'll see one column that's written in in 3 handwriting "voted for". 4 The next column in handwriting is written 5 "voted against". And if you look down the columns you'll 6 see there are X's besides certain names in the "voted 7 for" list and there's a total of twenty-seven (27) of 8 those. 9 And in the "voted against" list there are 10 no marks. And the note on the bottom of the third page, 11 it says: 12 "Those members on list were absent at 13 the meeting who did not vote." 14 So, that's the agent's note which is a 15 little awkwardly worded. But what he's saying is, the 16 people on the list who did not vote, they were absent, 17 okay? So people either went to the surrender meeting and 18 voted for the surrender or they didn't go and vote. 19 And it's -- it's a -- if you recall from 20 the Shawanoo letter and which -- and which is also 21 documented in other documents, there was a suggestion 22 that -- that fifteen dollars ($15) were given out for 23 people to go and vote. 24 And when the agent later defends that, the 25 suggestion was, well, actually they gave out five dollars
331 ($5) to go and vote but you didn't have to vote for the 2 surrender, you just had to show up to vote. 3 But what we see, the way in which people 4 reacted to the situation was, they only went and voted if 5 they were going to vote for. If they were vote -- if 6 they didn't want the surrender they did not vote. 7 And that -- that is sometimes a 8 consistent, sort of, action or reaction that people don't 9 go and vote if they're going to vote no. They either, 10 they don't go or they -- they don't want to have the 11 meeting in the first place. 12 And if you recall yesterday when we talked 13 about the -- the vote to -- to set aside that fifty (50) 14 acres for the Potawatomis, the Kettle Point and Stony 15 Point people refused to vote. 16 So, it's not that they voted against it, 17 they didn't vote. They refused to take part in the vote. 18 And I -- some people have told me that it is a Nishnawbe 19 cultural, behavioural fact, that people don't want to say 20 no. So, instead of saying no, the way you say no, is to 21 avoid something. 22 And I think that it would be my 23 interpretation of both these incidents of the refusing to 24 vote for the fifty (50) acres. And when people did not 25 come to vote at -- at this -- at this surrender vote,
341 that it's because that -- that was their way of refusing. 2 Of course under Indian Act legislation, 3 and the way a surrender is conducted, the -- the absence 4 of voting or the refusing to vote is not considered a no 5 vote, it's just an absence. 6 Q: Okay. Thank you. And -- 7 A: So -- 8 Q: -- do you -- you were able to -- to 9 discover, based on your research, who paid the -- the 10 five dollar ($5) bonus? 11 A: It was Crawford, who was the -- the 12 purchaser. 13 Q: Right. 14 A: And the -- this whole paying people 15 to show up to vote becomes a controversy that is -- is 16 raised and discussed. And I will just -- I'll just read 17 you a portion of a letter that Crawford wrote just after 18 the election. And it's -- it's cited on page 40 of the 19 report, and it's from document -- it's from document 199, 20 which is at Tab 51, but you can just look at it in the 21 report if you care to. 22 So, Crawford wrote this letter to the MP, 23 and he's -- he's explaining the -- his actions and his 24 involvement. He writes, quote: 25 "I think I forgot to tell you that all
351 the Indians of the band over twenty-one 2 (21) that has a vote, will get their 3 bonus just the same as the ones that -- 4 that did vote. 5 We tried to buy it that day --" 6 And he's talking about the surrender day: 7 "-- we tried to buy it that day for a 8 hundred dollars ($100) per acre, but 9 they all said they had to have some 10 money right away. So we agreed to pay 11 them eighty-five dollars ($85) per 12 acre, and fifteen dollars ($15). There 13 was nothing underhanded, everything was 14 discussed at the meeting." 15 Then he goes on to say: 16 "I am writing you this as I am sure 17 some of the Indians are going to make 18 as much trouble as they can." 19 Q: And just -- just for the record, that 20 was Inquiry Document Number 4000199. 21 A: Okay. And -- and in fact, there is 22 continued protest against -- against the surrender, led 23 primarily by Shawanoo, who -- who says that it was 24 bribery and fraud. And the Indian -- the Department of 25 Indian Affairs looked at those -- those receipts and they
361 -- they came to the -- the conclusion, or to the 2 determination that -- that it was all above board, that 3 it was -- that it was acceptable, and that it -- that it 4 met the requirements of the Indian Act. 5 And they -- the Department states that 6 when they -- when they seek surrenders, in fact they -- 7 they usually have to make a cash distribution at the time 8 of the surrender. I think that that was the 9 interpretation that the Department was putting on that 10 issue at the time. 11 What I'm doing here is sort of a general 12 overview, so I'm not going to delve into, you know, the - 13 - all the -- all the points about whether or not this was 14 a legitimate surrender or not, but it certainly caused a 15 great deal of upset in the community with people, some 16 people believing that it -- it -- that it was a -- it was 17 not a -- a legitimate surrender, and that it wasn't 18 lawfully taken. 19 The Department went ahead and had the 20 surrender approved by Order in Council, and surrenders at 21 this period do have to be approved by Order in Council. 22 And the -- actually, I'll -- I'll read you 23 part of that Order in Council, what it -- what it says. 24 The -- 25 Q: Can we just go to the document and
371 it's at Tab 57? 2 A: Yes. And it's Document Number 210. 3 Q: That's Inquiry Document Number 4 4000210? 5 A: Okay. So, this is -- this is -- this 6 document is Privy Council Order in Council Number 842. 7 It's passed the 11th of May, 1927. And it reads: 8 "The Committee of the Privy Council 9 have had before them a report dated 28 10 April, 1927 from the Superintendent 11 General of Indian Affairs submitting a 12 surrender given on the 30th day of 13 March, 1927 by the Chippewas of Chenail 14 Ecarte and St. Clair Band of Indians 15 residing on the Kettle Point Reserve 16 Number 44 in the County of Lambton in 17 the Province of Ontario of a portion of 18 the above-mentioned Indian Reserve 19 Number 44 containing an area of eighty- 20 three (83) acres which may be described 21 as follows..." 22 And then they give a legal description of 23 the land. And following down to the next paragraph: 24 "The said surrender has been given in 25 order that the said portion of land may
381 be sold for the benefit of the band of 2 Indians in accordance with the terms 3 thereof. The Minister recommends that 4 the said surrender has been duly 5 authorized, executed and attested in 6 the manner required by the forty-ninth 7 section of the Indian Act, that the 8 same be accepted by Your Excellency in 9 Council, the Committee concurring the 10 foregoing rec -- foregoing 11 recommendation and submit the same for 12 approval." 13 And it has been approved. A couple of 14 interesting things about the Order in Council; they 15 describe the Band -- they name the Band "the Chippewas of 16 Chenail Ecarte and St. Clair Band" and if you remember 17 they, in 1919, they had already been separated and 18 constituted as the Kettle and Stony Point Band. 19 And then they refer to them as residing on 20 the Kettle Point Indian Reserve Number 44. Actually, the 21 -- when you look at the list of voters for this surrender 22 and then you compare it with the list of voters for the 23 next surrender at Stony Point which we're going to talk 24 about next, they are the same, with a few differences, 25 they're basically the same -- the same people.
391 So, the Order in Council is a little bit 2 imprecise or it's not, like the name of the band isn't up 3 to date and whatever. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: So, that was -- that was authorized - 6 - excepted. So, the final -- the final amount of money 7 for that surrender is seven thousand and fifty-five 8 dollars ($7,055) which is the eighty-three (83) acres by 9 eighty-five dollars ($85) per acre. 10 And just out of interest, Crawford had a 11 little bit of a hard time actually raising the money to 12 pay for it so the payment comes a little bit late. And 13 in the -- in the meantime, while he's trying to raise the 14 money, another individual comes forward with a -- an 15 offer to buy the land and then the -- the chief, because 16 the land payment isn't being made, wants to have the 17 surrender cancelled, but these two individuals, Crawford 18 who'd made the initial application to buy the land and 19 White, who's the -- makes -- the other party that makes 20 the offer, they -- they go in together. 21 They, sort of, join forces and -- and the 22 land purchase is -- is completed. Just to -- to jump 23 ahead a little bit in time, the -- the Chippewas of 24 Kettle and Stony Point did launch a court action in 25 relation to this surrender.
401 In 1992, the -- the parties talked to the 2 Specific Claims Branch of Indian Affairs, to see if they 3 couldn't negotiate a settlement of this surrender, and 4 the Specific Claims Branch rejected it, they would not -- 5 they did not believe it was within their mandate, it 6 didn't fit within their mandate of a claim to negotiate. 7 So, it went on in the courts. 8 And the -- the Court found in 1925, I 9 think, sorry, I just lost my place here. Okay, so the 10 Court found that it was -- okay. So, the Court found 11 that: 12 "The portion of the band's case seeking 13 a declaration of the land surrender and 14 subsequent Crown patent were void, was 15 -- was dismissed." 16 The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld that 17 decision in '96 and the Supreme Court also in '98. 18 During that time period while it was going through the 19 Courts, the Indian Claims Commission, also reviewed the 20 rejection of the claim by Specific Claims. 21 And I should just explain those bodies 22 briefly. The Specific Claims Branch is a -- is a Branch 23 of the Department of Indian Affairs that looks at 24 grievances that First Nations have, to do with the lawful 25 obligations of the Crown, usually things around reserve
411 land. And if the Specific Claims Branch rejects a claim, 2 then the First Nation can take that rejected claim to the 3 Indian Claims Commission, which is a -- a third party 4 body. And the Indian Claims Commission will inspect the 5 facts of the case and make recommendations to Government. 6 And in this case, the Indian Claims 7 Commission reviewed the claim and they -- while they 8 concluded that the surrender was valid and unconditional, 9 they agreed that -- that Canada breached its fiduci -- 10 fiduciary obligation to the First Nation, and recommended 11 that there be some -- some kind of a negotiated claim. 12 And to my knowledge that -- there has been no further 13 action on that. 14 Q: All right. All right. So, just to 15 recap then, in 1927 the Kettle and Stony Point Band 16 surrendered eighty-three (83) acres of its shoreline or 17 beach front property at the Kettle Point Reserve, which 18 is marked in red on slide 15, after which the Department 19 of Indian Affairs completed a sale of that property to 20 the -- for developmental purposes, for which seven 21 thousand and eighty-five dollars ($7,085) was paid? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: All right. And just again, the 24 effect of the surrender was for -- in this case, was that 25 the band lost its interest in that portion of the Kettle
421 Point Reserve; is that right? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: Okay. So, on -- I'm going to go on 5 to the next slide right now. 6 So, the year -- the year following the 7 surrender at Kettle Point, there was a surrender at the 8 Stony Point Reserve, and in this case the surrender takes 9 up the entire beach front, and -- and it was three 10 hundred and seventy-seven (377) acres; it was sold for 11 thirty-five dollars ($35) an acre and it's about 14 12 percent of the land base of Stony Point. 13 So, I'll just -- again, I'll just -- I'll 14 just point this out on the slide. Okay, on the far left 15 of the slide is the Kettle Point Reserve, labelled Kettle 16 Point Reserve, which we just talked about. 17 Over here on the right of the slide is the 18 Stony Point Reserve, labelled Stony Point Reserve. And 19 what you see in red is the entire beach front property of 20 the Stony Point Reserve, that's the area that -- that was 21 surrendered in this 1928 surrender, leaving the -- the 22 balance of the reserve behind the beachfront and down to 23 where the highway is. 24 So, this -- the surrender at Stony Point 25 has some -- some similarities to the -- the surrender of
431 Kettle Point. Also in this case there's real estate 2 developer whose name is Scott and he applies to Indian 3 Affairs to purchase this beachfront. 4 And the Indian agent again, same Indian 5 agent, is in favour of the surrender. Again, he talks 6 about this -- this land being worthless to the Indians, 7 again -- 8 Q: And because of the agri -- the lack 9 of agricultural potential? 10 A: Yes. And -- and what he says is and 11 I quote: 12 "Being white sand and from an 13 agricultural point of view, it's 14 absolutely worthless." 15 So, we see that same -- that same attitude 16 towards how land should be used or how they valued land 17 for Indian purposes. 18 And again in this case, the local MP, 19 Goodison, he supports the -- the application and he makes 20 a statement that -- that the Indians are anxious to 21 dispose of the land. And of course we have no way of 22 knowing what -- what his basis of -- of making that 23 comment is. 24 Q: In -- in terms of the written 25 historical record?
441 A: That's correct, yeah. And he -- so 2 it, you know, it suggests again that the local MP has 3 been -- has been talking to people but that's not 4 apparent. Now Goodison was -- was told by the Department 5 that -- that they should be very careful in the way that 6 this surrender is taken because of all the trouble that 7 they just encountered at -- at Kettle Point and that a 8 proper application should be made. 9 But Goodison is -- is given some assurance 10 by the Indian Department that the application would -- 11 would receive consideration it wants. So, there's that 12 suggestion that -- that the Department is -- is in favour 13 of a surrender. 14 The -- Kettle and Stony Point chiefs, they 15 -- they pass a resolution calling for a general council 16 to consider this application for a surrender. And it was 17 -- the surrender was accepted by the band. Again, we see 18 that what's a little bit peculiar in this case is that 19 the voter's list -- the -- the -- is twenty-eight (28) 20 band members and if you remember the year before at 21 Kettle Point it was thirty-nine (39). 22 So there's a difference -- there's a 23 difference in how many people are on the voter's list and 24 I can't really account for that because I haven't gone 25 into examining what the -- what the -- why there's that
451 difference in number. 2 Q: But just -- just for clarification of 3 course it's all of the members, male members over twenty- 4 one (21) years of age who are members of the Kettle and 5 Stony Point bands which have a vote, the right to vote on 6 the surrender? And what you're saying is that one year 7 earlier there were thirty-nine (39) such eligible voters 8 and this time around there are fewer? 9 A: Yes. So, I'm -- and it's twenty-one 10 (21) years of age or older male members, right, who are 11 official band members. So -- 12 Q: I'm sorry. That means that they're 13 on -- on the membership list; is that right? 14 A: That means that they're on the 15 membership list, that's correct. And if you look at what 16 they call the poll which is -- it's Document 229 and it's 17 at Tab 68. 18 Q: And that's Inquiry Document Number 19 4000229. 20 A: And the -- the first -- the first 21 page of that document is the letter the report of the 22 Indian agent and then the second one is the list of names 23 and I'll just go through that. 24 Q: Okay. Yes. 25 A: Okay. So, this is the Indian agent,
461 Thomas Paul, and he's writing to J.D. McLean who's the 2 Assistant Deputy and Secretary of the Indian Affairs in 3 Ottawa. He writes it in October 28th. He says: 4 "Sir, I beg to acknowledge the receipt 5 of your letter of the 23rd instant 6 regarding the surrender of certain 7 shore lots to Mr. W.J. Scott of Sarnia, 8 Ontario in Kettle Point. In reply -- 9 in reply, beg to say that the original 10 and duplicate copies of the surrender 11 was forwarded to the Department for 12 approval. I am also enclosing copies 13 of the members who were present, be 14 twenty-eight (28) in number and the 15 list of those who voted for same, be 16 twenty-five (25). The other three (3) 17 present did not vote either way. In 18 checking over the vote, I found that I 19 have submitted twenty-seven (27) 20 present and twenty-five (25) voting for 21 surrender, but the former check is 22 correct per enclosed list. Trusting 23 that this meets with the Department's 24 approval, I remain..." 25 And you know what, now I know why the --
471 which I neglected to notice before because this is not -- 2 this is not the list of everyone who is entitled to vote. 3 These were the list of the people who are present at the 4 meeting and that's why the number is -- is smaller. 5 And it's not -- it's a -- it's not an 6 actual poll. Usually a Poll Book gives the name and then 7 you have the X's on it. This one is a list that he made 8 up afterwards. 9 But you'll see if we cross-reference this 10 list with the poll -- the poll on the Kettle Point 11 surrender that there's a large overlap with the names. 12 So, the -- the basic information that we get by comparing 13 these two (2) is that people -- men from both Kettle and 14 Stony had the right to vote on both of these surrenders 15 which they would under the Indian Act, being considered 16 one Band, and that -- that they did -- there was an 17 overlap in the people who voted on both of those. 18 Q: So, just so that I understand, what 19 this list shows us is the names of the twenty-five (25) 20 members -- Band Members who voted in favour of the 21 surrender and it makes list -- makes note of the fact 22 that there were also three (3) other Band Members present 23 who did not vote but they don't actually identify who 24 those people were? 25 A: That's correct. Yes. So, that's
481 what I mean by, it's not really a -- it's not really a 2 poll because a poll normally lists every eligible voter. 3 Q: And was the surrender ultimately 4 accepted by the Department of Indian Affairs? 5 A: Yes, it was. And we can look at that 6 Order in Council. It's -- it's Document Number 245 and 7 it's at Tab 70. 8 Q: Yes, that's Inquiry Document Number 9 4000245. 10 A: There was one other thing I just 11 wanted to -- to remark on with Thomas' letter because he 12 -- he says something in his letter which -- which really 13 isn't correct and one wonders why an Indian agent would 14 make such a slip up. 15 But he says "The surrender ..." it's in 16 the -- if you look at the beginning of his letter which, 17 sorry, was at Tab 68. 18 Q: 4000229, the Inquiry Document Number 19 that we were just looking at? 20 A: So he says in his very opening 21 sentence: 22 "I beg to acknowledge the receipt of 23 your letter [blah, blah, blah] 24 regarding the surrender of certain 25 shore lots to Mr. Scott of Sarnia."
491 Well, the surrender was not made to Mr. 2 Scott. The surrender is made to the Crown and the Crown 3 is then at liberty to sell it to Scott. 4 But the -- but it's -- the -- the reason 5 that I -- that I mentioned that is -- the Indian -- the 6 Indian agent is the person on the ground who deals face 7 to face with the band members in discussing a surrender 8 or in discussing any kind of a transaction, so that the 9 Indian agent would be sloppy or imprecise about the whole 10 surrender procedure and who the surrender is made to and 11 the purpose of it is -- it reflects, perhaps, on his 12 knowledge of his job, his knowledge of Indian legislation 13 or that he's just not being very precise. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: Sorry, so we were going to the order 16 in Council which was at -- 17 Q: Tab 70. 18 A: Tab 70. 19 Q: Inquiry Document Number 4000245. 20 A: And this is Privy Council Order 1421 21 from August 1929. Okay? 22 Q: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:
501 A: So it reads: 2 "The Committee of the Privy Council 3 have had before them a report dated 24 4 July 1929 from the Right Honourable W. 5 L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister for 6 the Superintendent General of Indian 7 Affairs submitting a surrender given on 8 the 18th day of October, 1928 by the 9 Chippewas of Kettle Point and Stoney 10 Point Band of Indians in the County of 11 Lambton in the Province of Ontario of a 12 certain -- of certain parcels of land 13 containing therein, more particularly 14 described as follows:" 15 And then there's a paragraph which gives 16 the legal description of the land. 17 And then it goes on to say: 18 "The said surrender has been given in 19 order that the said land may be sold 20 for the benefit of the said band of 21 Indians by the Department of Indian 22 Affairs. The Minister recommends, as 23 the said surrender has been duly 24 authorized, executed and attested in 25 the manner required by the 51st section
511 of the Indian Act, the same be accepted 2 by Your Excellency in Council, the 3 committee concur in the foregoing 4 recommendation and submit the same for 5 approval and that it's approved." 6 So, you'll notice in this -- in this Order 7 in Council, that the band is properly described by its -- 8 its Indian Act band name, the Chippewas of Kettle and 9 Stony Point, as opposed to the -- the description in the 10 last -- the last Order in Council. 11 So, the -- the land, again, that was 12 surrendered by this -- by this surrender is three hundred 13 and seventy-seven (377) acres. It's right across the 14 entire beach front of the Stony Point Reserve and it was 15 sold for thirty-five dollars ($35.00) an acre and that 16 represents fourteen (14) -- about 14 percent of the land 17 base of the Stony Point Reserve and that -- 18 Q: Just before -- just before you get 19 there -- 20 A: Oh. 21 Q: -- I note that, notwithstanding there 22 were being a one (1) year difference. The difference -- 23 there was a difference in price per acre. Kettle Point 24 Reserve was, I believe eighty-five dollars ($85.00) -- 25 A: Eight-five (85), yes.
521 Q: -- an acre and this was -- was more. 2 In your documentary review did you come up with any 3 consideration with respect to the respective prices that 4 -- that were paid? 5 A: No. I -- I'm -- I'm sure of why there 6 was such a discrepancy, saying it was white drifting land 7 not -- white drifting sand not suitable for agricultural 8 purposes. I don't know any other reason why there would 9 be such a difference in the value. 10 Q: Alright. So, none -- none is revealed 11 in the documentation. 12 A: None that I can recall. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 A: Yes. So, I just had two (2) other 15 little points I wanted to make about that. This -- this 16 land surrender is also the subject of a land claim. I 17 think it was submitted to Canada in 1996 and as far as I 18 know it's currently being reviewed by the Department. 19 There's just one (1) other -- one (1) 20 other thing that I want to mention about both those 21 surrenders and it's -- sometime later in 1930, Cornelius 22 Shawanoo asks the Department for copies of the eighteen 23 (18) -- the 1927 surrender and the 1928 surrender. He 24 asks to have copies of the surrenders and the Department 25 answers him and says,
531 "No, we're not going to send them to 2 you." 3 So, this -- this is just another sort of a 4 general indication or illustration of the way in which 5 land manners -- matters were managed at that time period, 6 and the level of information that Band members could or 7 could not obtain, regarding their reserve land. 8 Q: And just for the record, that I 9 believe you're referring to a letter that was written to 10 Mr. Shawanoo. It's found at Tab 71, Inquiry document 11 number 4000251, and it appears to be a letter dated 12 October 21st, 1930, from J. C. Caldwell, Chief Clerk, 13 Lands Receiver Branch, Department of Indian Affairs, to 14 Cornelius Shawanoo, and that's just for the record. 15 A: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. 17 Commissioner, I'm wondering if we can take the morning 18 break at this time. It would be convenient for the 19 expert. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Absolutely, 21 it is now twenty (20) after, we'll break for fifteen (15) 22 minutes. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Fifteen (15) minutes, 24 thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you
541 very much. 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 3 for fifteen (15) minutes. 4 5 --- Upon recessing at 11:17 a.m. 6 --- Upon resuming at 11:35 a.m. 7 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 9 resumed. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Ms. Holmes, we have to wake up your 16 computer again. Thank you. All right, just before the 17 break we concluded the discussion with respect to the 18 1928 surrender, in relation to the beach front property 19 of the Kettle Point and Stony Point Band. 20 A: Okay, so I'll go on to the next 21 slide. 22 Q: Thank you. 23 A: So, this next slide shows the area -- 24 the creation of Ipperwash Park. And if you look on the 25 slide, which is that same basic base plan that -- that
551 we've been using for the surrenders, with the Kettle 2 Point Reserve indicated on the left hand side of the 3 slide, and labelled Kettle Point, the Stony Point Reserve 4 on the right hand side labelled Stony Point. 5 And you'll see in the slide at the -- the 6 top left hand corner of the Stony Point Reserve, that -- 7 that section that's coloured red. That is the piece of 8 land that was purchased by the Provincial Government, and 9 made into Ipperwash Park. 10 And if you recall from the discussion that 11 we just had of the surrender, that piece of land is 12 within the surrender tract. So, this is land that was 13 surrendered by the Stony Point and Kettle Point Band, and 14 it -- the Provincial Government then purchased it. 15 So, I'm just going to go quickly through 16 how that happened. So, the -- the purchase of the park - 17 - that process started in 1932, and the actual purchase 18 is not made until 1936. 19 So, beginning in 1932, the -- the local 20 residents were looking to the Provincial Government to 21 create a public park at Stony Point. There's a number of 22 petitions that went to government, asking them to -- to 23 create a public park in that area. They were -- the 24 local residents were concerned, because much of the beach 25 front on Lake Huron was being taken up by private --
561 private owners for cottages and they wanted to have an 2 area that would be open to the public. 3 So the -- the Provincial Government began 4 to investigate that area and they concluded that on that 5 surrendered stretch of land the -- the only piece that 6 was really suitable for a park was the section that you 7 see on the slide coloured red which is Lot 8 and 8 Concession 9 -- or Concession -- Lot 8 and Concession A, 9 excuse me. 10 And it's interesting the Lands and Forests 11 representative made a comment that he didn't know why 12 Scott had paid so much money for that -- that land 13 because it was, what he called, Crown Property. 14 I don't know exactly what his reasoning 15 was there. I suppose that he thought because it had been 16 surrendered it was Crown Property. But, in fact, even 17 after a surrender, the interest in the lands still 18 belongs to the Indians so the -- they were the actual 19 owners of that -- that land until it was sold and 20 patented. 21 However, so the -- the land was -- was 22 purchased and the Province, in 1936, they paid ten 23 thousand dollars ($10,000) for that lot. The -- it was 24 about a hundred and nine (109) acres, so you're looking 25 at almost -- a hundred dollars ($100) an acre paid in
571 1936 for that plot of land. 2 Q: And just -- 3 A: And that -- that purchase was 4 purchased from Scott who was the person who had bought 5 that land as soon as it was surrendered. 6 Q: And just -- just remind us then, in 7 1928, Mr. Scott paid thirteen thousand, five hundred 8 dollars ($13,500) for all four (4) lots that you showed 9 us in the previous slide? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And in 1936 he is, in turn, paid ten 12 thousand dollars ($10,000) for one (1) of those lots and 13 a hundred and nine (109) acres of approximately, was it 14 three hundred and thirty-three (333) -- 15 A: Three hundred and seventy-seven 16 (377). 17 Q: Three hundred and seventy-seven (377) 18 acres -- 19 A: Mmm hmm. 20 Q: -- that was surrendered? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Thank you. 23 A: So Scott was paying about thirty-five 24 dollars ($35) an acre and this sale was made for almost a 25 hundred dollars ($100) an acre, what was that, eight (8)
581 years later. 2 And the -- the purchase document, if you 3 want to look at that, is Document 257 and it's at Tab 72. 4 Q: That's Inquiry Document Number 5 4000257 and it's a Provincial Order in Council? 6 A: That's correct. And it just -- it 7 just describes the land and it's the official document. 8 Q: Thank you. 9 A: So I'm going to go on to the next 10 slide? 11 Q: Yes, please. 12 A: Just give me a moment to organize my 13 pages here. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: So this next slide is about the 18 burial ground at Ipperwash Park and in 1937, which is 19 just a year after the park was created, the Chief and 20 Council notified the authorities that there was a burial 21 ground in the park and they asked to have it protected. 22 And I'm just going to go through the 23 documentation that's related to that find and the request 24 and the response to that request. So the first -- the 25 first document that we have related to that is a Band
591 Council Resolution. 2 And it's from August 12, 1937. You'll 3 find it, it's document 377 and it appears at Tab 97 in 4 the book. 5 Q: And that's Inquiry Document Number 6 4000377. 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Yeah, okay. 10 A: So what you see at this tab is -- is 11 a minute from the Kettle Point and Stony Point Council. 12 And it's labelled at the top "Kettle and Stony Point 13 Monthly Council August 12." And the -- the year date is 14 cut off but it's 1937. 15 And the -- the first page is a number of 16 items of business and if you go to the second page, down 17 at the second paragraph from the bottom. And it's the -- 18 the text of it is shown on the screen and I'll -- I'll 19 read that for you. It says: 20 "Moved by Wellington Elijah, and S-E-C 21 --" 22 as a shortform for seconded, 23 "-- by Caleb Shawkence that we ask the 24 Department of Indian Affairs to request 25 the Provincial Gov. to preserve the old
601 Indian Burial Ground on the government 2 park on Ipperwash Beach. And have 3 their engineer mark out and fence off 4 the Grounds so that they will be 5 protected, carried." 6 And you'll see the -- at the bottom of 7 that page is the signatures I think, yeah, I think 8 they're signatures of what would be the chiefs and 9 councillors at their meeting. There's four (4) of them 10 named. 11 And the next item that we see on this 12 issue is a letter from the Indian agent from the 13 following day. The day after this council meeting. 14 And the Indian agent is submitting the 15 minutes of council to headquarters. You'll find that 16 Document 378 which is at Tab 98 in your book. 17 Q: And that's Inquiry document number 18 4000378. 19 A: And again this would be the normal 20 practice at this time that when there was a -- a meeting 21 of the chief and council of an Indian Act Band, the 22 Indian agent usually attended those meetings but not 23 always but he usually did. 24 And then after the -- the meeting was 25 concluded, any resolutions that the -- the council made
611 at their meeting, the Indian agent would forward onto 2 Departmental headquarters looking for Departmental 3 headquarters to approve of those resolutions. 4 At this time under the Indian Act, chief 5 and council could make resolutions but it was not -- the 6 Indian Department would not necessarily approve of those 7 resolutions and carry them through. Because in fact the 8 chief and council had a very limited range of items that 9 they could make decisions on. And they were -- they 10 always had to go to the Indian Department for approval. 11 So again, this would be the normal course 12 of action. That the Indian agent would forward this onto 13 headquarters. So this is the Indian agent writing August 14 13 which is the day after the council meeting, writing to 15 the secretary of the Department of Indian Affairs. And 16 he's writing from Sarnia and the letter reads: 17 "Sir: 18 With reference to minute of council of 19 the Kettle and Stony Point band of the 20 12th inst," 21 And that "inst" means the instant of the 22 same month. 23 "recommending that the Department of 24 Indian Affairs request the Ontario 25 government to reserve the old Indian -"
621 Q: Sorry, does that say "reserve" or 2 "preserve"? 3 A: Oh, excuse me, it's "preserve". 4 "to preserve the old Indian Burial 5 Ground on the new government park at 6 Ipperwash Beach. I would approve of 7 this resolution." 8 So here the Indian agent is giving his 9 recommendation that this resolution be approved. Then he 10 goes on to say: 11 "When clearing out this park recently, 12 the engineer discovered an old Indian 13 burial ground and stated that if the 14 band would make a request to the 15 Provincial Government he was sure they 16 would be glad to mark off and fence the 17 plot. The council would like this 18 done. I would be pleased if you would 19 advise me if the Department will make 20 this request or will I do so direct." 21 So, the extra piece of information that we 22 get from this Indian Agent letter is that he talks about 23 the engineer, and I -- I think by the -- the context, 24 that what he's talking about is an engineer who's in the 25 employ of the Provincial Government, and who is working
631 in the Park. 2 That while this -- this man, this 3 engineer, was working in the park, he discovered this 4 burial ground and he remarked on it to the Band, and 5 suggested that they make a request that it be fenced off, 6 and that he -- he is anticipating that the -- that the 7 Government would be amenable to doing that. 8 So, if we -- if we look at the next 9 letter, which is the Department of Indian Affairs 10 responding to the Indian Agent, to the Indian Agent's 11 request, and it's dated a few days later. And that is 12 document 379, and you find it at Tab 99. 13 Q: And that's Inquiry document number 14 4000379. 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: Okay, so this is a letter, and it's 18 written by T. R. L. MacInnes, who's the secretary who -- 19 who the Indian Agent had just written to, and he is 20 writing to the Deputy Minister of the Department of Lands 21 and Forests. 22 Q: All right, so this is a letter from a 23 representative of the Indian Affairs Branch for Canada, 24 to the Deputy Minister of the Department of Lands and 25 Forests, for the Ontario Government?
641 A: That's correct. And Department of 2 Lands and Forests, Ontario, was the Department under 3 which -- that had the jurisdiction for parks. So parks 4 would be under Lands and Forests. 5 And if you'll notice, the letterhead on 6 this letter, the secretary of Indian Affairs, MacInnes, 7 the letterhead is the Department of Mines and Resources, 8 Indian Affairs Branch, because Indian Affairs at this 9 time is under the Department of Mines and Resources, so 10 not to be confused by that letterhead. 11 So, he's writing -- MacInnes is writing on 12 August 17th, 1937, so you see that this correspondence is 13 progressing very rapidly, and he writes to the Deputy 14 Minister, and he says: 15 "Dear Sir. In connection with the work 16 at present being carried out under the 17 direction of your department at 18 Ipperwash Beach near Sarnia, I have to 19 inform you that the Indians of the 20 Kettle and Stony Point Band are much 21 concerned in the preservation of the 22 old Indian cemetery, which I understand 23 is located within the territory now 24 being developed as a park. 25 On the 13th of this month the Council
651 of the Kettle and Stony Point Bands 2 passed a resolution requesting this 3 department to bring the matter to your 4 attention, with a view to having this 5 old Indian burial ground preserved 6 intact, and properly fenced. 7 The request will, I am sure, appear to 8 you as entirely reasonable. And I 9 should be glad if you would see that 10 the necessary action is taken with a 11 view to meeting the wishes of these 12 Indians. 13 I should be glad to have a favourable 14 reply at your earliest convenience, in 15 order that the Indians may be so 16 advised." 17 And you'll see on your copy of the letter 18 in the -- in the margin there is a notation written in 19 handwriting, and it's initialled W.C.C., at the very 20 bottom of the handwriting, and that's the initials of W. 21 C. Cain, who MacInnes is writing to. 22 And the content, that note, is actually 23 word for word, the next document, which is Cain's reply. 24 And again, this was a very -- this would be a very normal 25 thing, that a letter would be sent. The person who was
661 receiving the letter would write his reply in the margin 2 and then give that to his secretary who would then type 3 it out and send it. 4 So, that's why I'm not going to read that 5 marginalia now, because it is in fact the response, which 6 we find in our next document, which is Document 380, and 7 it's found at Tab 100. 8 Q: And this is Inquiry Document Number 9 4000380. 10 A: So this document is written by Deputy 11 Minister of the Department of Lands and Forests who's in 12 charge of Ontario Parks. And he is writing back to 13 MacInnes, the secretary of Indian Affairs. He writes on 14 August 19, 1937. So again you see that this is very fast 15 turnaround. Everything's happening in August. And Cain 16 writes: 17 "Dear Sir: 18 And the subject line is: 19 "Re: Indian Burial Ground Ipperwash." 20 Q: Sorry, it says burying ground? 21 A: Burying ground, sorry. 22 Q: Thank you. 23 A: And he writes: 24 "Not having before me all the facts in 25 connection with the location of this
671 area in relation to our program of 2 works now being carried out, I cannot 3 speak definitively -- definitely -- 4 definitely, sorry, on the matter except 5 to affect that I shall do my best to 6 make such arrangements as will respect 7 the natural wishes of the Indians." 8 Q: And to your knowledge, was there any 9 action taken at this time by the Provincial Government to 10 either protect, preserve or mark off this burial ground? 11 A: No. I found no evidence of that. 12 And but what we do find later on is that we discovered 13 from an investigation that was done in 1996, we find that 14 in fact some human remains were found in the park. 15 Q: When was that that the human remains 16 were found? 17 A: In 1950 they were located and there 18 was a Dr. M. W. Spence from the University of Western 19 Ontario who documented that find in 1996. So in 1996, 20 Spence, Dr. Spence goes and documents the evidence from 21 1950 and I'm going to read to you from his report because 22 that explains the circumstances and the -- the evidence 23 that he looked at and considered and the conclusions that 24 he came to. 25 And we find his report in -- it's document
681 number 408 and it's found at Tab 110 in -- in your book. 2 Q: That's Inquiry document number 3 4000408. And just before you get to reading the text of 4 the letter, do you know what Dr. Spence's background is? 5 A: Yes. He's -- he's a professor with 6 the Department of Anthropology at the University of 7 Western Ontario. It's a little bit of a lengthy report 8 but I think that it's worth it to go through it because 9 it -- it has a lot of information in it. So you'll see 10 at the top of page 1, the title is "The Ipperwash Burial 11 General Report, Michael W. Spence, Department of 12 Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, November 4, 13 1996." 14 And there's the first subtitle called 15 "Introduction" and it reads: 16 "Sometime in the week of April 24, 1950 17 a burial was found in Ipperwash 18 Provincial Park. Mrs. Opal Dale, wife 19 of the Park Superintendent of the time 20 observed the burial and took two (2) 21 photographs of it. 22 The skull and perhaps the lower jaw too 23 were saved and later given to Wilfred 24 Jury of the London Museum of 25 Archaeology.
691 With the recent controversy over the 2 park a number of people have become 3 interested in learning more about this 4 mysterious burial. Unfortunately, the 5 personnel of the Ontario -- the London 6 Museum of Archaeology have not been 7 able to find the bones. The means of 8 that -- that means that the only 9 evidence that we have left lies in the 10 photos and in the memories of those who 11 saw the burial. 12 On October 29th, 1996, Paul Lennox, in 13 brackets (Ontario Ministry of 14 Transportation) end brackets, and I 15 interviewed Mrs. Dale and her daughter, 16 Mrs. Joyce Erends [it's E-R-E-N-D-S] 17 about the burial. I have also 18 examined two (2) photos closely. 19 Fortunately they are good photos and 20 quite informative. This account of the 21 burial is based primarily on the photos 22 and the interview." 23 And his next subheading is called, "The 24 Discovery". 25 "According to Mrs. Dale's diary, the
701 burial was found in the week of April 2 24th, 1950. In the interview, she said 3 that the late Owen Burley, who worked 4 at the nearby pumphouse, signalled her 5 to come outside. She left her house 6 and he showed her the burial. She says 7 that it had been exposed when the wind 8 blew away the light sand that covered 9 it. She took two (2) photographs of 10 the burial. 11 Mrs. Dale is not sure what happened to 12 the bones. She believes that most were 13 disposed of somehow in the park while 14 the head, bracket (which I take to mean 15 at least the skull and probably the 16 lower jaw, too) end bracket, was kept 17 by her husband. These were later given 18 to Wilfred Jury of the London Museum of 19 Archeology but so far they have not 20 been found in the museum collections. 21 She also remembered that there were no 22 leg bones with the skeleton and no 23 signs of a coffin." 24 And the next subheading is called, "The 25 Photographs."
711 "The two (2) photo -- the two (2) 2 photographs are photo 1, bracket (taken 3 earlier) end bracket, and photo 2, 4 bracket (taken a short time later) end 5 bracket. Photo 1 shows the upper part 6 of the burial, the bones of the head, 7 upper torso and arms. Beyond the bones 8 is Mr. Burley, crouching on the far 9 side of the burial. In the background 10 are the two (2) wheel tracks of the 11 road that passed east of the house and 12 reservoir and beyond them, a stretch of 13 higher ground with some bush and pine 14 trees along it. In this photo the 15 bones are a little out of focus. 16 Photo two (2) shows all of the burial, 17 or least all that was left of it and is 18 focussed more directly on the bones. 19 Most of the background is now out of 20 the frame and Mr. Burley is no longer 21 there but the bones are now clearly 22 visible, thus, each photo can tell us 23 somewhat different things about the 24 burial. Taken together they are quite 25 informative."
721 The next subheading is, "The Location and 2 Orientation of the Burial". 3 "In the interview, Mrs. Dale said that 4 the burial was near her house between 5 it and the reservoir. It was on the 6 same side of the road as the house and 7 the reservoir, bracket (that is, on the 8 west side of the road) end bracket. 9 Its head was pointed towards the area 10 of the reservoir and pumphouse and its 11 feet toward a store and animal cage 12 some distance to the north. 13 A caption on the back of photo 2 14 written by Mrs. Dale some time ago 15 says, quotation mark "A skeleton 16 unearthed at Ipperwash where the bath 17 house now stands. Opal constructed it 18 and took its picture. The skeleton 19 went to western Ontario [excuse me], to 20 Western University." end quote 21 The bath house was built some time 22 after the burial was found on the 23 opposite side, bracket (east side) of 24 the road and a short distance further 25 along it, bracket (south) end bracket
731 from the area of the house, reservoir 2 and pumphouse. 3 The higher ground with trees in the 4 background of photo 1 may be the high 5 area shown east of the road on the 6 contour map of the area. According to 7 an April 1959 --" 8 Q: Sorry, I think it was October. 9 A: Oh, sorry. 10 "According to an October 1950 map. 11 [there -- okay] According to an October 12 1950 map, the nearest wooded area is 13 also east of the road. This indicates 14 that the burial was as Mrs. Dale says, 15 west of the road. However, it may have 16 been a little further south than she 17 remembers, perhaps between the 18 reservoir and the road. 19 Whichever location it was in, Mrs. 20 Dale's description of the burial 21 orientation -- orientation suggests 22 that its head was pointed approximately 23 to the south, and its feet to the 24 north. 25 Also, both photos show that it was
741 parallel to the road, which runs 2 north/south. It was not oriented with 3 its head to the west and its feet to 4 the east. The standard orientation for 5 Christian burials in 19th Century white 6 settlements." 7 The next sub-heading is called, "The 8 Position of the Body": 9 "The body rested on its back with its 10 arms extended by its sides, and its 11 legs probably also extended straight. 12 Photo 1 shows the body of the left - 13 - the bone of the left upper arm in 14 place by the side of the skeleton. 15 However, one (1) of the forearm -- 16 forearm bones, bracket (the radius), is 17 somewhat out of place. On the right 18 side of the skeleton the upper arm is 19 in place, along the side of the body, 20 like its left side counterpart, and on 21 the -- and one (1) of the forearm 22 bones, bracket (the right ulna) end 23 bracket, continue -- continues the line 24 of the arm along the right side of the 25 body.
751 Photo 2. According to Photo 2 -- 2 according to the caption on its back is 3 the somewhat reconstructed view of the 4 skeleton. The bones of the torso, 5 bracket (the spinal column and the 6 ribs) end bracket, are still in their 7 original positions and show that the 8 body had rested on its back. The left 9 arm is lying along the side of the 10 body, but has clearly been 11 reconstructed. 12 One (1) of the forearm bones, 13 bracket (the left radius) end bracket, 14 is not there. But instead is lying on 15 the other side of the body, resting 16 beside what appears to be the right 17 radius. 18 Although there has evidently been 19 some displacement of the bones, it 20 seems that both arms had rested in the 21 extended position along the sides of 22 the body. Photo 1 shows the right arm 23 in that position, although it was then 24 disturbed before photo 2 was taken. 25 And although the left arm was disturbed
761 and then reconstructed, the presence of 2 what appears to be a finger bone near 3 the area of the left thigh, indicates 4 that the left arm too, had been 5 extended along the side of the body. 6 The leg bones are not visible in the 7 photos. They had probably been removed 8 before the arrival of Mrs. Dale. 9 The position of the spinal column 10 shows that like the arms, the legs had 11 probably been extended, rather than 12 drawn up in a fetal position. 13 The head had been moved, but was 14 then replaced in the position seen in 15 both photos. This was probably about 16 its original position to judge by the 17 spinal column." 18 The next subheading is, "The Individual": 19 "The age of the person at death can be 20 estimated from photo 2, which shows the 21 bones clearly. It can be seen that the 22 ends of the long bones and of the arms 23 had not yet fused to the shafts. Also, 24 the three (3) segments of the pelvic 25 bone had not yet joined together. Some
771 of these would have fused by the age of 2 thirteen (13) in females, or fifteen 3 (15) in males. Thus, the Ipperwash 4 person had to be younger than that. 5 On the other hand, the arches had 6 fused to the -- to the vertebrae in the 7 spinal column, something that takes 8 place by the age of six (6). The 9 person then -- the person then was 10 between six (6) and thirteen (13) to 11 fifteen (15) years of age at the time 12 of death. 13 This range can be narrowed by 14 examining the teeth. Photo 2 shows 15 that all the milk teeth had been lost. 16 The only teeth visible in the photo are 17 the larger permanent teeth. Of these, 18 the incisors, first pre-molar and first 19 molar have erupted. The canine was in 20 the process of erupting, and the second 21 pre-molar and second and third molars, 22 had not started to erupt. This stage 23 of dental development occurs about the 24 age -- about eleven (11) years of age. 25 Nothing can be said from the bones
781 about the sex of the child or --" 2 Excuse me. 3 Q: Would you like to take a second? 4 It's disturbing to read about, that they're remains. I 5 appreciate that. 6 A: Yeah, just a sec here, okay: 7 "Nothing can be said about the -- from 8 the bones about the sex of the child, 9 or about whether it was native or 10 white. The bones of children this 11 young have not matured enough to give 12 that sort of information, even if we 13 are to find the skeleton. The cause of 14 death is also not known. There is some 15 damage to the forehead --" 16 Q: Perhaps we could -- shall we just 17 take a moment? 18 A: Yeah, if we might. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, may we 20 have a moment. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 24 Q: Perhaps I can finish reading the 25 letter if you'd like?
791 A: Sure. No, I'll do it. I'm too long 2 away from home from my own children to read things like 3 this. 4 Q: I appreciate that. 5 A: Okay. So, we just determined that 6 you can't tell anything about the sex. Okay: 7 "The cause of death is not known. 8 There is some damage to the forehead, 9 as if it had received a blow. Since 10 the damaged area is not a different 11 colour from then the surrounding bone, 12 it can -- it seems most likely that it 13 happened before or at the time of 14 death. If it had happened when the 15 burial was uncovered and removed, I 16 would have expected the damaged area to 17 be lighter in colour than the rest of 18 the forehead. However, nothing 19 definite can be said without examining 20 the actual bone. 21 The face is a dark colour, a dark 22 brown, according to Mrs. Dale. The 23 contrast between it and the rest of the 24 skull, which has a light colour like 25 the other bones, is very sharp. The
801 line between the two (2) colours runs 2 forward across the top of the skull and 3 then down the left side of the face and 4 the lower jaw. There is no good 5 explanation for this strike -- striking 6 difference in colour. 7 Mrs. Dale is sure that the face was 8 not painted, and I agree with her. The 9 discolouration is too even and regular 10 for that. It appears even in the 11 hollows and the protected areas of the 12 skull, nor can it be exposure to the 13 sun, since that whitens bones rather 14 than darkening them. 15 It may be that the face was covered 16 by water during a period of high water, 17 but it would have had to be under water 18 for some time to cause so much 19 discolouration. And that too seems 20 unlikely. 21 It is possible though, that a cloth 22 or something had been placed on the 23 face, and caused the discolouration 24 when it decayed. But again, the 25 discolouration seems too complete and
811 regular for that. I really have no 2 satisfactory explanation for this 3 puzzling feature." 4 The next subheading is, "Conclusion": 5 "A child about eleven (11) years old 6 died and was buried near the reservoir 7 in the Ipperwash Provincial Park. The 8 child's sex and cause of death are not 9 known, however, some suggestion can be 10 made about its ethnic identity. 11 To judge by the photos the bones are 12 well preserved. This suggests that 13 they cannot be more than a few hundred 14 years old. 15 Since -- since at least 1700 A.D., 16 this area has been occupied by the 17 Ojibwa people. In the 1700s the Ojibwa 18 of the Great Lakes Region buried their 19 dead in a fetal position, or as 20 disarticulated bundles of bones. The 21 extended position, which is how the 22 Ipperwash child was buried, was not 23 generally used until after they had 24 adopted Christianity, and would not be 25 expected until the mid 1800s.
821 On the other hand, the child, 2 although it was in the extended 3 position, was not in a coffin, and was 4 oriented with the head to the south. 5 In white communities after 1850, 6 coffins were used and burials were 7 placed with the head to the west. This 8 is because it was believed that at the 9 resurrection, God would appear in the 10 east and summon the dead, who would 11 then sit up and be facing him in 12 paradise. 13 Suicides and people who had been 14 excommunicated were buried with their 15 heads to the east so that -- so they 16 would sit up with their backs to 17 heaven. Taken altogether then the 18 evidence indicates that the Ipperwash 19 child was in an Ojibwa youngster who 20 had been buried in the park area some 21 time in the 1800's or very early 22 1900's. 23 The burial position shows Christian 24 influences but does not follow all the 25 well established rules used by white
831 Christians for their burial. 2 The final question is whether it was a 3 lone burial or whether there may be 4 others in the area. Some letters 5 between government officials and Ojibwa 6 leaders suggests that there have been 7 an Ojibwa cemetery somewhere in the 8 park. But nobody knows where it was. 9 However, rumour has it that a large 10 number of bones were found when the 11 reservoir was built in 1942 and the 12 Ipperwash child was buried quite near 13 the reservoir. 14 Also Mr. Greg George has reported 15 recently seeing some small pieces of 16 bone on the ground near the reservoir 17 though we don't know if they were human 18 or not. It is thus possible that the 19 Ipperwash burial was once part of a 20 larger Ojibwa cemetery in the area. 21 It would take and archaeological 22 examination of the area to resolve the 23 question." 24 Q: Thank you. 25
841 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: All right. Do you want to expand 4 upon the text of this document or -- or proceed to 5 whether or not there were any further examinations? 6 A: The -- the other -- there's one other 7 document. This report by Dr. Spence was also given to 8 another archaeologist from the Canadian Museum of 9 Civilization. And he also reviewed the -- the 10 photographs and he reviewed Spence's report and his -- 11 his letter is -- is actually very short and he basically 12 in his letter he supports Spence's conclusion as to the 13 probability of the ethnicity and the age at death. 14 He goes into some questioning of the 15 position of the body because he doesn't agree with Spence 16 that it was laid out -- stretched out. But he did -- but 17 his -- he thinks that it -- it might have been actually 18 originally a flex burial which would have been consistent 19 with the Aboriginal practice. 20 And he didn't -- he didn't make any 21 comment on the age of the burial as in when that burial 22 was made. 23 Q: And this was a report dated December 24 17, 1996 of Dr. Jerome Cybulski? 25 A: Yes, of the Canadian Museum of
851 Civilization. 2 Q: All right. And that appears at 3 footnote 293 of your report? 4 A: That's correct. And so it -- it 5 appears that after that find in 1950 which part of those 6 remains went with Wilf Jury to the London Museum of 7 Archaeology and just for the information of people here. 8 Wilfred Jury was a very well known Canadian archaeologist 9 who did archaeology in Ontario. 10 So, since that time that Spence recalls in 11 his report of the -- the find in the 1950's, the issue -- 12 the -- the existence of the burial seems to have been 13 lost sight of. We don't see any other record or I'm not 14 aware of any other records where the -- the -- that 15 burial was -- was identified or dealt with. 16 In 19 -- 17 Q: I'm sorry, you're talking about the - 18 - the concept of a burial ground, containing more than 19 one (1) person? 20 A: Yes, or -- or even anything further 21 being -- any further action being taken on the fact that 22 Mrs. Dale, the park superintendent's wife, had found the 23 burial. We don't see any other kind of action around 24 that. 25 In 1972, there was a archaeological survey
861 in Ipperwash Park, and an archaeological survey is 2 basically a -- well, an archaeologist will go and -- and 3 look at a certain area. They will do a number of test 4 squares, talk to people, or they often talk to people to 5 find out if there's any -- any known archaeological sites 6 in the area. 7 And there was a report done in 1972, by an 8 archaeologist, and he -- he advised in his report that 9 there were no archaeological material found in the park. 10 So, clearly by the time he did his report, the documents 11 that we've just gone through from 1937, that identified 12 the burial and the find by Mrs. Dale in 1950, had somehow 13 been lost sight of. 14 Q: And just for the record, is that 15 archaeologist Peter Hamalainen? 16 A: Peter Hamalainen -- 17 Q: Mmm hmm. 18 A: -- and he was an archaeologist that 19 was engaged in doing archaeological surveys at that time 20 for the -- the Provincial Government, I'd have to look at 21 the report to see what -- what section of government the 22 archaeologists worked for at that time. 23 Q: He -- he appeared to be -- no, you're 24 quite right, we'd have to look. 25 A: Yeah.
871 Q: It's from the RG records, which is 2 the Canadian Archives, that this -- 3 A: Yeah, the -- the document is actually 4 on file in -- if you look in your footnote, the footnote 5 number 294, that report is found at -- in the AO, that's 6 the Archives of Ontario, and there's a record group where 7 those archaeological reports are -- are filed. 8 In the '70s, the Province of Ontario had 9 archaeological surveys done at many places in the 10 province, and this would have been part of that. 11 Q: As I understand it then, what you're 12 saying is that in 1972, an archaeological survey was 13 conducted and did not reveal any evidence of a burial 14 ground in the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And that appears to be somewhat at 17 variance with the archaeological -- Dr. Cybulski and Dr. 18 Spence's conclusions. Can you provide any explanation 19 for that discrepancy? 20 A: Right. Well, you have to remember 21 that Spence and -- Cybulski, their -- their reports are 22 from 1996, so they come after that archaeological survey. 23 But in general, an archaeological survey reports on 24 things that it finds. But because it does not find 25 something, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
881 So, as in fact Peter Hamalainen, the 2 archaeologist who I had the pleasure of meeting in the 3 '70s when I did archaeological work, his saying was 4 always, sites are where you find them, which would mean 5 that if you find archaeological remains, that becomes a 6 site. But it does not mean that if you don't find 7 something, that there are no other archaeological 8 remains. 9 So, the absence of evidence is not 10 evidence of the absence of something. 11 Q: And do you recall whether or not in 12 his report he made reference to the 1937 Band Council 13 Resolution, and -- and the correspondence as between 14 Ontario and Canada, that you have reviewed? 15 A: No, he did not, and he -- it would be 16 unlikely that he would have had -- had that material at 17 hand. 18 Q: Okay. Thank you. Did you find any 19 documentary evidence in your review of the record, to 20 suggest that up to the 1990s, any steps had been taken by 21 the Province of Ontario, to protect in any way, or mark 22 off in any way, any burial grounds, or Aboriginal burial 23 grounds referred to in the Kettle Point and Stony Point 24 Band's request of 1937? 25 A: I did not. Just -- just one (1) other
891 thing that -- that I -- that might mention before -- 2 before we leave this particular topic and move on to the 3 next slide is that a hundred years previous to this when 4 -- when Mahlon Burwell did the survey to lay out the 5 tract that was being surrendered in 1827 and -- and to 6 locate what became the Stony Point and Kettle Point 7 Reserves, in his survey he came across a burial close to 8 the shore of Lake Huron but not within the -- the -- what 9 became the Stony Point Reserve. 10 It was actually east of -- of the Aux 11 Sable River and that -- that burial that he located and - 12 - and mentions in his field notes was a burial in -- in 13 sand and it was visible enough in 1826 that he -- he 14 noted it as a burial. So, that would -- that would 15 suggest to me that -- that a burial inside of what became 16 the provincial park would be consistent with other 17 findings in the area. 18 Q: And you're referring to the -- the 19 field notes of surveyor Burwell compiled in 1826 when he 20 was marking off the reserve territories -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- under Treaty 29. 23 A: That's correct. And I think that the 24 excerpts from those field notes are at Tab 2 in the books 25 and you can see his comment there.
901 Q: And that is inquiry Document Number 2 40000131. 3 A: And, if I could just make a general 4 comment about surveyor's field notes -- they're a little 5 bit difficult to follow. They wrote in these little 6 books that looked kind of like a stenopad. 7 So, what we see here in -- on the first 8 page of that Tab 2 about -- what you're looking at is -- 9 is his field notes. These are notes he makes as he -- as 10 he's doing his survey with location notations on the 11 right hand side and about halfway down that page you'll 12 see a little notation that says, "At Creek to right sand 13 hills -- sand hills -- 14 Q: North pine -- 15 A: -- I think it's north pine and then an 16 ampersand -- an 'and' sign. "Juniper -- to Indian graves 17 and apple trees". 18 So, that's his -- his notation and if you 19 -- when you look at the entire field book and you go back 20 to where he starts, you can tell by following the -- the 21 description about where he is when he actually finds that 22 but it's -- it's close to the Aux Sable River, but to the 23 -- the east of where -- of where the Stony Point Reserve 24 was surveyed. 25 Q: Okay.
911 A: And that -- Indian graves and apple 2 trees -- I've seen that in other surveys as a -- things 3 that occur together. 4 Q: Okay, and I note also on this document 5 is the image that was slide 1 of your presentation -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- and below that and onto the second 8 page is the description of -- of that image. 9 A: Yes, that's correct. 10 Q: Alright. And is there any other 11 evidence of -- of other possible grave sites in the 12 general vicinity of the Kettle Point and Stony Point 13 Reserves that you came across?. 14 A: Yes, when we -- when I was doing the 15 research, I noticed that there were -- there were 16 notations from the chief and council in 1949 and -- and 17 this is cited in the report on page 58 and it's in a -- a 18 document -- Document Number 312. 19 And the -- the Chief and Council at Kettle 20 Point in 1949, they do a -- a walk around the reserve, 21 and they note that there are graves in the sand dunes, 22 and that they -- they want to make sure that that land is 23 not assigned. They say sold, like it's not assigned by 24 location ticket to any particular Band members, and 25 because it is a burial ground and it should stay land
921 that doesn't fall into the hands of individuals. 2 They couldn't precisely locate the graves, 3 but they -- they knew that they were in the -- the dunes 4 close to the lake frontage. And that was at Kettle 5 Point. 6 Q: The Kettle Point Reserve? 7 A: And that -- that's in -- in the 8 portion of the reserve that is not surrendered, it's not 9 within their surrendered tract, it's within the -- the 10 part of the reserve that remained the reserve. 11 Q: Okay, and that's Inquiry Document 12 Number 4000312. 13 A: Actually, I'm not sure if I'm giving 14 you the right number. 15 Q: All right, then perhaps we'll -- 16 A: If -- 17 Q: -- check during the break. 18 A: -- if -- or, yeah, I could -- 19 actually I could find it for you right now, if you don't 20 mind waiting a minute. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: No, you're right. It is document 25 number 312. I was confused, because that's also the --
931 the number of the footnote, so -- 2 Q: Oh, all right. Thank you. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: So, I'll go on to the next slide, 7 which begins the story of the acquisition of Camp 8 Ipperwash. 9 Q: Did you want to address at all, the 10 portion in your report addressing the sixty-six (66) foot 11 shoreline allowance? 12 A: Yes, I could speak to that briefly. 13 I'm just going to -- 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That page is 44 to 46 15 of the report, Commissioner, and 47. 16 THE WITNESS: I actually didn't make a 17 slide for this -- this particular issue, but I can go 18 through it briefly. 19 There appears to be an outstanding issue 20 of the status of the shore allowance. And please bear 21 with me if I -- if I'm not totally coherent on this. 22 When -- when the reserve was -- or when 23 the -- the land was originally ceded, the -- the Treaty 24 doesn't really speak to the status of the shore, so the 25 wording in the Treaty is things like, along the waters
941 edge, and down the St. Clair River. 2 So, it's really unclear if -- if any of 3 the foreshore was ceded as part of the Treaty, or if it 4 was considered to go with the land. So, that the -- the 5 description of the Treaty is not very precise, and it 6 doesn't really help us too much with that issue. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: And is that important, because if it 10 wasn't ceded, then that means that the Aboriginal people 11 retained title to that land, under the Royal 12 Proclamation? 13 A: Well, it means that if it's not 14 explicitly ceded in the Treaty, then one could make an 15 argument that Aboriginal title remained with it, whether 16 or not it does is a matter of legal argument, but it's -- 17 it's -- some people will make the argument that if 18 something hasn't been ceded by a Treaty, then the 19 Aboriginal title remains. So, that -- that's the 20 significance of that. 21 In the -- in the late 1890s, a lot of the 22 issue of the -- what -- what was called the foreshore, or 23 the shoreline, came -- came into question, mostly because 24 the band was asking for two (2) different -- two (2) 25 different areas of jurisdiction or interest or wanted to
951 know what interests they had. 2 And one (1) was on -- had to do with 3 fishing rights and who had the fishing rights in front of 4 the reserve and -- and where -- where the reserve ended. 5 And again, when the reserves were set aside, it's -- it's 6 not -- the status is not clear because those reserves 7 were accepted out of the Treaty. So again, that -- that 8 status is not absolutely clear. 9 The band -- the band -- 10 Q: The second -- you said the first 11 interest was fishing rights and the second interest? 12 A: It had to do with people removing 13 kettles. And kettles are -- it's a geological feature 14 and I think it's a conglomerate of -- of stone, they're 15 round and they come up from the bed of -- of the -- of 16 the lake and they're an interesting geological feature. 17 People are interested in them, they're a 18 curiosity and what was happening at the time was tourists 19 were coming and they were taking them out of the lake or 20 taking them off the beach and carrying them away. And 21 the First Nation was concerned about whether or not 22 people had the right to do that. And if there was any 23 way they could protect it and could they enlist the 24 assistance of the Department in -- in protecting those 25 kettles.
961 So that -- those two (2) issues raised a 2 discussion of what exactly was the status of -- of the 3 foreshore. The band, you know, when it was claiming it's 4 exclusive fishing rights they stated that they never 5 surrendered their rights to the beach in front of the 6 reserve. And they believed that they were the sole 7 owners and that anyone else using it were -- were 8 trespassers. 9 And I'm -- I'm looking at page 44 of my 10 report here. So the -- the questions were put to the 11 Department of Justice and here they're talking 12 specifically about salvaging rights, who had the right to 13 property that was washed up on the reser -- on the beach, 14 what rights white men had to go on the beach and to 15 remove property? 16 So these are the kinds of issues that are 17 coming up, that are associated with the status of the 18 foreshore. With the -- the fishing issue they -- they 19 had -- there was a conclusion that there wasn't an 20 explicit reservation of -- of fishing rights in the 21 Treaty. 22 The -- the foreshore rights question came 23 up again in '32 and that had to do with -- that was over 24 a fence being erected at Ipperwash Beach. And the -- the 25 Indian Affairs concluded that the patents which they had
971 issued didn't refer to the water's edge. And actually 2 when -- when we looked at those surrenders, I'm going to 3 go back a little bit now. 4 When the surrendered land at Stony -- at 5 Kettle Point and Stony Point, when the purchasers bought 6 that land they specifically wanted the foreshore rights 7 to be included in their patents. And a patent, when -- 8 when an individual buys a piece of land, the first time 9 that that land is purchased from the Crown, the Crown 10 issues letters patent. 11 And those letters patent describe the land 12 that is being sold to the individual. In the case of the 13 sales on the -- of the Stony Point surrendered land and 14 the Kettle Point surrendered land, those purchasers 15 specifically wanted the foreshore rights to be included 16 in their patents that actually they -- the -- the final 17 patenting of those lands were held up and delayed as the 18 Department figured out what they were doing and they -- 19 they did in fact include those. There was of course a 20 question about whether or not those foreshore rights were 21 part of the reserve, and whether or not they had actually 22 been surrendered. 23 So, it's an issue that from the evidence 24 that I looked at, appeared not to be resolved, and is 25 perhaps open and -- and I'm speaking here just from the
981 point of view of the historical documentation, nothing to 2 be said about what the legal interpretation or -- or 3 significance of that is. 4 But it was a -- it's another issue that 5 was kind of outstanding, and which Band members have had 6 questions about and -- and have felt that are not really 7 resolved to their satisfaction. 8 Q: And just before we leave the topic of 9 surrenders, aside from the surrender of a reserve land, 10 are there other rights, if you will, or interests, which 11 can be surrendered? 12 A: Yeah, there were a number of them in 13 relation to the Stony and Kettle Point -- the Stony Point 14 Reserve and the Kettle Point Reserve. And just on page 15 46 of the -- the report, and going on, on to page 47, 16 there's -- I -- I've made a little chart, and it's just 17 to give an indication of some of the other kinds of 18 surrenders that took place in respect of those two (2) 19 reserves. And you'll see the first one (1) that's 20 listed, and it's from July 1885, and that's a surrender 21 of timber. Cedar of a certain size, and all other timber 22 of -- of a certain size, except beech and maple. 23 And that applies to both the reserves, 24 Kettle and Stony Point, and that -- that was one (1) of 25 the surrenders, which you recall, when we were talking
991 about all that dissension about separating from the 2 Sarnia Band. That was a -- a surrender that was taken 3 when Kettle Point and Stony Point were still being 4 controlled, or their resources were still being 5 controlled by the larger Sarnia Band. And -- 6 Q: They were still part of the Sarnia 7 Band? 8 A: They were, yes. And so it would have 9 been -- the Sarnia Band would have had a -- a role in the 10 vote on voting for that surrender. And that -- that's an 11 example of a surrender where the land itself is not 12 alienated, it's only -- it's a surrender for -- to give a 13 third party the right to cut -- to cut timber. And then 14 the proceeds of that are funded to the Band, which in 15 this case would have been the larger -- the larger Sarnia 16 Band that they were a part of at that time. 17 Similar to that, in July 1905, there was a 18 surrender for lease for the right to prospect for oil 19 under the Kettle Point Reserve and the Stony Point 20 Reserve. 21 And that one (1) I think -- I think that - 22 - that surrender ceased, that lease ceased, because the 23 exploration wasn't completed. 24 And then also December 1909, there was 25 another surrender, again, still -- still within that --
1001 the larger Band of a right to -- to search for and 2 extract oil, natural gas, and shale. And shale is a kind 3 of stone, kind of rock. 4 Again, under the Kettle Point and Stony 5 Point Reserves. And that -- that surrender is -- that 6 gives rights for -- for an exploring company to also do 7 things like put up buildings. 8 So, although the land isn't alienated from 9 the Band, the land is -- is being used by another party. 10 And then in August 1933, there again it 11 was a surrender for lease again for oil and gas, under 12 the two (2) reserves. 13 So, those are -- those are just some 14 examples of other kinds of surrenders. But you'll notice 15 with all of those, that they're not alienations of -- of 16 land in total, they're just a right for a third party to 17 come in, and you know, either cut timber or explore or -- 18 or extract some other kind of resource. 19 But the land itself stays with the Band 20 and the proceeds from any of those surrenders are funded 21 to the First Nations trust account for their -- for their 22 use. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 24 Commissioner, our next area of examination deals with the 25 appropriation of the Stony Point Reserve and I'm
1011 wondering whether we could take a slightly early lunch 2 and come back earlier so that we can start that section 3 fresh. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. That 5 sounds all right. We break now at a quarter to 1:00 and 6 come back at two o'clock; does anybody have any objection 7 to that? No? 8 Okay, we break now and we come back at two 9 o'clock. Thank you very much, Professor Holmes. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 11 adjourned until two o'clock. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 12:45 p.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 2:00 p.m. 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 17 resumed. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good afternoon. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 22 Q: Ms. Holmes, are we prepared now to 23 proceed to the next slide? 24 A: Yes, we are. I'll put it on. So 25 this slide, slide number 19, is the first of two (2)
1021 slides in which I'm going to talk about the acquisition 2 of Camp Ipperwash in the 1942 to '45 period. 3 And basically during the -- World War II 4 the Department of National Defence wanted the Stony Point 5 Reserve for a military training camp and they began 6 investigating that in February '42. 7 Just briefly, the -- the Indian Agent 8 brought the question of a voluntary surrender before the 9 Band. The Band refused it and Department of National 10 Defence went on and acquired the Stony Plain Reserve 11 under the War Measures Act. 12 And I'll just point out the relevant land 13 to you on the slide. 14 Q: So, we're looking at slide 19. 15 A: So, slide 19 shows the same plan that 16 we've been working with today. So, on the left is the 17 Kettle Point Reserve which is marked as Kettle Point 18 Reserve and on the right is the Stony Point Reserve. 19 Now, if you recall the waterfront of the 20 Stony Point Reserve which I'm pointing out with my red 21 pointer here, these four (4) lots that go across the 22 front of the Stony Point Reserve bordering on Lake Huron, 23 these were the four (4) lots that were surrendered in 24 1927. 25 The -- the lot to the west on the lefthand
1031 side of the slide which is not coloured, that is the lot 2 that was purchased by the province in 1936 and created as 3 Ipperwash Park. The portion of the Stony Point Reserve 4 which is coloured pink or red on this slide is the 5 portion that the Department of National Defence acquired 6 through the War Measures Act. 7 And the portion that is coloured purple 8 here on the slide is a portion that the Department of 9 National Defence went on to acquire from the private 10 owners who had purchased the surrendered land. So, those 11 are the blocks of land we're going to talk about. 12 Q: All right. And just -- just to 13 finish that description off, in the upper right-hand 14 corner of where the purple lots are, there's a -- a white 15 square? 16 A: Yes, and that -- that's a small parcel 17 of land that stayed in private hands. It did not become 18 part of Camp Ipperwash. 19 Q: But it was part of the surrendered 20 lands of the Stony Point Reserve in 1928? 21 A: That's correct. So, it's part of the 22 surrendered lands purchased by a third party and remains 23 in third party hands. So, what I'm going to do now is I 24 will go through the -- the documentation that explains 25 how the portion of the Stony Point Reserve became
1041 acquired by the Department of National Defence. 2 Q: I'm -- just to be clear, this is the 3 remaining parcel of the Stony Point Reserve? 4 A: That's correct. So, beginning in 5 February of 1942 the Department of National Defence 6 started to -- to look at the Stony Point Reserve as a -- 7 a potential area to establish an -- an army training 8 camp. And they -- they first went and visited the area, 9 they were in contact with the Indian agent whose name was 10 Down, D-o-w-n and evidently had spoken with some band 11 members. 12 And they had concluded that there were 13 about fourteen (14) families living on the Stony Point 14 Reserve and that these people were the same band as the 15 people who resided at Kettle Point. And agent Down wrote 16 a letter to his superiors explaining this visit and 17 giving his opinion about whether or not he thought that 18 surrendering the land in order that the Department -- 19 Department of National Defence could purchase it and use 20 it as an army camp. 21 So, I'm going to refer you to that 22 document which is Document Number 264 and you'd find it 23 at Tab 75. 24 Q: And that's Inquiry Document Number 25 4000264.
1051 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 A: Okay? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 THE WITNESS: So this -- this document is 7 the Indian agent, George Down, he's writing on Department 8 of Mines and Resources letterhead which is where the 9 Indian Branch is a part of, that department. 10 He writes from Sarnia and he's writing to 11 the Secretary, MacInnes. And it -- this is in February - 12 - February 5, 1942 and he writes: 13 "Dear sir, High ranking officers of 14 Military District Number 1 have been 15 surveying lands in the county of 16 Lambton for a probable military camp. 17 In connection with this, General 18 MacDonald, with other officers, visited 19 this office with a view to ascertaining 20 the possibilities of Stony Point Indian 21 Reservation. This site appears to be 22 ideally situated and the contours of 23 the land lend themselves to hutment, 24 barracks and manoeuvring grounds with 25 the open lake as a background for rifle
1061 ranges. General MacDonald's object in 2 calling at this office was to find out 3 the procedure necessary to acquire this 4 block of land, where and how to 5 negotiate terms and what the chances of 6 success would be. It was quite 7 apparent from their conversations that 8 they wished to proceed with this scheme 9 as soon as possible. I informed 10 General MacDonald that the first 11 procedure would be to call a general 12 Band meeting outlining the proposition 13 to the Indians, after which a vote 14 would be taken either on a lease, a 15 temporary surrender or a permanent 16 surrender. It would then be submitted 17 to the Indian Affairs Branch for their 18 consideration after which, if 19 favourably received, regular 20 negotiations would have to be entered 21 into. It was General MacDonald's 22 intention to return to headquarters for 23 discussion on the matter after which I 24 would likely be advised. Should they 25 wish to proceed with their scheme on
1071 Stony Point Reservation, it would then 2 be my intention to call a general band 3 meeting to ascertain the feelings of 4 the band [or the feeling of the band]. 5 Personally, I think this is a wonderful 6 opportunity to gather a few straggling 7 Indians and locate them permanently 8 with the main body of the band at 9 Kettle Point. It would solve many 10 problems and dispense with a great deal 11 of expense from both band funds and 12 Departmental appropriations such as 13 schools, roads, visitations, etc. This 14 service is maintained to accommodate 15 twelve (12) families. I might also 16 point out that the block of land in 17 question is, with the exception of a 18 strip running parallel to Highway 19 Number 21, more or less sand hills. 20 However, these are my personal views 21 and can be discussed at a later date. 22 I would like to know how -- I would 23 like to know now whether or not my 24 advice to General MacDonald as to 25 procedure was correct. Please give
1081 your earliest attention to this matter. 2 Also, any advice that would enable me 3 to continue, if necessary, negotiations 4 satisfactorily." 5 So, we see in this letter that, as I was 6 saying, that the -- that the army has a -- Department of 7 National Defence has contacted the Indian agent. They're 8 looking at Stony Point as a -- as a ground that they can 9 use for a training camp. 10 In that second to last paragraph where the 11 Indian Agent expresses his opinion about why this would 12 be a good thing, there was just one thing I wanted to 13 point out to you that not everyone might understand is, 14 when he's talking about, he says: 15 "It would solve many problems and 16 dispense with a great deal of expense, 17 both from Band funds and departmental 18 appropriations." 19 What he's talking about there is money -- 20 the Band funds, that's the money belonging to the Band, 21 but the departmental appropriations, that is money that 22 is voted by parliament for the Department of Indian 23 Affairs to use for expenses associated with the 24 management of the Band, with Band infrastructure, 25 salaries, that kind of thing.
1091 So, here, he's talking about that it would 2 save money both for the First Nation and also for the 3 Government. 4 So, in response to this letter by Down, 5 Indian Affairs writes a letter of their own and in this 6 letter which I'm going to take you to, what's interesting 7 is they talk about the surrender procedure but they also 8 point out the fact that, in fact, it might not be 9 necessary to take a surrender. 10 And that document you will find is 11 Document 265 and it's at Tab 76, the next tab in your 12 book. 13 Q: That's Inquiry Document Number 14 4000265. 15 A: Okay. This letter is the reply from 16 the secretary MacInnes to Indian agent Down. It's 17 written on February 9, so just a few days later, and it's 18 -- it's one of those carbon copies so it's smudged and 19 difficult to read. I'll read it out to you. So, 20 MacInnes writes: 21 "Dear Sir: 22 I wish to acknowledge receipt of your 23 letter of February 5th in which you 24 report the possibility of receiving an 25 application from the Department of
1101 National Defence for use of part of 2 [and here he says "part of"] 3 Stony Point Indian Reserve for military 4 purposes. The information which you 5 gave General MacDonald was in the name 6 [and I think that that word is correct] 7 and the procedure outlined by you is 8 that -- " 9 And I believe that this word is "normally" 10 or it could be "usually": 11 "followed in connection with such 12 matters. Further, you will understand 13 that should the proposition be one of 14 extreme [yeah, I think it's extreme 15 urgency] The Department of National 16 Defence under the War Measures -- War 17 Measures Act would have authority to 18 expropriate any land required but such 19 action is rarely necessary. 20 Should any application be received, you 21 will be advised concerning the further 22 action necessary in the matter." 23 So, already at this point, we see that the 24 -- the Department of Indian Affairs is confirming that 25 the -- the procedure that Down described of how a meeting
1111 would be called and a surrender taken would be the 2 correct procedure. However, there is the other 3 possibility that the land could be taken under the War 4 Measures Act. 5 We see that the -- the Department of 6 National Defence wanted to proceed with -- with the 7 obtaining the land and in fact they -- they start looking 8 at the improvements et cetera on the Stony Point Reserve 9 and they start the process of evaluating those. 10 Q: I'm sorry. Is that -- that's prior 11 to any surrender vote? 12 A: That's correct. So, the next thing 13 I'm going to take you to is the -- the letter that that's 14 written by the Department of National Defence and you're 15 going to find that letter at two sixty-six (266) in Tab 16 77. 17 Q: Inquiry Document Number 4000266. 18 A: So, this letter is written February 19 21, 1942 and it's written by the Lieutenant Colonel in 20 the real estate who's -- who's a real estate advisor at 21 the Department of National Defence and he's writing to 22 C.W. Jackson who is the Acting Deputy Minister of the 23 Depart -- Department of Mines and Resources. Okay, so 24 that's the department that Indian Affairs is under. 25 And the subject line is "The Stony -- The
1121 Stony Point Indian Reserve near Ravenswood, Lambton 2 County, Ontario". And he says: 3 "Dear Mr. Jackson, The Department of 4 National Defence is anxious to 5 establish an advanced infantry training 6 centre within the boundaries of 7 Military District Number 1 and has had 8 a survey made with a view to finding a 9 suitable location. The survey has 10 developed the recommendation that the 11 Stony Point Reserve is admirably suited 12 for the purpose. The Indian agent, Mr. 13 George Down, was interviewed and it 14 develops from such conversation that 15 there are some fourteen (14) families 16 of Indians living on the Stony Point 17 Reserve and all of whom belong to the 18 same band as those of the Kettle Point 19 Reserve. It would be appreciated if 20 the Department of Mines and Resources 21 could see its way clear to implement 22 the disposal of the Stony Point Reserve 23 to the Department of National Defence 24 for the purpose referred to above. Mr. 25 Down expressed the opinion that there
1131 would be little difficulty in moving 2 the few families from the Stony Point 3 Reserve to the Kettle Point Reserve. 4 As the -- as the matter is one of some 5 urgency, it would be appreciated if it 6 could receive your early consideration 7 and that some indication might be 8 furnished the Department of National 9 Defence as to the purchase price that 10 would be involved. The Department is 11 anxious to proceed immediately with 12 sinking a test well and, providing the 13 Department of Mines and Resources is 14 prepared in principle to implement the 15 transaction, it would be appreciated if 16 authority could be given to proceed 17 with the drilling of the well leaving 18 the matter of negotiation as -- as to 19 price to follow. It is my 20 understanding the property comprises 21 two thousand, six hundred (2,600) acres 22 and does not include the water lots on 23 Lake Huron which, I am advised, are 24 privately owned. A reply at your 25 earliest convenience would be
1141 appreciated." 2 When he's talking about "the water lots"; 3 what he's referring to is the land that was previously 4 surrendered on the Stony Point Reserve. 5 Q: These are the lands that are marked 6 in purple? 7 A: Yes. The land marked in purple and 8 the lot beside that which is clear which is Ipperwash 9 Park and the -- that little small parcel on the far 10 right-hand side. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: So, as I said, while this negotiation 15 is going on, the Department of National Defence starts an 16 appraisal process where they go to the reserve, they look 17 at the land holding, buildings, et cetera, and -- and 18 start to fix a value on those. 19 The -- in the meantime, the -- we start 20 seeing protests from the -- the Chippewa and I think 21 maybe it's worth to read one of those. And a good 22 example is Document Number 270 which is at Tab 80. 23 Q: Inquiry Document Number 4000270? 24 A: So, this is a note and it's -- it's 25 from March of 1942 and at the top of the document it's
1151 written "Chippewa Nation of Indians". So, it says: 2 "Chippewa Nation of Indians inhabiting 3 and claiming the territory or the tract 4 of land hereafter described of the one 5 part and our Sovereign Lord -- Lord 6 George IV by the Grace of God of the 7 United Kingdom of Great Britain and 8 Ireland, kind defender of the -- of 9 the faith of the other part. 10 Please -- please note our sovereign 11 Lord George IV's statement by the Grace 12 of God taking God as a witness to His 13 vow. God still liveth and will live 14 forever saving nevertheless and 15 expressing, reserving to the said 16 Nation of Indians and their posterity 17 at all times hereafter for their own 18 exclusive use and enjoyment. 19 So please accept this as our final 20 answer of not wishing to sell or lease 21 the Stony Point Reserve." 22 Q: It says "Reservation". 23 A: Oh, excuse me, yes, you're right it 24 says "Reservation". So, this -- this note which is 25 expressing the -- the instruction or the wish that the
1161 Chippewa Nation did not want to lease or sell -- sell the 2 Stony Point Reserve or Reservation. And as the -- the 3 rationale or the -- the expression of that, what they are 4 recalling here is -- is -- is the -- what they refer to 5 as the vow before God of the King that -- that this 6 reserve is for their exclusive -- their own exclusive use 7 and enjoyment. 8 So, in spite of this -- this expression of 9 a -- a wish not to lease or surrender, the Department of 10 National Defence goes ahead and asks the Deputy Minister 11 to arrange for a meeting of the band to consider the 12 surrender. DIAND -- DND, National Defence through its 13 evaluation process has placed a value on the land and on 14 the buildings and it -- it asks the, excuse me for a 15 minute -- 16 Q: Why -- why don't we go to the vote? 17 A: Okay. But I want to do something 18 else first if you don't mind. Sorry. 19 Q: Oh all right. Not at all. 20 A: Sorry. It's -- it's just -- the -- 21 because by the time they get to the vote there they're 22 already looking at what some of the appraised value is. 23 And I'm -- I'm going to go over it very briefly and then 24 I'll go over it in -- in more detail later. 25 But based on their appraisal, the -- they
1171 -- they appraised the land at fifteen dollars ($15) an 2 acre. They decide that the buildings are worth about 3 eight thousand dollars ($8000) -- the buildings and the 4 improvements. And that there should be a cost of about 5 thirty-four hundred dollars ($3400) as expenses to re- 6 establish the people. 7 The -- the appraiser when he's doing that 8 work, he calls the people at Stony Point Reserve 9 Potawatomis and he's gotten this information from -- from 10 the agent. One of the other things about the appraisal 11 which is worth noting is the -- the appraiser 12 specifically notes that when he did the appraisal he 13 didn't do it following the standard appraisal practices 14 which mostly had to do with the fact that the buildings 15 weren't measured. 16 He looked at them but he didn't actually 17 measure them which implies that that wasn't a usual 18 practice at that time for appraisers. And the other 19 really noteworthy thing is that when he appraised the 20 land at fifteen dollars ($15) an acre, he appraised that 21 based on what he believed to be a price that was charged 22 when one member of the band sold a lot to another member 23 of a band. 24 So if a member of a band sold their -- 25 their location ticket or their right to occupy land and
1181 the buildings to another band member and, of course, what 2 that does not take into account is the fact that when one 3 band member is selling property to another band member, 4 the property does not leave -- it's not alienated from 5 the band. So, that property remains within the control 6 of the First Nation. And only those First Nation members 7 are legally allowed to reside on it. 8 So, he's using that price as a -- as a 9 price for the land when the land is going to be 10 completely alienated from the First Nations. So this is 11 a -- perhaps a lack of understanding on the part of the 12 appraiser for the -- the difference between exchanging 13 land within a First Nation and completely alienating land 14 from a First Nation. 15 Q: And because what they're suppose to 16 be basing their appraisal on is the ultimate sale of the 17 land to a third party not another member within the band? 18 A: Yes, that's correct. 19 Q: And so what this didn't take into 20 account was, what's the fair market value of the 21 neighbouring properties, for example, on the open market 22 would have been sold for? 23 A: That's correct. And I think I'll 24 just -- I'll just ask you to look at a document relative 25 to that which is Document Number 274 which is at Tab 84.
1191 Q: Inquiry Document Number 4000274. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Okay. So, when you -- when you look 6 at this document the first -- the first page of the 7 document is talking about the appraisal and then the -- 8 the following pages are the appraisal report itself. 9 And this appraisal is -- is going to the 10 attention of Dr. H.W. McGill who was the Director of 11 Indian Affairs because I didn't -- Indian Affairs, at 12 that time, had a director. 13 And it's talking about the proposed sale 14 of the Stony Point Indian Reserve and, of course, there 15 hasn't been a surrender meeting yet at this -- at this 16 time. He just says: 17 "Referring to my telephone conversation 18 with you this morning, I'm forwarding 19 to you a letter which has been received 20 from the Deputy Minister of National 21 Defence, bracket (Army) to which is 22 attached the original appraisal report 23 of Bert Weir & Company (phonetic). [And 24 that's the appraiser] As I mentioned to 25 you, the Defence Department is very
1201 anxious to have this submitted to the 2 Indians at once. You will no doubt 3 make inquiry to see whether the offer 4 made is a satisfactory one. Will you 5 please return the appraisal report when 6 you are through with it as I promised 7 to return it to the Department of 8 National Defence." 9 So, basically, the Department of Indian 10 Affairs is being advised that the appraisal has been done 11 of the holdings on the Stony Point Reserve, that National 12 Defence is very anxious to move forward with this and 13 they're asking Indian Affairs to look at this appraisal 14 report and -- and comment on it. 15 And basically to get the -- get the wheels 16 moving, like, to move on this. And then I'm not going to 17 go through the whole appraisal report which follows. 18 But just to point out to you the appraisal 19 report is dated February 28th, so you can see how quickly 20 it was done while the -- before the surrender had even 21 submitted to the band. 22 And it is a useful document in some ways 23 because what it does is it goes through the list of the 24 people who are residing at Stony Point. It gives a 25 description of their -- their property, the buildings,
1211 what the appraiser believes is the value of the 2 buildings, and -- so it's a -- it's -- it's useful in 3 that way. 4 And then after the first, one (1), two 5 (2), three (3), four (4), the fifth page after that 6 report is a whole list of the locat -- the location 7 tickets on Kettle Point Reserve. 8 And it's hard to say what -- I think -- I 9 think the point of having those location tickets there, 10 on the Kettle Point Reserve, is because they are 11 considering where they're going to move people from Stony 12 Point, because if they are moving people from the Stony 13 Point Reserve, to the Kettle Point Reserve, then they 14 have to look for vacant land, and you see that later in 15 the Indian agent's instructions; they start telling him 16 to -- to look for, basically, places where the -- where 17 they can move the -- the displaced parties. 18 So, moving along then, the -- the Indian 19 agent was given a -- a copy of the Appraisal Report. He 20 was instructed to use it with discretion because the 21 Department was concerned that if people knew what value 22 was being placed on different properties, that it would 23 cause all sorts of Members to compare values of things 24 and to potentially disagree with the Appraisal Report 25 and, I think the -- the words he uses are, quote, "To --
1221 to make comparisons and hatch up all kinds of funny ideas 2 about comparative values that it may be well to avoid." 3 The Indian agent is also told that -- that 4 the surrender and sale would be a golden opportunity to 5 remove white owners off Kettle Point to make room the 6 Stony Point families, and he was instructed to arrange 7 for a -- a meeting, and to take a surrender vote, and to 8 arrange transportation for band members, in a way to, 9 quote, "to -- to encourage a favourable vote". 10 And, when you look at, which we will do in 11 a minute, look at the agent's instructions, the 12 instructions that he's given suggest that the Department 13 is already viewing the surrender as a done deal. And 14 I'll just -- I'll just take you to that document, at the 15 risk of being tedious and reading too many documents. I 16 think that they're important to read because they do help 17 us to understand the process and -- and the thinking of 18 the various actors that were involved. 19 So, that -- that document is Document 20 Number 275, and it's found at Tab 85. 21 Q: Inquiry Document Number 4000275. 22 A: So, again, these are the instructions 23 that are sent to the Indian Agent, and they are sent by 24 D.J. Allan, who's the Superintendent of Reserves and 25 Trusts, which is a section of Indian Affairs that was
1231 particularly in charge of managing reserve lands and -- 2 and trust funds. So, it's dated at Ottawa; it's 3 addressed to the Indian Agent, and he says: 4 "Dear Sir: With reference to the 5 proposed sale of Stoney Indi --" 6 And he says Stoney Indian Reserve, which 7 is an error, okay: 8 "-- the sale of Stoney Indian Reserve 9 to the Department of National Defence, 10 we are enclosing herewith, for your 11 attention, the following..." 12 So, these are the -- he lists the kinds of 13 things he sends them: 14 "Number 1: Surrender documents and 15 instructions, voters' lists and 16 affidavits. 17 Number 2: A copy of a letter 18 indicating persons of white status who 19 own property and are resident at 20 Kettle. 21 Number 3: Copy of the Appraisal Report 22 indicating the consideration that will 23 be allowed to each owner on Stony. 24 Number 4: A departmental record of 25 location tickets on the Kettle Point
1241 Reserve. 2 Number 5: Suggestions for your 3 guidance in presenting the proposal to 4 the Indians. 5 And, Number 6: A copy of appraisal 6 report and a copy of suggestions from 7 Mr. Down. In connection with the 8 appraisal, it is suggested to you that 9 the report should be used with 10 discretion, possibly to the extent that 11 a man's own case should be discussed 12 with him and not his neighbours. I do 13 not know that this is a tremendously -- 14 that this is tremendously important but 15 they may start making comparisons and 16 hatch up all kinds of funny ideas about 17 comparative values that it may well -- 18 may be well to avoid. With respect to 19 the list of white owners, this would 20 appear to us to be a golden 21 opportunity, not only for us to get rid 22 of those white trespassers, but to give 23 the said white trespasser an 24 opportunity to sell their interest on 25 the -- on the reserve to bona fide band
1251 members and get a fair price. 2 In the judgment of this office, 3 considerable pressure should be put on 4 those whites at this time to get them 5 off the reserve and the room they are 6 taking should provide for at least some 7 of the fourteen (14) families that have 8 to be moved onto Kettle from Stony. 9 This will also confirm arrangements 10 that if -- that if it is necessary for 11 you to furnish transportation to Kettle 12 and Stony Indians working away from the 13 reserve you should do it if, by so 14 doing, you will ensure a favourable 15 vote. This is left to your discretion. 16 It is the wish of the Branch that you 17 should call the meeting for the 18 earliest practical date. There will, 19 no doubt -- there will, no doubt, be 20 local conditions that will influence 21 your judgment but try and have the 22 matter settled one way or -- or the 23 other within a week or ten (10) days. 24 The writer told you on the telephone 25 that the building sold to the
1261 Department of National Defence may be 2 either moved away or demo -- demolished 3 by the former owners. This will have 4 to be done, however, with very [And I - 5 - there's a word missing there] 6 promptness as the Army will not wait on 7 their convenience and any shack that is 8 not removed promptly might conceivably 9 have a match touched to it to get it 10 out of the road. 11 Once the decision of the vote is known, 12 we will have to make immediate plans to 13 get the people off Stony. As much 14 accommodation as is available for 15 occupation or can be purchased with the 16 right to immediate possession should be 17 carefully investigated. By consulting 18 the appraisal report you will be able 19 to reach your own conclusions as to 20 what money is available for such 21 purpose. If there are any houses that 22 can be moved to Kettle, steps should be 23 taken immediately to find a piece of 24 land to put them on and get the 25 movement underway.
1271 I do not know that I can give you any 2 further advice. But in telling the 3 story to the Indians it might not -- it 4 might be well not to overlook the 5 promise that the -- that this 6 development holds for employment in the 7 preparation of the military field [I 8 believe that word is]. 9 It usually happens that they are 10 generous employers of labour and it may 11 be that the Indians who need jobs can 12 get them if they are alert and make 13 their application early to the right 14 people. 15 Do not hesitate to use the telephone if 16 you run into problems in connection 17 which -- with which you need advice and 18 use the good offices of Indian Agent 19 Down as much as possible as he is, no 20 doubt, particularly familiar with 21 conditions among the members of the 22 band." 23 And just to explain that, Agent Down, who 24 has been at the reserve for some time, has just moved to 25 another location. The Indian agent that's taking over
1281 now is a new Indian agent, so Down has offered to 2 continue on this work. So that's what those references 3 for Down are. 4 And I guess, you know, one didn't use the 5 telephone unnecessarily in those days. So, just a 6 couple of things in there. He calls it, "The Stony 7 Indian Reserve" which, of course isn't correct because 8 there is a Stony Indian Reserve in Alberta and this is 9 not -- this is the Stony Point Reserve. 10 But you notice in this -- in this 11 document the -- the Indian agent is being pressured to 12 get the surrender vote very quickly. He says here, "a 13 week or then (10) days". I believe in the Indian Act at 14 the time you had to give at least a week's notice to 15 call a surrender meeting. 16 The -- the sense of urgency is there, 17 also the sense of let's use this as an opportunity to 18 move people off the Kettle Point Reserve who the Indian 19 Department believe don't belong there. 20 Q: Off? Yes, okay. 21 A: Yeah, off the Kettle Point Reserve 22 to make room for these people who are coming from the 23 Stony Point Reserve. So, you can see how this -- this 24 taking of the reserve which they're anticipating at this 25 time is going to upset not only the people at Stony
1291 Point who are going to be removed from their reserve, 2 but also the people at Kettle Point are also going to be 3 disrupted. 4 Q: Can you speak a little bit to the 5 issue of -- of the -- the white people residents at the 6 Kettle Point Reserve? 7 A: Right. When we're looking at Indian 8 Affairs records, particularly from this time period, 9 this sort of mid 20th Century time period, the use of 10 the term "white" does not necessarily mean non- 11 Aboriginal. The Indian Affairs Department are using 12 that in the sense of people who are not recognized as 13 registered Indians under the Indian Act. 14 So, that could be women who had married 15 non-Indians and had lost their status. They could be 16 mixed blood people who were not Indians in the meaning 17 of the Indian Act because their father was white, their 18 mother was Indian, a registered Indian and -- and so 19 because they get their status under Indian Act 20 Regulations they get their status from their father, 21 they would not have status. 22 It can also -- it may mean in this case, 23 they may be also referring to non-Treaty people; that's 24 not clear. The -- the illustration that I have from 25 this body of information -- this documentation on the
1301 use of the term "white" is -- we see it in a document, I 2 just have to find the number of it. But we find it in 3 one of the documents, they refer to a woman who's 4 "white" and then they give a little bit of explanation 5 of who she is. 6 And that's Document 298 which we find at 7 Tab 125 and I'm just going to, I'll just quickly read 8 you how they explain her. 9 Q: That's Inquiry Document Number 10 4000298. 11 A: And at that tab, that document which 12 is written in June 1942, the first two (2) pages are a 13 letter and then attached to it is a chart made up that 14 has to do with the appraisal of improvements. And on 15 the second page of that -- the second page of that 16 chart, you'll see towards the bottom the -- the fourth 17 name up from the bottom in the lefthand column. There's 18 a person who is named Mrs. MacKinnon and you'll see 19 beside her name, "no ticket" which means she doesn't 20 have a location ticket. 21 So there's a description of the land 22 she's on, a value of it and then in the far right hand 23 corner we see the explanation and it says, okay: 24 "Mrs. MacKinnon. 25 A white person, formerly band member,
1311 widowed about sixty (60) years living 2 alone being given permission to reside 3 on reserve on lot, being given as a 4 life interest by Duncan Greenbird. 5 Moving and repairs at own expense." 6 So, that's an illustration of when 7 they're talking about a 'white' person in this context. 8 Sometimes what they're referring to is people who are 9 actually aboriginal people. They are former band 10 members but, for some reason, like this woman would have 11 -- would have lost her -- probably lost her status 12 because she married a non-Band member, a white man 13 likely. 14 But, now she's widowed. She's sixty (60) 15 years old. She's gone back or she has continued to live 16 on the reserve at the -- out of the goodness of a band 17 member has -- has given her a place to live. 18 So, when we -- when you read this kind of 19 documentation and you see somebody being referred to as 20 a white person and "this is a perfect opportunity to get 21 these people off the reserve", sometime, in fact, what - 22 - what they're talking about is former Band members, 23 family members of band members who, for some reason, 24 don't have registered Indian status. 25 Q: Thank you. And then?
1321 A: So, we read his instructions and one 2 of -- one of the -- one of the interesting things that 3 that -- that Indian agent was given and that was listed 4 in the items that were being provided to him with his 5 instructions was a kind of an answer and question sheet; 6 the answers to questions that would likely arise. 7 And this is -- the Department is 8 basically providing him with a briefing of -- of what he 9 can promise people under the surrender -- or if the 10 surrender is given. 11 The -- the Indian agent, according to his 12 instructions, did call a surrender meeting and it was in 13 April 1st, 1942. And when he was -- when he was calling 14 that meeting, we start to see the Indian agent referring 15 to opposition that's arising. 16 And, again, he -- he attributes some of 17 that to the white section, the Ladies Branch of the Red 18 Cross or the Women's Institute are particularly singled 19 out as the troublemakers or being opposed to this 20 suggestion of -- of a surrender being taken. 21 And I'm going to take you again to -- to 22 another -- another document and this is a -- this is the 23 petition from the Kettle and Stony Point War Workers 24 Organization and it's dated just before the surrender 25 and it's at Document Number 278 and it's at Tab 87.
1331 Q: Inquiry Document Number 4000278? 2 A: This is a -- this is quite an 3 interesting document. When you look at it in your book 4 you'll see that the first thing is there's a little 5 partial transcript. But that -- that transcript is just 6 in relation to, I think it's the fifth or the sixth 7 page, so I will go back to the transcript when we get to 8 that part of the -- of the -- of the document. 9 And this document is -- it's interesting. 10 It's got forty-four (44) signatures on it, on the last 11 page and they are signatures not -- not just lists of 12 names. And what this document is particularly 13 interesting about -- for is that it -- it gives a -- a 14 recounting of some of the oral tradition of the 15 community. 16 And their recounting of their history is 17 very important to them in terms of why they do not want 18 to have the reserve taken away from them and why they 19 oppose the -- the calling of this general council to -- 20 to consider the surrender. 21 So, it's dated March 25th, 1942 and at 22 the top it says, "Kettle and Stony Point Reserves". So, 23 I'll start reading; it says: 24 "Sir, we the under-signed members of 25 the Kettle and Stony Point War Workers
1341 Organization, in trying to help to 2 defend our country and the Allied 3 countries of the United Kingdom from 4 the enemy have been labouring and 5 striving to raise money for the 6 soldiers who are in the army doing all 7 we can to help win this war in the hope 8 of having freedom in our country. We 9 are all working for this one great 10 cause. Even the children that pick up 11 the odd nickel use it for our defence. 12 We are also in the hope of giving 13 protection to the smaller nations who 14 are under the cruel laws of the Nazis. 15 We are working for our protection and 16 for the same reason our boys enlisted 17 in the army in the -- in the [Oh, no. 18 Sorry.] In the that they may help 19 protect their homes and countries..." 20 There's a word missing in that sentence. 21 Q: "In then" probably it should have 22 been. 23 A: Yeah. 24 "We understand that Stony Point 25 Reservation is being taken over by the
1351 military department without consulting 2 the members and owners of the reserve. 3 What will the boys think who have 4 signed up for active service when they 5 -- when they hear that their homes have 6 been sold and their lands and find no 7 home and land to fall back on when they 8 return home after the war. Is for us 9 who are at home doing all we can to 10 help win this war could not endure to 11 see [Sorry. It's --] As for us who are 12 at home doing all we can to help win 13 this war could not endure to see our 14 children and relatives taken away from 15 their homes -- homes and which are 16 ancestors worked hard to build for 17 them." 18 And then when you go to the top of the 19 next page, there's a little bit of repetition of the 20 first couple of lines. So, you go back down to the 21 ninth line, okay? 22 So, we start again: 23 "Our ancestors worked hard to build for 24 them which also have been their home 25 for many years. Many of us, who are
1361 members and owners of this reserve, are 2 the descendants of those who fought and 3 protected --" 4 Q: Sorry, "to protect". 5 A: " --fought to protect this same 6 country 7 in the year 1812. Mr. George Down, the 8 ex-Indian agent for this Reserve, also 9 Mr. McCracken, the present Indian 10 Agent, have posted notices at the 11 Council House and even at the doors of 12 both churches of which, no doubt, your 13 are aware is not lawful. The people 14 goes to those churches for the purpose 15 they are there for and that is to 16 worship God and not to have their minds 17 occupied on the surrender of their 18 beloved homes and lands. And it is our 19 desire to have the Department of Indian 20 Affairs call off this General Council 21 and cancel the surrender of this 22 reserve. Drillers have brought in 23 their machinery and started drilling 24 operations without consulting anyone on 25 the reservation. The Indian Agent was
1371 notified and he said it was nothing. 2 Still, he would not do anything about 3 it. So, it is not our desire to sell 4 this reservation or lease it, so please 5 take this as final." 6 And then if you go to the -- to the next 7 page it says: 8 "Renowned Chippewa Indian Chiefs during 9 the War of 1812 between ..." 10 That's "BTW" short form for between, 11 "...Great Britain and the United State 12 vs Todol, Shingwaulk, Tom King, 13 Aissaiance, Manitowbe, Missquakinoe 14 Tomigo, Oshawano, Kakaik, Wasawannia, 15 Tecumseh and Pewaush." 16 So what they're doing on that -- on that 17 sheet is listing names of chiefs, many of those names 18 are people who are historically very important chiefs in 19 what's now Ontario. 20 And they are listing them as chiefs who - 21 - who fought in the war of 1812. This is part of their 22 submission and included in that is the name Oshawano 23 which is the chief from that area. The next page you'll 24 see is very difficult to read. That's what I have the 25 transcript of and it's -- it's a rubbing of two (2)
1381 sides of a -- a medal that was given out. 2 And the transcript is of -- of what we 3 can make out of that writing is: 4 " A blue ribbon is attached to the 5 above medal. The blue denotes a blue 6 sky to always be above the --" I think 7 it's chiefs "-- whom it was given that 8 he shall never be molested by" 9 illegible word "due to the fact that he 10 did --" next something missing "-- for 11 the British. He and his posterity 12 shall remain at the one (1) place he 13 was --" and it's either "selected" or 14 "settled. It was also as by medal 15 shown." 16 And I couldn't get out the rest of it, 17 the Indian chief. But this again is a part of the -- 18 the evidence they give or the argument they make for not 19 wanting to surrender their reserve. 20 And the -- the next page explains about 21 that. I'll just read it. 22 "The above prints of the medal was 23 presented to Chief Oshawano at the 24 conclusion of the war of 1812 as a 25 token of appreciation of the services
1391 rendered to save the Province of 2 Ontario and was commissioned to return 3 home and select a site for reservation 4 and selected Aux Sable Reservation 5 where they resided long before the 6 surrender of 1827. 7 Chief Oshawano went from the mouth of 8 what is now known as Shawanoo Creek 9 which was named after him. Tecumesh 10 came and got his nephew, Chief Oshawano 11 and his brother, Shigonowick Owabick 12 (phonetic) and both are buried at 13 Kettle Point Cemetery and Pewaush 14 being the first cousin of Chief 15 Oshawano on the father's side and Chief 16 Oshawano afterwards married the 17 daughter -- daughter of Pewaush, also 18 forming one (1) united family among 19 them." 20 Q: I think it says "thus" forming? 21 A: Oh, excuse me, yes. 22 "Thus forming one united family among 23 them. We are not against this war. We 24 heart and soul in the work of hoping 25 this war be soon [there's a word
1401 missing there] but we hope and desire 2 to hold this Reservation which our 3 forefathers fought for and for [and I 4 think it's either] which our boys are 5 fighting in present war being the 6 second time this Reservation is fought 7 for." 8 And then the final page of that document 9 is the forty-four (44) signatures. So the -- the people 10 who have -- have signed this -- this petition are using 11 their knowledge of -- of their history and their 12 feelings for their relationship with the British. 13 And the fact that they have always 14 supported them since the war of 1812 as part of their -- 15 their rationale for believing that they should be able 16 to hold onto their reserve and -- and resisting this 17 proposed surrender. 18 However, the surrender meeting does go 19 ahead and the -- the Chief and Council madea -- an 20 address at the beginning of the surrender meeting 21 opposing the surrender. 22 The -- the surrender was voted down. It 23 was refused. At that time, in -- in 1942, there were 24 eighty-three (83) eligible voters. Seventy-two (72) of 25 those people showed up to vote and of the people who
1411 voted fifty-nine (59) voted against the surrender and 2 only thirteen (13) voted in favour of it. 3 Despite this, the refusal to take the 4 surrender, the -- the plans to take over the Stony Point 5 Reserve progressed and the Department of National 6 Defence then went to the Privy Council seeking an Order 7 in Council to -- to take the reserve. 8 And I'll take you to -- to that document 9 which explains the use of the War Measures Act and 10 that's document 282 and it's at -- it's at Tab 89. 11 Q: Inquiry document number 4000282. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Okay? 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: So this is a Privy Council Order in 18 Council number 2913. It's dated the 14th day of April, 19 1942. If you recall, the surrender vote was taken on 20 the 1st OF April, so this is two (2) -- two (2) weeks 21 after the surrender was refused. 22 And it says: 23 "Whereas the Minister of National 24 Defence states that the Quartermaster 25 General has reported that it is
1421 necessary to provide an advanced 2 training centre in Military District 3 Number 1, that suitable sites have been 4 located comprising approximately two 5 thousand, two hundred and forty (2,240) 6 acres on the Stoney Point Indian 7 Reserve lying between the Blue Water 8 Highway and Lake Huron, Ontario, that 9 negotiations towards the acquisition of 10 this site were entered into by the real 11 estate advisor of the Department of 12 National Defence and the Indian Affairs 13 Branch of the Department of Mines and 14 Resources acting on behalf of the 15 Indian Band on the Reserve in question. 16 That is was considered that the sum of 17 fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) would, 18 in the circumstances, be fair and 19 reasonable compensation which sum would 20 include the cost of moving the Indian 21 families, their buildings, chattels, et 22 cetera, off the Reserve, together with 23 the further condition that if 24 subsequent to the termination of the 25 war the property was not required by
1431 the Department of National Defence, 2 negotiations would then be entered into 3 to transfer the same back to the 4 Indians at a reasonable price to be 5 determined by mutual agreement. That 6 pursuant to the provision of the Indian 7 Act, these proposals were laid before a 8 meeting of the Indian Band in question 9 convened for that purpose. But the 10 said Band rejected the same by a vote 11 of fifty-nine (59) against and thirteen 12 (13) in favour of the said proposals. 13 And it does not appear likely that the 14 acquisition of the property in question 15 can be affected by way of negotiations. 16 That as the establishment of an 17 advanced training centre in the 18 locality in question is a matter of 19 military expediency and as the site in 20 question is the only one suitable for 21 that purpose, it is in the public 22 interest and for the efficient -- 23 prosecution of the war desirable that 24 the lands in question be acquired and 25 to enable this to be done, it is
1441 necessary that the provisions of the 2 War Measures Act be invoked and the 3 Quartermaster General and the Acting 4 Deputy Minister (Army) have recommended 5 accordingly. That funds will be 6 provided in the vote for War 7 Appropriations 1942-43. Now, 8 therefore, His Excellency The Governor 9 General and Council on the 10 recommendation of the Minister of 11 National Defence and under the 12 authority of the War Measures Act, 13 Chapter 206, Revised Statutes of 14 Canada, 1927 and notwithstanding the 15 provisions of any other Act, Law or 16 Regulation is pleased to order and doth 17 hereby order that an area comprising 18 approximately two thousand, three 19 hundred and forty (2,340) acres on the 20 Stony Point Indian Reserve lying 21 between the Blue Water Highway and Lake 22 Huron, Ontario be appropriated for use 23 by the Department of National Defence. 24 His Excellency, In Council, on the same 25 recommendation is further pleased
1451 hereby to authorize the Real Estate 2 Advisor, Department of National 3 Defence, to continue negotiations with 4 the Indian Affairs Branch of the 5 Department of Mines and Resources 6 respecting the compensation to be 7 payable to the Indians on the said 8 reserve who, on the appropriation 9 thereof, will be required to vacate. 10 The maximum amount -- the maximum 11 involved, including the cost of 12 removal, not to exceed fifty thousand 13 dollars ($50,000) and, in the event of 14 it not being possible to reach an 15 agreement in respect of the amount of 16 compensation to be paid, the amount so 17 payable then to be determined by the 18 Exchequer Court in the manner provided 19 under the said War Measures Act." 20 And just before I go on to -- to look at 21 the next slide in which we discuss how the people were 22 actually removed and the compensation paid and while we 23 still have this slide up on the -- showing the map of 24 the reserve, what I'd like to do is point out that this 25 is 1942 that this Order in Council is passed.
1461 Three (3) years later in 1945 the 2 Department of National Defence acquires the portion on 3 the -- the map you see on slide 19, the portion of land 4 that is coloured purple. So what they are acquiring in 5 1945 is land that is owned by third parties, land that 6 was originally part of the reserve, was surrendered, was 7 bought by third parties. 8 The Department of National Defence then 9 buys that land from them with the exception of Ipperwash 10 Park which is the square that's not coloured and that 11 small parcel on the -- on the far right, which is also 12 not shaded in; that -- that remained in private hands. 13 The purple section, the Department of 14 National Defence purchased those from two (2) different 15 -- two (2) different individuals. One (1) part 16 comprised of two hundred and sixty (260) acres was 17 purchased from the owner for twenty nine thousand 18 dollars ($29,000). 19 The other portion which is a one point 20 two (1.2) acre lot was purchased for twenty-five hundred 21 dollars ($2500) and I believe that those properties were 22 -- had -- had some development on them, some cottage 23 development. 24 Q: And was this acquisition done by way 25 of an appropriation or expropriation under the War
1471 Measures Act? 2 A: No. Actually, they, if I recall 3 correctly, they -- they purchased it from the owners. 4 They -- they had authority to go ahead and take it by 5 way of -- using their expropriation powers that they had 6 under the Act. 7 But after negotiating with the owners, 8 they -- they did it by straight purchase. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. I wonder, 10 Commissioner, whether it might be an appropriate time 11 before we get to the next slide, it's 3:15, perhaps 12 we'll take the afternoon break? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. Are 14 you okay Ms. -- are you all right? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 17 Let's take a break now, fifteen (15) minutes. We'll 18 reconvene at 3:30. 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 20 for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 3:15 p.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 3:34 p.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now
1481 resumed. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 4 Q: Ms. Holmes, I believe that you were 5 about to speak to the compensation that was ultimately 6 paid under the appropriation? 7 A: Yes, and I'll move to my next slide. 8 So continuing with the appropriation of Camp Ipperwash 9 by -- if you'll remember the -- the surrender was voted 10 on and turned down in April 1942 and by July the Stony 11 Point families had been moved off the Stony Point 12 Reserve and onto the Kettle Point Reserve. 13 And these people were supposed to be 14 compensated for their improvements and their -- and 15 their moving expenses and fifteen dollars ($15) per acre 16 for the land. And what I'm going to do is -- I -- I'm 17 just going to go through the compensation scheme very 18 briefly to give you an idea of how that was calculated. 19 What I'd like to say here is that because 20 this -- this project that I'm working on, this overview 21 history, is in fact just an overview history. I made no 22 attempt to verify that the actual compensation was paid 23 in the way in which it was outlined in the Order in 24 Council and in -- and in the plans and in the 25 discussions prior to the compensation being paid.
1491 That -- that would be a very large and 2 very complex job to follow all of that money. So just - 3 - that you should -- you should be aware of that in my 4 following remarks. 5 The way that the Department of National 6 Defence appraisers organized the compensation money is 7 outlined on page 51 of the report and if you remember 8 from the Order in Council, they had the authority to 9 spend a maximum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) on 10 compensation for the taking of the Stony Point Reserve. 11 The -- and they divided that up into 12 three (3) categories. And the first category was 13 supposed to be the value of the land which was at 14 fifteen dollars ($15) an acres. 15 The second category was the appraised 16 value of the buildings. And if you recall I drew your 17 attention to that appraisal report which is what 18 detailed what each and every building was supposed to be 19 worth according to the appraisal and that was to a 20 maximum of eight thousand dollars ($8000). And then 21 there was another eight thousand four hundred dollars 22 ($8400) that was for moving expenses and compensation to 23 the dispossessed to do with the expense of -- of moving 24 and re-establishing their homes. 25 And that -- that's how the -- the money
1501 was allotted. Later on the Indian agent was instructed 2 to spend -- to set up accounts for this money and to 3 spend the money in a particular way. And he was 4 instructed to first use the money that was in category 5 "C", which was the moving expenses pot of money. 6 And then expend the money that was in 7 account "B" which was for the appraisal of the building. 8 And then that account "A" which was the land value was 9 supposed to be the property of the Indians. Now as I am 10 -- have cautioned you in the beginning, I have made no 11 attempt to go and to follow that money and to see 12 exactly how the money was -- was in fact paid out. 13 And while I have not done that in this 14 case, I've worked on several Indian Affairs 15 appropriations where a cap amount of money was set aside 16 for compensation. And these things usually become 17 extremely complicated, the money is very difficult to 18 follow. 19 So that was -- that was the general plan 20 in terms of -- of the compensation. 21 Q: Just if I might interrupt. Just -- 22 you've indicated that the Department of National Defence 23 paid fifteen dollars ($15) per acre, but as I read your 24 chart on page 51, it looks like what was paid for the 25 land was what was left from the fifty thousand dollars
1511 ($50,000) after payment of the -- for the appraisal -- 2 or the -- the compensation for the lost buildings and 3 the moving costs; is that right? 4 A: That -- that's the -- that seems to 5 be what happened. But as -- as I -- as I said, because 6 I -- I didn't exactly follow all that money, I wouldn't 7 want to -- to make a final determination on exactly how 8 the money was divided up and who ended up with what in 9 the end. 10 Q: Thank you. 11 A: After -- after the -- after the 12 decision was made to displace the people and people were 13 being displaced and moved from -- from the Stony Point 14 Reserve onto the Kettle Point Reserve, there is 15 continuing opposition and you see that in the historical 16 records. 17 There's a -- one (1) particular letter 18 that I -- that I think is worth going to because it -- 19 again, it looks at the history as -- as people 20 understand it and their feeling about the reserve being 21 sold away or taken away from them. 22 And some of the people actually hired -- 23 engaged a lawyer to -- to work on their behalf to 24 protest against the acquisition of -- of the reserve and 25 in both those cases, the -- the Indian Department didn't
1521 respond in any kind of positive way in terms of 2 answering their -- their request. 3 And I think I will just briefly take you 4 to this one (1) letter which was -- it's document number 5 286 and you'll find it at Tab 124. 6 Q: Inquiry document number 4000286. 7 A: So this is a document written to the 8 Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. It's written 9 by a Mrs. Beattie Greenbird and it's in April 24th, 1942 10 so it's just a couple of weeks after the Order in 11 Council has passed. 12 It's a pretty long document. She start 13 off at the beginning of the document looking at the 14 history again, and I think it expresses the - the 15 sentiments of -- of the community. 16 She says: 17 "Dear Sir, No doubt you will be 18 surprised to hear from me to ask you to 19 be kind enough to spare me some of your 20 valuable time to give me a full 21 understanding about the indenture of 22 1827 between the Chippewa Nation of 23 Indians and their Sovereign Lord, 24 George IV of United Kingdom of Great 25 Britain and Ireland, Defender of the
1531 Faith --" 2 And here she's -- here she's recalling 3 the surrender -- the treaty -- the 1827 Treaty. She 4 goes on: 5 "A provisional agreement was made for 6 that purpose made and executed by the 7 said James Given Esquire and the Chiefs 8 and Principal Men of the said nation of 9 Indians. My Great Grandfather was one 10 of the chiefs. Pewaush was chief of 11 the said Indians in said Reserve during 12 the Reign of George IV, his son, 13 Madwachewan, was next and Takuhm was 14 next and Nadwaday (phonetic) --[I 15 think] and Wapagase was Chief signed 16 the 1827 Treaty and Kwikigon (phonetic) 17 one of their Chiefs, forefather of the 18 present residents residing and lived on 19 said reserve of Kettle and Stony Point 20 long before the surrender and, 21 therefore, our forefathers picked out 22 Kettle Point and Stony Point. Pewaush 23 was the first resident on Kettle Point, 24 right at the point, and adopted some of 25 their friends, December 5, 1873. Those
1541 that were married to their daughter and 2 others from States and from other 3 places." 4 And that 1873 is a reference to that -- 5 that Council resolution that was made adopting 6 Potawatomis. So, that's what she's referring to there. 7 "and those are the ones [I'm carrying 8 on with the letter] And those are the 9 ones that does not want to sell because 10 they knew the Government will not give 11 -- give them a reservation such as 12 Stony Point. I'm the oldest of 13 Wapagus' family. Mrs. Robert Metino, I 14 think, is next oldest and David 15 Shawanoo and Elliott Shawanoo and John 16 Johnson and others and children and 17 their babies. And at present white men 18 sell our inheritance to his white 19 friend using War Measure. I'm quite 20 sure that there is no word on this 21 indenture that -- that would have you - 22 - that would lead [Sorry] that would 23 lead you to take Indians' land without 24 their consent. And besides, we hold 25 what this Inspector said we asked him
1551 if the Indian does not want to sell if 2 the Government could take the land. He 3 said, it can't be done. All I'm here 4 for to see which side the majority of 5 votes will go. If it's for sale or no 6 and so it's no. 7 War is a horrible thing to see and 8 experience. We hear the enemy blowing 9 up civilians, old, young and babies 10 alike and -- and runned over by tank in 11 France, it's awful. And ships sunk, 12 men drowned. Big nation marching in 13 small nation grounds and King George 14 and his men doing their utmost to 15 defend them along with United States 16 President Mr. Roosevelt. Your Governor 17 should consult Mr. Roosevelt because he 18 has done his best to stop everything 19 because Mr. Roosevelt is one of us or 20 join hands with our defender, King 21 George. 22 What I want to understand is these 23 words, 'The grace of God, Defender of 24 Faith'. These words pushed to one side 25 to make room to grab poor Indians --
1561 Indians babies' inheritance. A white 2 man sell this for fifteen dollars ($15) 3 per acre [It says] on our front two lot 4 where our boys have been farming the 5 timber is well worth five thousand 6 dollars ($5,000)..." 7 Written in numbers and then out in words 8 "five thousand dollars ($5,000)": 9 "... on wood and building purposes 10 which we have been saving for this last 11 ten (10) years and two (2) more lots 12 which our boys have been taking -- 13 taking and located by Council and they 14 too have been saving good timber for 15 their houses to build. They are worth 16 more than the first two (2) I have 17 mentioned. Do you think that the party 18 who sold Stony Point would furnish the 19 timber for our boys' houses? No, they 20 would not. It is the same -- it -- 21 it's the same as this will go to moving 22 and building houses and paying 23 improvements. 24 Q: I think it says "if a sum --" 25 A: "If a sum".
1571 Q: "-- of these money"? 2 A: Yeah, yeah. "If a sum of this..." 3 on that little word at the side is "...money..." 4 "... will go to moving and building 5 houses and paying improvements and some 6 might be distributed among them and the 7 rest into the band's funds where an 8 Indian can never touch it except 9 interest after their money is all spent 10 and hard times come. No wood to sell 11 as there never was much work around 12 here and now misery is handed to them 13 and hunger because their usual means of 14 livelihood is taken away from them by 15 force but some of them are overseas and 16 some training in Canadian soil, yet 17 while their backs are turned their 18 beloved reservation is taken right from 19 under their parents' feet. And what 20 are they fighting for?" 21 Q: "For to save". 22 A: Oh, okay, 23 "... for to save Canadian land and 24 theirs besides. One of the Bressette 25 boys left home on leave a few days ago
1581 and a day or so after his brothers and 2 parents receive order not to keep away 3 two farms at Stony and the poor boy 4 kept on marching towards his death. 5 And he may be -- he may be lucky or he 6 may be lucky, and it says, is escaped 7 death or so -- or so not boys have 8 nothing to fight for and so our boys 9 have nothing to fight for and its bad 10 and on the --" 11 Q: "On our old." 12 A: "-- on our old people. They will die 13 on worry and heartache. And who's 14 killing them? 15 The animal has laws to protect them not 16 to be disturbed or molested on the 17 ground. Us Indians has no law. We are 18 carried down below animal -- animals. 19 This is the way we look at it as we are 20 not well educated as your governors at 21 Ottawa. It's very, very bad to push 22 aside our protection as the Grace of 23 God and Defender of faith as we are 24 told and know we have to defend 25 Christianity to have peace.
1591 To push God name and his Grace aside as 2 we are praying every day to help us to 3 victory. And God moves in a mysterious 4 way if we don't keep his name holy and 5 we believe God with all our hearts and 6 minds. 7 We don't side up with Hitler and his 8 heartless aides. All we would like -- 9 all we would like to keep Stony Point 10 for our descendants. There is a lot of 11 land four (4) or five (5) miles east 12 from Stony Point and beg to excuse the 13 way I look at this and my broken 14 English and will look forward to your 15 early reply. 16 Mrs. Beattie Greenbird for Forest, R.R. 17 2." 18 And then P.S. on the last -- the last 19 page she says: 20 "As the reserve is sold already I 21 suppose we have a very poor chance to 22 cut some timber for building purposes 23 and fence posts as we were -- we were 24 told that we can cut timber anytime 25 even if the reservation is sold. We
1601 need five hundred and six (506) hundred 2 fence posts. At Kettle Point. We were 3 just starting to cut them when the blow 4 hit us." 5 And she says at the bottom: 6 "I am the oldest and have right to say 7 something about our poor children -- 8 children's inheritance." 9 In reply to that letter the Department 10 makes a reply that's -- that's quoted at the top of page 11 52 of my report. And basically they are saying that -- 12 that this is for the war effort and it should -- it 13 should go ahead. 14 The Superintendent General of Indian 15 Affairs replies to her; he says: 16 "The Indian people at Stony Point are 17 Canadians and loyal subjects of His 18 Majesty. As such and in accordance 19 with their rights as Canadian citizens 20 and quite regardless of any so-called 21 Treaty obligations, you have been 22 treated fairly and generously for 23 upward of one hundred (100) years." 24 Then he goes on to say: 25 "I'm sure that the Chippewas of Stony
1611 Point and Kettle Point have no -- are 2 no exception." 3 Because he talks about the Indian people 4 in Canada in general. 5 "Two thousand (2000) acres of your land 6 a greater part of which you have chosen 7 to leave unproductive was ideal for the 8 purpose and urgently required for the 9 accommodation of thousands of troops 10 whose training in arms is urgently and 11 desperately needed for the defence of 12 our shores. 13 As Superintendent General of Indian 14 Affairs, I have seen to it that you 15 will be adequately compensated. As 16 Superintendent General of Indian 17 Affairs, I will see to it as will -- as 18 will I assure you my successors in 19 office that your band and your 20 returning sons will be fairly treated 21 in the period of re-adjustment which 22 must inevitably follow the successful 23 issue of the struggle in which Canada 24 is engaged." 25 One of the things you notice in that
1621 paper is one of the rationales that -- that the 2 Department, uses is that they have chosen to leave their 3 land unproductive. And this is a -- a very common 4 attitude expressed in the Department of Indian Affairs, 5 that if -- if lands were not cultivated as farms, that 6 they were unproductive, that there was very little -- 7 the Department saw very little value in any other use of 8 land. 9 As I said, and as I -- I document in the 10 report, some of the -- the -- the ,embers engaged a 11 lawyer who -- who tried to dispute the -- who tried to 12 dispute the -- the acquisition of the Reserve, but the - 13 - the relocation went ahead. There were sixteen (16) 14 families that were resident at Stony Point that were 15 considered to be entitled to moving expenses. Many 16 people, of course, were not considered entitled because 17 they were not considered to band -- band members. 18 The -- these people were -- were moved; 19 some of the houses were moved. And the -- the picture 20 on the slide is a picture of a house, actually, being 21 moved on a flatbed. And those people were moved onto 22 small lots on the Kettle Point Reserve, and even the 23 Indian agent remarked later that -- that there was a -- 24 there was a -- a feeling of dissat -- dissatisfaction. 25 I'm just gonna end up this slide by
1631 drawing your attention to the quotation that's on 2 page 53 of the report. And this is the Indian agent 3 who's taken note of the friction that has resulted 4 because of the -- the move of the people from Stony to 5 Kettle. And he writes, this is the Indian Agent, and -- 6 and he's writing to the Secretary of Indian Affairs, in 7 June, 1942, and this is -- this is when the move is -- 8 is going on, but is not quite yet completed. 9 And he says: 10 "The Indians of Stony and Kettle deeply 11 resent the fact that their reserve has 12 been taken from them. It appears as 13 though the Kettle Point Indians are not 14 eager to have the Stony Indians take up 15 residence at Kettle. Some of the Stony 16 Indians visiting Kettle recently in 17 search of locations, are called 18 refugees by the Kettle Point Indians. 19 The band still has hopes that a lawyer, 20 whom they have consulted in Toronto, 21 will be able to prevent the use of 22 their reserve for military purposes. 23 Delegations, reportedly, financed by 24 private subscription, and headed by one 25 Beattie Greenbird, have visited the
1641 lawyer on at least two (2) occasions. 2 Generally speaking, however, the 3 Indians of both Kettle and Stony are at 4 least outwardly resigned to the fact 5 that their reserve is gone, as far as 6 they are concerned." 7 So, by -- by June, or by July of that 8 summer, the Kettle Point -- or the Stony Point people 9 had been relocated and prior to their relocation, they - 10 - they occupied lots that were in the neighbourhood of 11 forty (40) acres, and many of them after moving to 12 Kettle Point, they were put on -- on pieces of land that 13 were two (2) or three (3) acres. 14 So, they -- they were not left in the -- 15 in the position that they had been in when they had 16 resided at -- at Stony Point. 17 So, I'm gonna move on to the next slide. 18 So, this slide, I'm -- I'm just trying to give you an 19 illustration here, of -- of what the -- what the effect 20 of the move was. So, I've made a little bar chart, and 21 the purpose of it is just to give a visual idea of -- of 22 the impact and -- I'll just help explain the -- the 23 chart to you. 24 So, across the bottom of the chart you 25 see four (4) dates, and these are dates from which I had
1651 census data: 1839, 1845, 1939 and 1944. So, you see, in 2 1839, this -- this is the -- the population figure. So 3 we're looking at in -- how small the population is here. 4 You've got just over a hundred people in 1845. By -- by 5 '39 the population is up to around two hundred and fifty 6 (250) and here you're -- you've almost four hundred 7 (400) people. 8 Sorry, I'll give you -- I'll give you the 9 more exact figures there. So in -- in 1944, for 10 example, the population is three hundred and seventy-one 11 (371) -- seventy-one (71) people on the reserve. And 12 this -- this blue line shows you the amount of land that 13 people had. 14 So, when you look at the amount of land 15 that they had at the -- at the time of the Treaty, it's 16 five thousand and ninety-six (5,096) acres at the -- at 17 the time of Treaty and by the time you've got this 18 entire population on one (1) reserve they have just over 19 two thousand (2,000) acres. 20 So you've got the -- the population has 21 grown exponentially and the amount of land is less than 22 half the land. So it just helps you to understand that 23 the -- the, sort of, the impact of completely losing one 24 (1) of their -- one (1) of their reserves and trying to 25 put all those people, all that population in one (1) --
1661 in one (1) location. 2 And if you -- if you recall that the 3 reserve land, what's left of the reserve at Kettle 4 Point, is all the reserve land that this Band, the 5 Kettle Point and Stony Point Band have the legal right 6 to use as an Indian Band. 7 I'm just going to move on to the next 8 slide. 9 Q: Yes. Thank you. 10 A: So this slide is about the -- the 11 cemetery at Stony Point and this is the cemetery that is 12 within Camp Ipperwash. Not to be confused with the 13 burial ground at Park Ipperwash. 14 So the -- after the war when soldiers 15 came back, people who had formerly resided at Stony 16 Point, they returned after the war and they found out 17 that their community no longer existed. Their friends 18 and relatives had been moved onto the Kettle Point 19 Reserve. 20 And they also discovered that the 21 cemetery at Camp Ipperwash had been damaged. Indian 22 Affairs and National Health and Welfare Officers became 23 aware of this. They approached Department of National 24 Defence to -- to fence -- put a fence around the 25 cemetery and it wasn't until 1990 that people regained
1671 the -- the right to use that cemetery again to bury 2 their family members. 3 The -- the graphic that's on that slide 4 is taken from a site -- a National Defence site plan, 5 and it shows you where the cemetery is and it's up at 6 the top of the -- of the slide. Right up at the top, 7 that square. And above the square or the rectangle, 8 excuse me, above that rectangle is written "six C/L 9 fence"; that's a six (6) foot chain link fence which is 10 around the Indian Cemetery. Indian Cemetery is written 11 on the side of that and that's a road that goes past it. 12 So that shows -- that's from a site plan 13 that was drawn in 1964 that shows the actual location of 14 that cemetery. I'm just going to go briefly through 15 some of the -- the documents related to that. 16 So the first indication we have relative 17 to this cemetery is in a document which is number 388 18 and it's at Tab 102. 19 Q: That's Inquiry document number 20 4000388. 21 A: And, this Document is on Department 22 of National Health and Welfare letterhead. It's written 23 by G. J. Connolly, Supervising Engineer, and he writes 24 the letter to R. A. Hoey, who was the Director of Indian 25 Affairs at that time. The letter is from October 1947,
1681 and Connolly writes: 2 "Dear Mr. Hoey: On a recent trip to 3 southern Ontario concerning medical 4 services, I called at Sarnia and Kettle 5 Point, and had the pleasure of meeting 6 your Agent, Mr. McCracken. An Indian, 7 Robert George, presently at Kettle 8 Point, who I believe, previous to the 9 war, lived at Stony Point, and with the 10 transfer of the Reserve area to the 11 Department of National Defence, was 12 moved with the other Indians to his 13 present abode. Mr. George was greatly 14 concerned about the state of the Indian 15 cemetery at the former Stony Point 16 Reserve. He told us that when the 17 Indians were removed from the Reserve, 18 that the National Defence Department 19 promised not -- not to have any damage 20 created to the Indian cemetery. At 21 that time, or shortly after, the 22 cemetery ground was fenced and the 23 tombstones were left in good repair. 24 He took us to the cemetery and showed 25 us that -- that only two (2) tombstones
1691 were remaining on the grounds, and that 2 these were marked with shell shots. I 3 noted one red granite marker had two 4 (2) distinct marks of being hit a 5 glancing shot by a high calibre rifle 6 bullet. A second stone, white marble, 7 was broken, and a considerable distance 8 displaced from its grave position. Mr. 9 George pointed out that a great number 10 of other tombstones had been moved. He 11 also pointed out that the fence, when 12 they had left the property, was in good 13 repair, and now that the front of it 14 was torn down. The gate is of wooden - 15 - wood construction and has suffered 16 considerably due to the elements of 17 weather, and some amount of damage has 18 been created by other forces. It would 19 appear that the Stony Point Indians are 20 greatly concerned about the vandalism 21 and disrespect showing to the resting 22 places of their ancestors, and in this 23 instant, are very anxious to have some 24 restitution made by the Department of 25 National Defence. The burial ground
1701 has not been kept trimmed and bushes, 2 poison ivy vine and wild hay overrun 3 the entire area. I do not believe that 4 there was any particular instance of 5 desecration, however, certainly some 6 individual or parties have disturbed 7 the previous arrangement of tombstones, 8 and may have caused the collapse of the 9 front fence. I am not prepared to say 10 it is the fault of the Department of 11 National Defence, though it is quite 12 likely they may have some 13 responsibility inasmuch as their Basic 14 Training Camp was nearby and their 15 rifle range adjoined the cemetery. I 16 promised Mr. George and Mr. McCracken 17 that I would mention this matter to you 18 and that you, in your great interest 19 for the welfare of the Indians and 20 their deceased ancestors, would take 21 this matter into consideration and 22 attempt to have some repair made on the 23 property." 24 So, in -- in conjunction with that 25 letter, we see that the Agent also writes a letter on
1711 the same topic, and that letter is Document Number 390, 2 and it's -- it's found at Tab 103. 3 Q: Inquiry Document No. 4000390. 4 A: And the interesting thing that we 5 find when we look at this -- this document is that the 6 Indian agent was already aware of this situation. 7 And the Indian agent here is writing to 8 his superiors, that the Department of Indian Affairs, in 9 Ottawa, he writes December 1947. And he says: 10 "I wish to acknowledge receipt of your 11 letter 30019-3 of December 8, 1947, 12 from the -- from Inspector Arneil 13 requesting a report on the Indian 14 Cemetery on the former Stony Point 15 Reserve. In this connection, there is 16 little that I can add to Mr. C. J. 17 Connolly's report of October 30th, is 18 to the best of my knowledge, accurate 19 and complete. Occasionally, in the 20 past two (2) or three (3) years, 21 Indians have mentioned damage done to 22 the cemetery and invariably they blame 23 the military for it. However, there 24 have never been any general demand by 25 the Band for compensation.
1721 In other words, the complaints received 2 have been isolated and infrequent. It 3 appears to be a pet grievance of Robert 4 George and when he mentions it at a 5 Council meeting or any public gathering 6 every Indian present supports his 7 complaint. In my opinion, the matter 8 of damage to the cemetery and demand of 9 the Indians for compensation from the 10 military might become widespread at any 11 time. At the time of the 12 expropriation, I recall that the 13 military definitely promised to respect 14 the cemetery at all times and everyone 15 assumed that the military would protect 16 the burial -- grounds by erecting a 17 strong fence or some similar device. 18 This was not done. 19 In my opinion, it is more or less 20 obvious that young soldiers in training 21 at Camp Ipperwash, at some time in the 22 past three (3) or four (4) years, did 23 damage the cemetery but you will 24 realize that proof of such is next to 25 impossible to procure. If the military
1731 could be persuaded to voluntarily erect 2 a good iron fence around the cemetery 3 in the near future before the..." 4 Q: "Damage". 5 A: "image..." 6 "... the damage becomes an issue, I 7 think the Indians, and particularly 8 Robert, might cease complaining. When 9 building the fence, I suggest that the 10 military hire Robert George and 11 possibly one (1) or two (2) other 12 Indians to clean up the cemetery, 13 replace the -- and set up broken or 14 fallen stones and perform other odd 15 jobs which would improve the grounds. 16 I trust that the above suggestions may 17 be of some assistance in dealing with 18 the military on the subject." 19 So, you'll notice a couple of things in 20 this letter, first of all, he -- the Indian Agent is 21 saying that he, himself, recalls that the military made 22 -- gave an undertaking, made a promise to protect the 23 cemetery and that it wasn't done. 24 Also, that the Indian Agent had been 25 getting complaints and although he characterizes them as
1741 "infrequent" and -- "isolated and infrequent", he also 2 goes on to say every time it's raised everybody agrees 3 with Robert George. 4 So there's a little bit of contradiction 5 in his characterization of it. And the other thing is, 6 the agent is very focussed on proving who did the damage 7 and getting some compensation and you see that not only 8 in this letter but in other -- in other letters that are 9 on file. 10 There's a lot of -- a lot of discussion 11 about, well, who did the damage? Whose fault is this? 12 Who can we blame this for? You know, can we make the 13 military pay? 14 So in, you know, my reading of these 15 documents is that the agent, sort of, misses the point. 16 He doesn't -- he doesn't really appreciate the sentiment 17 of the people, what their major concern is. And he 18 focusses on, who can we blame for it. 19 So, that's -- that's that -- the 20 documentation around that period of the '40s regarding 21 the cemetery. 22 Q: And at the end of the day, was there 23 -- did you find any documentary evidence suggesting that 24 the tombstones were either repaired and/or replaced by 25 the Department of National Defence?
1751 A: No, I didn't find any. 2 Q: Thank you. 3 A: They did erect the chain link fence 4 and I don't recall exactly when that was but it was 5 clearly before 1964. It was sometime in that period. 6 And, as I said, the -- the burial ground started to be 7 used again in 1990. 8 And just previous to that in 1985 there 9 was an agreement reached between Department of National 10 Defence and -- and the Chippewa to give access to the 11 burial ground under some restricted conditions. But 12 it's 1990 before they can re-use it. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 A: So I'm going to move on down to the 15 next slide. So this -- this slide -- slide number 23 is 16 about the attempts to have Camp Ipperwash returned to 17 the Band and before I go into the details, I'll just 18 give a little overview. 19 So, shortly after the war, the Department 20 of National Defence indicated that they would be willing 21 to return the reserve and then to lease back areas that 22 they didn't need. 23 And this was in keeping with the -- the 24 belief of the people at Stony Point that they would be 25 getting the reserve back. But those -- those offers
1761 were soon withdrawn. The Department of National Defence 2 determined that they would still need the use of the 3 army camp. So they decided that they were not going to 4 return it. 5 And by the 1970s the Minister of Indian 6 Affairs warned that -- that this was a dangerous 7 situation; that it was leading to great impatience in 8 the community and that he urged that something be done 9 about it. 10 And I'm just going to go through some of 11 the -- the documentation relative to that -- those 12 attempts. Perhaps just -- just before that, we could 13 recall what that -- that clause was in the Order in 14 Council which I -- I read just before the break and that 15 clause is quoted on page 51 of the -- the report. 16 And the clause in the Order in Council 17 that authorized the taking of the Stony Point Reserve 18 for defence purposes was -- the stipulation was: 19 "If subsequent to the termination of 20 the war the property was not required 21 by the Department of National Defence 22 negotiations would then be entered into 23 to transfer the same back to the 24 Indians at a reasonable price to be 25 determined by mutual agreement."
1771 So, the first -- the first document that 2 I'd like you to look at is document 282 which we find at 3 Tab -- oh, sorry, that's the Order in Council, document 4 386 which we find at Tab 101. 5 Q: Inquiry document number 4000386. 6 A: So this is written by the Deputy 7 Minister of the Department of National Defence in May of 8 1946 and he's addressing it to the Deputy Minister of 9 the Department of Mines and Resources, being the 10 department that contains the Indian Affairs branch. 11 The subject line is "Stony Point Indian 12 Reserve, Ipperwash Camp, Ontario" and then, in brackets 13 "(MD 1)", which is the Military District 1: 14 "This will acknowledge receipt of your 15 letter dated 21st March 1946 where in 16 you asked that negotiations be opened 17 at the earliest opportunity with a view 18 to returning the Ipperwash Camp Site to 19 its former Indian owners. This subject 20 has been explored at some length within 21 the District Officer Commanding -- with 22 the District Officer Commanding 23 concerned with the object of finding 24 suitable alternative accommodation for 25 reserve army training and the delay in
1781 replying to your letter caused by this 2 investigation is regretted." 3 Then he goes on to say: 4 "The problem of the army is to provide 5 a training area for the reserve army 6 unit in Military District Number 1. 7 Niagara Camp is unsuitable because of 8 its limited size. To acquire and 9 develop a new area in that type of 10 country is, of course, practically out 11 of the question at this stage. 12 Therefore, it would be tremendous 13 advantage to the army to be able to 14 retain Ipperwash to meet that training 15 requirement. On the other hand, this 16 department recognizes that it would be 17 unjust to the Indians to continue our 18 ownership of the Ipperwash Camp into 19 the post-war period if such is, as you 20 state, a violation of their treaty 21 rights. 22 Would it, therefore, be possible to 23 work out a solution satisfactory to 24 both parties whereby the Department of 25 National Defence would return ownership
1791 of the campsite to its former Indian 2 owners who would then grant the army 3 permission to continue to use the area 4 during certain periods of the year for 5 the training of the reserve units. 6 This privilege of use of training 7 should, of course, include permission 8 to maintain such army buildings as are 9 required together with the water supply 10 and other facilities. In return for 11 that privilege, if the Indians so 12 desire, it would be -- it would 13 probably be possible to give them right 14 of access across the Department's 15 property which separates the Indian 16 Reserve from the waterfront." 17 And here he's talking about these -- the 18 part of the surrendered land which the army had bought 19 from the private owners. And then he goes on to say: 20 "If you feel that an arrangement along 21 the above lines can be worked out, I 22 would be glad to designate an officer 23 of this department to consult with you 24 on the details." 25 So the next major piece of correspondence
1801 we see on that is the following year. And in this 2 letter which I'll take you to, the Department of 3 National Defence starts making more restrictions on a 4 possible return. And that's document number 311 and 5 you'll find it at Tab 92. 6 Q: And that's Inquiry document number 7 4000311. 8 A: So this, again, is a letter from the 9 Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence 10 written to the Director of Indian Affairs and the 11 subject line is "Ipperwash Camp". And he says: 12 "Confirming conversation your Mr. W.S. 13 Arneil and Brigadier G. Kitching of 14 this department, 14 February, 1947, it 15 is agreed that the following action 16 will be taken in the respect to the 17 above camp..." 18 And then there is a bunch of points. And 19 in each one of those points they talk about proposed use 20 of various parcels of land on the camp. And so they're 21 saying that all the land owned by the Department of 22 National Defence showing on a particular plan, less a 23 portion that's show in yellow, will be returned to the 24 Department of Mines and Resources. 25 Then they go on to say that there's some
1811 buildings which they outlined in purple that are going 2 to be declared surplus and go to the Crown Assets 3 Allocation Committee which means that those buildings 4 are available to be purchased. 5 Then they say that, 6 "The Department of National Defence 7 will be given -- should be given a 8 lease on the property to be transferred 9 for a period of ninety-nine (99) years 10 for a rental of one dollar ($1) a 11 year." 12 Then they go on to say that, 13 "The Department of Mines and Resources, 14 Indian Affairs Branch, to be permitted 15 to authorize the local Indian tribe to 16 carry on cultivation of the land in all 17 the areas except those outlined in red 18 and blue. And it is understood that 19 the Department of National Defence is 20 prepared to make good any loss 21 sustained through damage to crops as a 22 result of carrying out military 23 exercises in the area. 24 And then they go out and describe another 25 area outlined in blue is a safety zone in connection
1821 with the rifle range and the Department of National 2 Defence must be empowered to clear the area of all 3 persons, animals or equipment during the period of 4 firing practice. 5 And he -- the closing line of the letter 6 is: 7 "The Judge Advocate General's Branch of 8 this Department has been requested to 9 draw up a draft form of agreement which 10 will be submitted to you for your 11 approval within the next few days." 12 So what's happening here is the -- the 13 Department of National Defence as they look at the use 14 that they want to make of the -- of Camp Ipperwash, they 15 start putting a lot of restrictions on what can -- what 16 can actually be returned. 17 There are through the -- and -- and 18 there's no agreement comes out of that. They -- they 19 are -- they -- there are sporadic attempts to -- to 20 continue with negotiations, but by May, 1948, which is 21 just over a year from this last letter that I read, the 22 military completely backed away from -- from 23 negotiations, and decided that they wanted to keep the 24 entire camp for cadet -- as a cadet training camp. 25 By the 1970s -- by the 1970s, the issue
1831 is -- is raised again, or it comes to the forefront, 2 it's never really been dropped by The First Nation, but 3 it -- it becomes prominent again. 4 And what we see in the historical record, 5 is some letters that -- that really express very 6 strongly, the -- the -- the pressure and, to have the 7 camp returned, and I'm going to take you first to a 8 document which is Document Number 398, and it's found at 9 Tab 105 in the book. 10 Q: Inquiry Document Number 4000398. 11 A: So, this is the letter written by 12 Donald S. MacDonald, who's the -- the Minister of -- of 13 National Defence, in January 1972. He's writing to Jean 14 Chretien, who's the Minister of Indian Affairs at that 15 time. And the subject line is, "Camp Ipperwash". And 16 he starts his letter: 17 "My Dear Colleague: Shortly after my 18 appointment as Minister of National 19 Defence, I received representations 20 directly and on behalf of the Chippewa 21 Indians of Kettle and Stony Point 22 Reserves, with regard to the above 23 property. As you may know, it was the 24 desire of these groups, that the 25 Government return to the Indians, the
1841 property presently held by my 2 Department at Camp Ipperwash, and which 3 was expropriated under the War Measures 4 Act in 1942. I subsequently met with 5 Chief Charles Shawkence and Mr. R. E. 6 Rowcliffe, a lawyer of Sarnia, acting 7 on behalf of the Indians. I indicated 8 to them that there are two (2) problems 9 involved: The first was to decide 10 whether or not my Department still 11 required the land in question; the 12 second was whether or not, if the 13 Department did not require the land, 14 the land could be returned to the 15 Indians, in view of the residue of 16 unexploded munitions known to exist on 17 the property. While it has taken some 18 time to resolve these matters, I am now 19 in a position to advise you, that after 20 consultation with Department Officials, 21 and with the Members of Parliament of 22 the area, I feel that the Department 23 must retain the property at Ipperwash. 24 I am enclosing an Aid Memoire on Camp 25 Ipperwash, which will also serve to
1851 clarify the problem with regard to 2 unexploded munitions. Having reached 3 this decision, I instructed my 4 Departmental Officials to obtain an 5 opinion from the law offices of the 6 Crown in connection with this property. 7 With regard to this, please find 8 enclosed a copy of a letter of November 9 23rd, 1971, from my Deputy Minister to 10 the Deputy Minister of Justice, as 11 well, a copy of the attachment referred 12 to in this letter. Also attached is a 13 copy of the reply received from the 14 Department of Justice, dated January 4, 15 1972. Before writing to Chief Charles 16 Shawkence and Mr. Rowcliffe, to advise 17 them of my decision as Minister of 18 National Defence, I wanted to write to 19 you, with the request that you review 20 the attached information, since I 21 suspect you will undoubtedly -- 22 undoubtedly receive further 23 representations from the groups in 24 question, after that -- after they have 25 learned my decision. I would
1861 appreciate hearing from you on this 2 matter at your earliest convenience." 3 And then, the next letter that we see, is 4 Chretien responding to that -- that issue, and it's 5 Document Number 399 at Tab 106. 6 Q: It's Inquiry Document 7 Number 4000399. 8 A: This is a confidential letter 9 written by Jean Chretien in April 1972 addressed to 10 Edgar Benson, who is now the Minister of National 11 Defence, and it's a confidential letter, but it was de- 12 classified. 13 The subject line is Camp Ipperwash and it 14 reads as follows: 15 "My dear colleague, 16 Camp Ipperwash, Ontario" 17 In the subject line, 18 "Since 1946 the Kettle Point band of 19 Indians has, with the support of my 20 departments, sought the return of their 21 reserve lands taken in 1942 under the 22 War Measures Act. 23 Briefly, the history of the matter is 24 as follows. With the advent of World 25 War II, your department required a
1871 large area for an advanced infantry 2 training centre and chose for this 3 purpose -- for this purpose, Stony 4 Point Reserve. 5 National Defence Centre --" 6 Oops -- 7 "National Defence", sorry, "National 8 Defence offered the Indians fifty 9 thousand dollars ($50,000) a sum 10 calculated at fifteen dollars ($15) per 11 acre compensation -- bracket (or 12 thirty-three thousand, one hundred and 13 sixty-five dollars ($33,165)) and 14 sixteen thousand eight hundred and 15 thirty-five (16,835) for relocation of 16 the Indian people residing at Stony 17 Point. 18 A further stipulation was that if the 19 property was not required after the end 20 of the -- of hostilities, National 21 Defence would negotiate with the return 22 of the land to the Indians at a price 23 to be mutually agreed upon. 24 A surrender meeting was held on April 25 lst, 1942 and this offer considered.
1881 After due deliberation, the Indians 2 voted fifty (50) -- fifty-eight (58) 3 to --" 4 I think it's fifty-nine (59). 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: Yes. 7 "Fifty-nine (59) to thirteen (13) 8 against surrendering. Because -- 9 because of this rejection, National 10 Defence resorted to the War Measures 11 Act to acquire the land, Order in 12 Council PC 2913 of April 14, 1942 13 authorised the acquisition at a cost 14 not to exceed fifty thousand dollars 15 ($50,000). 16 The money was duly paid by your 17 department and cab -- and Camp 18 Ipperwash was established. 19 The traditional stance of your 20 department has been that only when 21 these lands are no longer required for 22 training purposes will it be ready to 23 negotiate the return of the lands to 24 the band. The letter to me from your 25 predecessor, the Honourable David S.
1891 MacDonald dated January 28th, 1972..." 2 Which is the one we just read, 3 "...re-affirms this stand. But he also 4 indicated that the major factors 5 standing in the way of returning the 6 lands taken in 1942 is the problem of 7 clearing them of unexploded munitions. 8 Based on a study by your officers and 9 those of justice, it seems that the 10 cost of clearing the total camp area of 11 two thousand four hundred and seventy- 12 seven (2,477) acres which includes the 13 two thousand two hundred and eleven 14 (2,211) acres expropriated in 1942 is 15 estimated to be anything from eighteen 16 (18) to 30 million dollars. 17 I had hoped that a possible compromise 18 might -- 19 Q: Sorry, you've just missed a line at 20 the top. 21 A: Sorry, oh. 22 Q: This is extraordinarily high? 23 A: Oh yes. Sorry. 24 "This is extraordinarily high. I had 25 hoped that a possible comprised might
1901 be the return of parcels of land to the 2 Indian people which they could develop 3 to provide income for their band 4 without seriously impairing the 5 training capacity of Camp Ipperwash. 6 Some of the beach property and the 7 three hundred and fifty (350) yard 8 strip near Highway --" 9 He says Highway 31. I think it's 10 supposed to be 21, yes, 11 "31 are examples. But this again 12 raises the problem of clearing such 13 parcels of unexploded munitions. 14 An alternative would be to purchase an 15 equivalent amount of land in the area 16 for the use of the Kettle Point band by 17 the question of -- but the question of 18 who would pay the cost has yet -- has 19 not been explored. 20 It seems to me that the Indian people 21 involved have a legitimate grievance. 22 They did not agree to surrender the 23 land in the first place, but it was 24 appropriated in the national in -- 25 interest prevailing in 1942.
1911 It is now 1972 and they have not got it 2 back, yet they desperately need it to 3 improve the band's social and economic 4 position. In addition, there is their 5 deeply rooted reverence for the land 6 and their tribal attachment to it. 7 Stony Point Indian Reserve Number 43, 8 now Canadian Forces Base Camp Ipperwash 9 was established in 1827 for the 10 Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Points. 11 It was one (1) of the three (3) areas 12 reserved the Chippewa nation of Indians 13 when they surrendered a tract of land 14 in the western and London districts of 15 Upper Canada on July 20th -- " 16 In the text it says 1837, but it's 17 actually 1827 as we know, 18 "-- containing some 2,200 million acres 19 -- two thousand (2,000) 20 Q: Sorry, 2 million -- 21 A: 2,200,000 acres. 22 Q: And I think the text actually reads 23 1637 unless I'm mistaken. 24 A: Well, I -- I -- yeah, I've debated 25 if that's a six (6) or an eight (8) but whatever it is,
1921 the date -- the date's incorrect. But we know that 2 they're referring to the 1827 surrender. 3 He also -- just while we're on 4 corrections here, he also refers to it as the Kettle 5 Point band instead of the Kettle Point and Stoney Point 6 band -- 7 Q: Hmm. 8 A: So his researchers weren't doing 9 their job properly when they drafted the letter. 10 Anyway, to go -- to go on with the letter: 11 "They have waited patiently for action. 12 There are signs, however, that they 13 will soon run out of patience. There 14 is bound to be adverse publicity about 15 our seeming -- our seeming apathy and 16 reluctance to make a just settlement. 17 They may well resort to the same 18 tactics as those employed by the St. 19 Regis Indians at Loon and Stanley 20 Islands in 1970, to occupy the lands 21 they consider to be theirs. And as you 22 know, Mr. George Manual, president of 23 the National Indian Brotherhood is 24 interested on their behalf --" 25 Q: Interceding?
1931 A: Oh, sorry, interceding, 2 "Interceding on their behalf. He wrote 3 to you on March 14 and sent me a copy. 4 Even though I can foresee these 5 difficulties as quite likely to occur, 6 my main concern is to see that -- to 7 see that a just settlement is secured 8 for the Kettle Point Band. I wish that 9 you could meet -- that we could meet to 10 discuss possible solutions." 11 And it's part of this -- this letter 12 that's -- no, it's actually part of a -- a second letter 13 that's up on the screen, but the -- the same content. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: The -- no action ensues after this 18 letter and Chretien writes another letter which I'll -- 19 I'll also take you to, which is -- is the next tab, Tab 20 107 and it's document number 401. 21 And this letter, again, it's -- it's 22 written December 8, 1972, so not much time has passed 23 before he makes another approach. And it's the bottom 24 of this letter that's up on the screen. And the -- the 25 Minister of National Defence has changed again and it's
1941 now the Honourable James Richardson that Chretien is 2 writing to. 3 The letter starts off: 4 "I would like to bring to your 5 attention on a matter that has been of 6 concern to my department for many years 7 now and which has been the subject of a 8 considerable amount of correspondence 9 between our respective departments. I 10 refer to the efforts of the Kettle 11 Point band of Indians over the past 12 twenty-six (26) years, with the support 13 of my department, to obtain the return 14 of their reserved land taken in 1942 15 under the War Measures Act to form Camp 16 Ipperwash. 17 In the latest letter received from your 18 department on this subject, Mr. Sylvain 19 Cloutier told Mr. H.B. Robinson, my 20 Deputy Minister, on August 18th that 21 DND does not anticipate any early 22 solution to the problem. 23 For your convenience, I will give you a 24 brief history of the matter as I did to 25 Mr. Benson in a letter written last
1951 April." 2 And then the following part of this 3 letter is really -- it's repeated word for word of the 4 letter that I just went through. 5 And if we go over to the second page of 6 it, he repeats the same kind of warning that -- that the 7 situation -- that the people are becoming impatient for 8 action. 9 And if we look -- which ends like the 10 third paragraph at the end of that page is where he 11 states the same sentence, 12 "They may well resort to the same 13 tactics as those employed by the St. 14 Regis Indians at Loon and Stanley 15 Islands in 1970 to occupy the lands 16 they consider to be theirs." 17 And then he goes on: 18 "Since my letter to Mr. Benson --" 19 Which was the last letter we read, 20 "-- there has been correspondence 21 between my deputy and yours, and I 22 attach a copy of the last letter we had 23 from Mr. Cloutier, which copies the 24 enclosures he sent. I feel very deeply 25 that somehow we must find a solution to
1961 this problem. 2 If the Kettle Point Indians are not to 3 have the Camp Ipperwash lands returned 4 to them, then it seems to be there is a 5 moral responsibility on the 6 government's part to acquire an 7 equivalent amount of land and sell it 8 to them at a price to be mutually 9 agreed upon. 10 I would be grateful if you would study 11 this whole matter personally and then 12 perhaps we could meet to discuss 13 possible solutions." 14 So that was in the '70's and we see that 15 there's -- there is -- there's no direct action on that 16 at that time. 17 There is -- there are -- there are some 18 negotiations that -- that look at providing some 19 compensation and some access to Camp Ipperwash -- that 20 1985 agreement that I spoke about under which the people 21 gained access to the burial ground. They also gained 22 some access to some parts of Camp Ipperwash for 23 particular purposes. That was in -- in 1985. 24 Just prior to that, there was an 25 agreement -- an Order in Council in 1981 that authorized
1971 a -- a sum of money to be paid as compensation and the - 2 - the -- the band council at that time -- no, the band 3 council -- sorry, I'm -- I'm giving you a confusing 4 order. 5 There's an Order in Council in 1981 that 6 authorizes a sum of money to be paid as compensation. 7 In '85 there was an agreement that gave some access to 8 Camp Ipperwash under particular kinds of conditions and 9 under which the Department of National Defence was given 10 an indemnity against any damages that were associated 11 with unexploded munitions. 12 And there is a band council resolution at 13 that time which authorizes the chief and council to -- 14 to sign that agreement. 15 Q: And -- 16 A: There was -- 17 Q: Ms. -- Ms. Holmes, I'm just -- sorry 18 to interrupt you -- 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: -- but I think these are actually 21 very important agreements that you're reviewing. I know 22 you're reviewing it quickly, because we were attempting 23 to complete your examination-in-chief for today, but we 24 have some material to go through, Commissioner. 25 I don't feel that it would do justice to
1981 rush through the documents and, as a result, I 2 respectfully suggest that we conclude the day's 3 proceedings. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 5 you've had a long day, and I think you are -- we are 6 beginning to rush a little bit and if we have to take 7 our time and finish it, then that's what we'll do. 8 Do you have any observation, Mr. Millar, 9 to make at this time? No? 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, just one brief 11 thing. I would like to suggest to Counsel -- it's been 12 suggested to me, and it's a very good idea, that we have 13 an all Counsel meeting and I was simply going to suggest 14 to Counsel that maybe we could do it next Friday at the 15 Ipperwash office and the -- I'll send around a little 16 memo tomorrow morning about it. 17 But what I would like to do is elicit 18 your views and ideas -- any ideas you have, the agendas 19 -- your agenda and so if people would E-mail me thoughts 20 and comments or suggestions you may have or issues you 21 would like to have discussed, then we'll put it on the 22 agenda. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 24 fine. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Friday 27th?
1991 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Next -- yeah, 27th, 2 yeah. I'll do a little note tomorrow morning. Thank 3 you. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 6 fine. It's now a quarter to 5:00 then so we'll adjourn 7 these proceedings until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. 8 Thank you all very much. We'll just continue until we 9 finish. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 11 adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, August 19th at 10:00 12 a.m. 13 14 --- Upon adjourning at 4:45 p.m. 15 16 17 Certified Correct, 18 19 20 21 _________________ 22 Wendy Warnock, Ms. 23 24 25