1 2 3 4 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 5 6 7 8 ******************** 9 10 11 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 12 COMMISSIONER 13 14 15 16 17 Held at: Forest Community Centre 18 Kimball Hall 19 Forest, Ontario 20 21 22 ******************** 23 24 25 July 15th, 2004


1 Appearances 2 3 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 4 Susan Vella ) 5 Katherine Hensel ) 6 Don Worme ) 7 8 Murray Klippenstein ) The Estate of Dudley 9 Vilko Zbogar ) George and George Andrew 10 Andrew Okin ) (Np) Family Group 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) (Np) 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 Kim Twohig ) Government of Ontario 23 Walter Myrka ) 24 Sue Freeborn ) (Np) 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 3 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 4 David Nash ) (Np) 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 ) (Np) Ontario Provincial 20 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Police 21 22 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 23 Karen Jones ) (Np) Police Association & 24 K. Deane 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 3 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 4 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 5 6 Al J.C. O'Marra ) Office of the Chief 7 Coroner 8 9 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 10 Matthew Horner ) (Np) 11 Kathleen Lickers ) (Np) 12 13 Mark Frederick ) Christopher Hodgson 14 15 David Roebuck ) (Np) Debbie Hutton 16 Anna Perschy ) (Np) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 DARLENE JOHNSTON, Resumed 4 5 Continued Cross-Examination 6 by Mr. Murray Klippenstein 8 7 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 13 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Brian Eyolfson 113 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Horton 129 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Henderson 132 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Anthony Ross 146 13 14 15 Certificate of Transcript 152 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 10:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is now 4 in session. The Honourable Mr. Justice Linden presiding. 5 Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good morning 7 to everybody again. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 9 Commissioner, I think we've hit a technical glitch that 10 no one down here has power. 11 And -- we're all fixed. It's all fixed 12 up. Anyway, Mr. Klippenstein is going to continue his 13 examination, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. Mr. Klippenstein, carry on. 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Good morning, 17 Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good morning. 19 20 DARLENE JOHNSTON, Resumed: 21 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Good morning, 23 Professor Johnston. 24 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, I


1 commenced my questioning yesterday with -- leading into 2 some questions about the 1867 Constitutions and division 3 of powers. 4 And on reflection and consultation, it 5 occurred to me that -- that those areas appear to be 6 probably unnecessarily confusing at this point because I 7 think it became clear that it wasn't within the scope of 8 reference of the Professor Johnson's work and, no doubt, 9 my questions were very confused. 10 So, I think I will probably not pursue 11 those at this time, although the reason we raised them is 12 we thought it was important for an understanding of the -- 13 the situation of the death of, Dudley George, to 14 understand the Federal and provincial situation on the 15 land there. 16 But, hopefully that can be clarified for 17 everybody in due course. But, we -- I won't pursue those 18 questions now. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 20 much. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Lawyers' time 22 estimates are generally wrong and mine, in particular. 23 And I estimated three-quarters of an hour to an hour and 24 if I drop that line of questioning, perhaps any minutes I 25 save can be tacked onto my next examination.


1 2 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 3 Q: Professor Johnston, when you completed 4 your presentation you were about the middle of the 1800's, 5 which is approximately as far as your -- your study had 6 taken you in this particular situation; is that right? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And as I understand it, at the end of 9 that period, in other words, in the 1840's and 1850's, you 10 showed some slides that showed the various treaties that 11 had been entered into or purchases as they sometimes were 12 called, for most of southwestern Ontario; is that right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And I think you mentioned for the -- 15 for the treaty in question here, the 1829 treaty -- 16 A: Treaty 29 from 1827? 17 Q: Yes, thank you. That the amount of 18 land that had been retained or reserved for the native 19 people as compared to the land that that the entire treaty 20 covered, was in the order in the 1 percent? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Or less than 1 percent? 23 A: Less than 1 percent. 24 Q: Do you have a sense for the other slide 25 that you showed for southwestern Ontario, whether it's


1 sort of in the same percentage, or less or more, or is 2 that not something you had a chance to estimate? 3 A: Not for all of southern Ontario, but, 4 in my own territory, our people are left with less than 1 5 percent of our territory that was purchased or 6 surrendered. 7 Q: And perhaps you could speak from 8 experience, either in your own treaty territory or your 9 studies of the treaty for this area or others in 10 southwestern Ontario; is it fair to say that, in a general 11 way, after the period that you studied and after the 12 purchases and treaties and after those treaties had 13 guaranteed that 1 percent or less, for native people, that 14 in fact, the Crown came back for more and began requesting 15 surrenders of part of those reserved lands? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And is that something that happened, 18 from your general knowledge, repeatedly? 19 A: In my own territory, the first 20 surrender we were requested to sign -- my ancestors were 21 requested to sign, was for the entire Saugeen territory 22 which was 2 million acres and they wanted our people to 23 move to Manitoulin Island and the chiefs refused and 24 reserved half a million acres on the peninsula and the 25 King's representatives said they would protect that


1 forever. 2 And then within twenty (20) years we were 3 repeatedly requested to make surrenders and threatened and 4 we surrendered the peninsula in 1854 of almost half a 5 million acres leaving five (5) small reserves. 6 There was a ten thousand (10,000) acre 7 reserve at Owen Sound which we were then prevailed upon to 8 surrender in 1857. There was another reserve at Copos 9 (phonetic) Bay, which the people were prevailed upon to 10 surrender in the early 1860's and so our community is left 11 with one (1) small reserve. 12 For a while there was a suggestion that 13 they would try to amalgamate the reserve at Saugeen with 14 the reserve at Cape Croker but the people at Saugeen 15 refused to move. 16 But the pressure continued. We -- we ended 17 up signing treaties for the islands that we had reserved 18 for our fisheries and those were negotiated from -- at the 19 turn of the -- turn of the century. 20 Q: I mentioned yesterday and this morning 21 the major change in the Canadian or British legal 22 background in what is now Ontario in 1867 and I won't get 23 into any questions about what that actually means, but is 24 it fair to say that the non-native government in 1867 made 25 major changes to the way it was organized by creating a


1 Provincial and Federal Government for this area at the 2 confederation process? 3 A: The colony of Canada west became the 4 province of Ontario and the powers that the colony of 5 Canada west had had were then divided as between the 6 province of Ontario and the Federal Government and so 7 there -- there were substantial changes in terms of which 8 government body was responsible for which areas of 9 jurisdiction. 10 Q: And did the -- the native peoples of 11 what is now Ontario have any say in that change in 1867? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And would you agree with me that there 14 was another major change in the way the non-native 15 governments in what is now Ontario dealt with native 16 peoples when the Federal Government passed the first 17 comprehensive Indian Act in 1876? 18 A: There's a continuity between the first 19 comprehensive Indian Act in the pre-confederation Indian 20 legislation and the colony of Upper Canada and then Canada 21 west. 22 Their provisions for surrender, for 23 instance, were already in the 1860 Act for Canada west. 24 They made -- it was much more thorough going though. The 25 enfranchisement policy, the civilization policy, their


1 position and status; those had all been dealt with in pre- 2 confederation legislation. 3 Q: And did that 1870 Act -- 1876 Act add 4 -- add other significant changes to what had been done 5 before? 6 A: I don't have the Act in front of me -- 7 Q: No, it's okay. Did -- 8 A: The surrender provisions remained 9 pretty much as they had been in 1860; I can speak to that. 10 Q: Did the First Nations of what is now 11 Ontario have any input into the 1878 Act or any of the 12 other previous ones, that you're aware of? 13 A: Not that I'm aware of. 14 Q: And I think you mentioned that, 15 throughout this period, the First Nations people did not 16 have any political control or clout in Canada by way of 17 voting because they were not voting -- they did not have 18 voting rights. 19 A: They didn't vote prior to 20 confederation. There was a short period in the late 21 1870's when the MacDonald government extended the 22 franchise to the tribes living in eastern Canada; that was 23 recalled very after -- repealed very shortly after. 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you, 25 Professor Johnston. I have no further questions. Thank


1 you, Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 3 very much. Yes, Mr. Rosenthal...? 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 5 Commissioner, good morning. 6 Good morning, Professor Johnston. 7 MS. DARLENE JOHNSTON: Good morning. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: I'm examining you on behalf of a group 11 of people from the Stony Point First Nation, who include 12 one of the brothers of Dudley George, Pierre George, and a 13 number of his close cousins. 14 And we're under then name as it says on my 15 score card over there, Aazhoodena and the George Family 16 Group. 17 I -- I'd like to begin by increasing my 18 understanding at least, of some of the terms that you've 19 used. 20 Now, you've talked primarily about totemic 21 identity and totem, is that the same as the clan? That 22 means exactly the same as the word, clan, does it? 23 A: Totem is derived from the Ojibwe word 24 and clan approximates it, I would say, but, clan is not an 25 aboriginal term.


1 Q: Yes, no I understood that, but, I mean 2 the meaning of it, in the sense of, who are the members of 3 it, is exactly the same as when the word clan is used? 4 A: Well, clans aren't necessarily 5 matrilineal or patrilineal. I wouldn't say it's 6 identical, but, in common parlance they're used 7 interchangeably. 8 Q: Well, many people in this area, say 9 that they are members of a certain clan -- 10 A: Yes that would be -- 11 Q: -- is that -- that's the same as totem, 12 correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: So in that sense, it has the same 15 meaning. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And sometimes it's said to be dodaim, 18 is that correct? 19 A: Yes -- 20 Q: It's -- it's translated with a 'd'? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And all those three (3) mean members of 23 a group that are descended patrilineally -- 24 A: Yes -- 25 Q: -- through fathers --


1 A: -- yes -- 2 Q: -- from the creation. 3 A: From an apical ancestor, that is the 4 ancestor at the peak or the apex; in the creation story 5 that I find most persuasive, it's the ancestors are in 6 fact, the first great animals, yes. 7 Q: And in accordance with that creation 8 story then, these people -- people who are members of 9 say, the Beaver clan -- 10 A: Yes -- 11 Q: -- are people who, if you go back with 12 fathers, all the way back -- 13 A: Yes -- 14 Q: -- they emanate from the beaver in the 15 creation story? 16 A: Yes, that's my understanding. 17 Q: I'm sorry? 18 A: That is my understanding. That's how 19 I -- 20 Q: Thank you. That's now mine too. 21 Now, other words that are used, are band and tribe. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And what is your understanding, let's 24 say, first of the word band, as you use it? 25 A: Band has a meaning under the Indian


1 Act. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: The French people -- the French 4 recordmakers did not use the word, band. They used the 5 word nation, nation in English. And sometimes they would 6 use the word, petit-nation; small nation. 7 So band is a term that started being used 8 more in the British period. When the French used the 9 term, band, it referred to a band of warriors, a war 10 party. It didn't refer to a particular village or a 11 particular community. 12 In the modern parlance though, it's under 13 the Indian Act and the way the Indian Department has 14 organized communities, band is synonymous now with First 15 Nation. 16 Q: Yes, we have the formal definition 17 under the Indian Act -- 18 A: Yes -- yes -- 19 Q: -- which was obviously imposed by the 20 British. But, then the word is also used to mean a group 21 that lived together, correct? 22 A: Yes, sometimes they would refer to them 23 as hunting -- in the English record as a hunting band; 24 could be a hunting family or a group. 25 I understand you could have many, many


1 people who belong to Beaver people, and they might go off 2 with different heads of families into different 3 territories, so they -- you could speak of a small 4 aggregation of a totemic group on sort of a family basis, 5 as being a band. 6 I would refer to the whole totemic group as 7 a tribe, and then in the early record and -- and then you 8 could the -- there's some treaties for instance, in Lake 9 Simcoe, Lake Huron area, where they say the Reindeer 10 Tribe, the Catfish Tribe, the Snake Tribe, of the Chippewa 11 Nation. 12 So, I see the Chippewa, Ottawa Potawatomi 13 being a national designation. The totemic groups 14 corresponding to a tribal, and then the bands possibly 15 being smaller aggregations. 16 Q: Now, you have done research in this 17 specific area right; about totemic identity? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you have your own theories about 20 that which are somewhat in the process of being created 21 and expanded by you, correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: But, they're not necessarily accepted 24 by everyone who studies these matters, right? 25 A: There have been very little


1 comprehensive study of totemic identity. The material 2 that's out there now is very, very small literature. But 3 my thesis has not yet been published so it -- it would be 4 fair to say that there are other academics who take a 5 different view of totemic identity. 6 Q: Yes. And particularly, you seem to 7 more strongly than other people advocate the view that 8 people lived in groups determined by totemic identity, 9 right? 10 A: Only in the very early contact period, 11 and that's a view shared by Hickerson, Harold -- I think 12 it's Harold Hickerson who published in this area in the 13 1960's. 14 His view was that the early organization of 15 the communities along the shore were continued -- 16 contiguous but discrete uni-clan territories and we see 17 them move to multi-clan villages with the disruption 18 introduced by disease and warfare with -- during the 19 French period after about 1640, 1650. 20 Q: I see. So the inter-mixing of clans, 21 in your -- you view -- 22 A: They don't inter-mix in the sense of - 23 - people still maintain their totemic identity, but it's 24 clear by the 1840's, sorry the 1640's, for instance at 25 Sault St. Marie the Jesuits report that there are the


1 Sauteurs there and that's their native country, but 2 they've been joined by four (4) other groups, the 3 Nolquetim (phonetic) and the Merrimeg (phonetic); I forget 4 the fourth one now. 5 So, it's clear even as early as the 1640's 6 that other people were moving into villages, you were 7 getting multi clan villages but the evidence is that 8 within a multi- clan village there were separate quadrants 9 and all the Beavers would live together, all the Eagles 10 would live together. 11 At Jay (phonetic) there's a -- a son of a 12 Sidinac (phonetic) who was educated at Upper Canada 13 College; he published two (2) articles in the 1860's and 14 he -- he says that these villages, when you went into a 15 village that had more than one (1) totem represented, 16 there were markers that would indicate when you were among 17 the Beaver people, among the Otter people, among the Snake 18 people. 19 Q: Do you have your report in front of 20 you? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Could -- thank you. Could you turn to 23 page 18, please. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: If you look more or less right in the


1 middle of the page towards the end of the large paragraph, 2 you wrote: 3 "Later document --" 4 I presume it should have been documents, 5 "-- bear out the intermixing of totemic 6 groups within localized bands." 7 Didn't you write that? 8 A: Yes, and that's at a later period 9 again, so the -- in the very first period there appear to 10 be discrete uni-clan territories, then you get a mixing, 11 that is you get more than one (1) clan represented in a 12 village but they live separately. 13 But by the 1800's and I didn't -- I hadn't 14 seen this before, or at least written about it until I did 15 this research which is then we start to see the -- a 16 multitude of clans in one (1) band which is -- and it 17 actually wasn't what I had been expecting to see. 18 But when we -- I'll -- I'll go to one (1) 19 of the documents that influenced my opinion on this. This 20 is the 1845 census and you'll see the Aux Sable Indians 21 appear to be divided into two (2) bands, Wapagus' band and 22 Quakegwun's band. 23 And as I said when I first saw this 24 document, I knew that Wapagus was Caribou and I knew that 25 Quakegwun was Beaver and I would have anticipated that the


1 men listed under Wapagus' band would all be Beaver -- or 2 would all be Baribou and the men under Quakegwun's band 3 would be Beaver. 4 But when I compared this document with the 5 variety of signed signatures, it's clear that there were 6 Caribous following the Beaver chief and Beavers following 7 the Caribou chief. 8 So that -- that -- is as a result of, in 9 this period of time the -- the early 1800's that I see 10 this mixing. 11 Q: Sorry, I didn't understand before. I 12 -- I used the word "inter-mixing" and you objected that I 13 was quoting from your document, I thought. 14 A: Yes, it depends at what period of 15 time, that's all. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: They are very time sensitive so in the 18 1600's you see one thing and in the 1700's you see another 19 and when I'm talking here about the 1790's -- I'm sorry, 20 the 1830's and 40's then we see this -- this third phase. 21 Q: But by then, there certainly is some 22 intermixing? 23 A: Yes. But -- 24 Q: But -- 25 A: -- we started talking about the


1 discrete contiguous territories. I don't want to make 2 that jump immediately, because I think it's important to 3 understand how these things evolve. 4 Q: Now, on the other hand, I understand 5 that, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, that there was 6 a prohibition, I believe you testified, against marrying 7 within the clan or within the totemic identity, right? 8 A: That's right, but it did not persist 9 in my experience in southern Ontario, into the twentieth 10 century. 11 Q: So, there had to be some intermixing 12 of clans, or else the people would have died out, right? 13 A: No -- no, there are still Chippewa 14 people in the United States who are very aware of their 15 clan identity. And not all families in my community know 16 their clan. I mean, there's been a -- the influence of 17 missionization, and so, among Chippewas in -- that I'm -- 18 that I know in Wisconsin and -- and Michigan, they still 19 practise exogamy. 20 But I don't see evidence that exogamy is 21 being practised in the twentieth century in the 22 communities that I'm familiar with the southern Ontario. 23 Q: Yes, but let's go back then, say to 24 1800 -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- when it was practised, -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- right? And so then there's members 4 of a Caribou Clan, -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- and members of a Beaver Clan. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: They can't marry within their clans, 9 so they have to intermix, at least in the sense of taking 10 spouses from the other clans, right? 11 A: Right, but they -- but they -- that 12 doesn't change the clan. If a Caribou woman marries a 13 Beaver man -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- the children are Beaver, but she's 16 Caribou; that's not an intermixing. 17 Q: Yes. So, there would -- but there 18 would always be at least a number of men and women who 19 identified themselves as from different clans in any 20 group, right? 21 A: By definition, -- 22 Q: By definition? 23 A: Yes, yes. There was intermarriage -- 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: -- and then marriage had to be outside


1 of your clan. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: Yes. But that's not an intermixing 4 of -- 5 Q: Well, whatever term you want to use. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: There would be a number of people -- 8 there certainly had to be at least two (2) clans 9 represented in any group if you count the women. 10 A: If you count the women, that's right. 11 But the terms that were used for the tribes in the 12 beginning referred to the men. So they -- you would say 13 the Beaver people went with the term that meant the 14 Beaver men, and in Beaver country there were Beaver men, 15 and all the women were not Beavers. 16 Q: Yes. Sorry, in a Beaver country, you 17 say? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: In a -- in a whole area? How did the 20 men meet -- meet more women then? 21 A: They travelled to fishing camps in the 22 summer and had feasts and married the people they met 23 there. 24 Q: And you're saying that invariably, the 25 woman went back to the man's clan, rather than conversely?


1 A: Not invariably. The practise was 2 patrilocal, which is that the women followed them, went to 3 their husband's community. That practice does not persist 4 through the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. 5 Q: And so, if that practice was not 6 followed, that would lead to a true intermixing of clans 7 then, right? 8 A: You -- you could have -- 9 Q: If the -- if the husband went to the 10 woman's clan -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- is that not right? 13 A: I -- we're having difficulty, I guess, 14 with the word intermixing. But people don't change their 15 clan, that's a very important point -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- and that's why I use it as a stable 18 ethnic identifier. So, a person who is Caribou would be 19 descended from Caribous all the way back. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: He -- he would have -- a Caribou man 22 could -- would have an Otter mother, perhaps, he could 23 have had a Beaver grandmother. They would recognize all 24 these relatives, but they would be Caribou, and Caribous 25 date Caribou --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- in the patriline. 3 Q: But some may, at least by the middle 4 1800's, the groups that people lived in, whether we call 5 them bands or tribes, included generally a variety of clan 6 members -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- that... 9 A: Yes. That's right, but that's not 10 intermixing of the clan. What you have there is a band 11 with many clans represented. 12 Q: Yes. Okay, yes. I'm sorry, I'm not 13 familiar with the nuances, obviously, of the technical 14 language that you use. But I just did want to make that 15 point -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- that we would -- the groups of 18 people living together would invariably be -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- people from several clans, at 21 least. 22 A: Yes, these -- these -- on the slide 23 here, sorry, -- 24 Q: Sorry? 25 A: I'm sorry. On the slide we have up


1 here, for instance, these are all Sable Indians, and we 2 see Caribou, Beaver, Pike, Bear and Eagle. So, there are 3 several totemic groups represented in this localized 4 group. 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: Yes. So, we're probably not 7 disagreeing. I just want to keep the totemic lines clear, 8 because, for me that's very important for continuity 9 purposes. 10 Q: Yes, but it's important to my purpose 11 to clarify that, as far as groups living together, 12 included people of several clans. It wasn't just by 13 clans, certainly at least by the mid 1800's. 14 A: That's right. 15 Q: Now, do you know the clans of the 16 currents residence of Kettle and Stony Point? 17 A: No, sir. I've had a few people speak 18 to me since I've been here and suggest -- or identify 19 themselves by their dodaim. But, before that, I -- I 20 don't think I'd met anyone before that at this point in 21 time to tell me. 22 Q: And did you -- a number of Potawatomi 23 came to this area around -- in the 1800's? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Did you investigate their clan


1 structure? 2 A: No. The -- there were Potawatomi at 3 Detroit and their totemic identity shows up on the 1764 4 treat and on the 1790 treaty so, I can speak to those. 5 But, I haven't seen any documents bearing totemic 6 signatures of the people who arrived in the 1830's or 7 40's. 8 Q: So, your conclusion is based on totemic 9 identity, to use the word that you prefer, did not include 10 considering the Potawatomi who came in 18 -- whatever? 11 A: I'm not aware that any of the totemic 12 signatures I've seen on the documents before 1845, that 13 any of those people were Potawatomi that arrived after 14 1830. So, the documents that I looked at were in RG-10, I 15 was not -- it's not that I wasn't looking, or that I was 16 disregarding documents that might have been signed by 17 Potawatomi, but, they weren't -- they didn't appear in the 18 correspondence that I considered. 19 My -- my grandfather is Potawatomi from 20 Wisconsin and his clan is Marten. So, I know something of 21 Potawatomi clan; I'm a Marten. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: But, none of the records I looked at 24 specifically said, these people are Potawatomi, they refer 25 to people as Aux Sable Indians. So, perhaps there's


1 someone on this list that may be Potawatomi, but, it's not 2 indicated in the record. 3 Q: Now, how -- how did you distinguish 4 between people who were Aux Sable Indians or --as they 5 were called in the documents -- 6 A: Yes -- 7 Q: -- or Kettle Point -- or Aux Sable 8 Indians truly in the sense of living at the River Aux 9 Sable, or Kettle Point Indians? 10 A: There's no reference to Kettle Point 11 Indians, in the period I looked at. The only reference to 12 Kettle Point appears on the map and the treaty. 13 Q: Yes. So, you didn't -- you didn't know 14 where they were located then, the people that you studied? 15 A: The people that I studied were located 16 north of Sarnia, and they identified as the River Aux 17 Sable Indians. And they're identified consistently in the 18 record as the River Aux Sable Indians. 19 Q: Now, in your testimony yesterday, you 20 said, in part, that it's been known for awhile that there 21 were two chiefs at Aux Sable -- 22 A: Yes -- 23 Q: -- I believe you were referring to the 24 time of the slide that you had just on the board earlier. 25 A: This --


1 Q: The chiefs are divided into two bands, 2 Wapagus' band and Quak -- I'm sorry I can't pronounce 3 that -- 4 A: Quakegwan's -- Quakegwan's Band. 5 Q: Then you said, when you first found 6 this return, it was before I had the other documents that 7 show the totemic identity, and so my first intuition was 8 that Wapagus' Band would be Caribou because Wapagus is 9 Caribou, and the other band would be Beaver because he's 10 Beaver. 11 And it was then easier to jump, 12 potentially, to the conclusion that while these bands are 13 different totemic identity and maybe they also live -- 14 have different totemic identity and maybe they also live 15 in different places -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- then you went on to explain that on 18 the basis of your further study of totemic identity, you 19 concluded that the community doesn't divide up on totemic 20 lines? 21 A: It wasn't my study of totemic identity, 22 it was my study of the documents that were identified as 23 Aux Sable documents. 24 I found this return first, in my first week 25 of research --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- and I knew from the treaty documents 3 that Wapagus was caribou and Quakegwan was Beaver. 4 Q: Right -- 5 A: And so because I know today and as a 6 result of the treaty that there were two separate reserves 7 it occurred -- my first impression was, well maybe Wapagus 8 lives in one area with his people and Quakegwan is in 9 another area with is people. 10 But, then I went on to find a number of 11 documents that had the totemic signatures and compared 12 them. And as I say, Wapagus had Beavers in his people 13 identified in Wapagus' band some of them were Beavers, 14 they weren't all Caribou and people identified in 15 Quakegwan's band were not all Beavers, some of them were 16 Caribou. 17 So, that broke down that assumption for me. 18 Not on my theoretical understanding of a totemic identity, 19 but, based on the actual records I was finding of the 20 marks of these people. 21 Q: So, you found that the two groups had 22 similar totemic identifies dispersed between them -- 23 distributed between then, so in that sense -- 24 A: Not all the Caribou followed Wapagus or 25 were identified as part of his band and not all the


1 Beavers were identified as part of Quakegwan's band. 2 Q: You might say there was an intermixing 3 of the clans. 4 A: Yes, you might. 5 Q: But, I won't go there again. 6 A: You're a multi-clan, not an 7 intermixing. 8 Q: Yes. In talking -- that was given to 9 us as one of the overheads that Ms. Holmes is going to 10 show, but, I couldn't find it in the documents anywhere, I 11 don't know. 12 But, it's entitled, 'Chippewas in 1845', 13 and it's a -- I don't know if it's a - it's not the same 14 looking document as you had, it's a typed document. And 15 in that document -- 16 A: Could I see that document, sir, I 17 don't -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Sorry, I wasn't 19 -- with your permission may I approach the witness. I 20 wasn't able to find this in any of the materials -- I 21 don't know if I -- other than the handouts that we were 22 given. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes, this is Joan from 24 Joan Holmes' report and it's the work that Joan Holmes 25 will be testifying.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Right. But it -- 2 it -- 3 MS. DARLENE JOHNSTON: I haven't seen any 4 of Joan's documents with the exception of one. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Is it available in -- 6 in our CD? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: You'll have to ask Joan 8 Holmes. We can give this witness a copy of this document. 9 This isn't this witnesses document. You'll have to ask 10 Joan Holmes about the source of this document. But, we 11 can show this document to the witness. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, very much, 13 Mr. Millar. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This document is -- 18 I will ask Ms. Holmes, unless Mr. Millar does it for me 19 where she got this document from. But, it's entitled, the 20 subtitle is 'Chippewas in 1845'. 21 And you'll note that it -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There is no -- 23 we don't have this document yet. So none of us have seen 24 it, I haven't seen it either. But it's in Joan Holmes' 25 material.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, but, we've all 2 seen it in this -- 3 MS. DARLENE JOHNSTON: It's over document - 4 - my guess, this is the 1845 census that you'll see, the 5 numbers -- if the numbers add up, can somebody do the 6 math? 7 We have Wapagus' band, Quakegwan's band, 8 it's 1845 census -- 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, this is a 10 PowerPoint presentation that was created by Ms. Holmes for 11 -- to assist in her presentation. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: These are not -- there 14 may be documents in the PowerPoint presentation that came 15 from somewhere else. This document, just from its face 16 looks to me that it was created by Ms. Holmes, for part 17 of her -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Presentation- 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- presentation that 20 will have source documents behind it. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, it's 22 important for her to explain how it was created? 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: She'll have to explain 24 how she created it. But -- but, My Friend, is asking this 25 witness is there a document like this or asking us. This


1 was created by Ms. Holmes for her presentation. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 3 understood. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I just want to ask 5 one question that flows from this document, if I may, and 6 we will have it properly identified by Ms. Holmes, as to 7 the source of it when she comes. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, you'll note that 9 the sub-title and all My Friends do have a copy, but, it's 10 not easily available because it's not numbered, the 11 overheads. But, if you flip through to the document that 12 says, 'early administration' parenthesis 'continued' on 13 the top, looking like this -- if you wish to find it. 14 It's in Joan Holmes' overheads, rather than 15 Professor Johnston's overheads. Sorry for that 16 interruption, but, -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Probably, Professor Johnston, you have 21 glanced at the document and you know what I'm about to ask 22 you, right? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Well -- 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: She's probably not


1 clairvoyant. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Well, okay, it says Chippewas in 1845, 5 and then it says Sarnia and it has a bar graph next to it, 6 Sable, Quaykigioun and I really apologize to all My 7 Friends, I'm terrible, I can't even say my own name 8 properly. 9 And then one band forty-nine (49), Wapagus' 10 band thirty-five (35), Kettle Point twenty-seven (27), 11 Walpole Island, others, right? 12 A: This is a census that I have from 1845 13 which was prepared by William Jones who was a 14 superintendent at Sarnia. He was responsible for the Aux 15 Sable Indians and the Sarnia Indians and he indicates at 16 Wapagus' band and Quakegwun's band that I -- I saw no 17 reference to Kettle Point. 18 And this document must be from another 19 source. 20 Q: Yes, okay, well I -- I'll reserve 21 further questions for Ms. Holmes, obviously. 22 But you wrote in your report that there's 23 no suggestion that any particular group or family had 24 other than a collective claim to both reserves and my 25 clients --


1 A: In the documents, sir, that I 2 considered I -- I considered a limited set of documents, 3 relying primarily on ones that were -- gave indicators of 4 totemic identity or at least names which -- to which I 5 could match totemic identity. 6 Q: Yes. Well, I -- I'm going to ask you 7 to consider your findings in light of some other -- 8 A: All right. 9 Q: -- matters, and maybe re-consider -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- the suggestion and maybe -- 12 A: If you can provide me with the 13 documents. 14 Q: -- consider that your initial 15 impression, before you noticed that the totemic identities 16 were the same in the two (2) groups, that they might be 17 separate, you're initial feeling that they might be 18 separate, might indeed have been accurate. 19 And let -- let me suggest some things that 20 you might consider in that respect. Now -- 21 A: If you can provide me with the 22 documents. 23 Q: I'm sorry? 24 A: If you can provide me with the 25 documents --


1 Q: Of course, no, yeah, no -- these -- 2 these I -- these are document numbers that I can reflect. 3 But first maybe, before I look at some other documents, 4 certainly in the Treaty of 1827 there were two (2) 5 separate reserves created -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- Reserve Number 43 at Stoney Point-- 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: And Reserve Number 44 at Kettle Point, 10 right? 11 A: Those names -- the numbers do not -- 12 those numbers post-date the Treaty. 13 Q: I see. But they -- 14 A: Those numbers were not used to 15 identify the -- 16 Q: Right. 17 A: -- the reserves and the name Kettle 18 Point does appear, the name Stoney Point does not appear. 19 It -- it's simply known as a reserve at the mouth of the 20 River Aux Sable. 21 Q: In any event, there were two (2) 22 separate reserves, surely? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And they ultimately were called 25 Reserve Number 43 and Reserve Number 44?


1 A: I can't testify to that. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: I know the Government has a system of 4 numbering reserves, so our reserve is Number 27, so it's 5 possible those are the numbers, but I can't confirm 6 because I haven't seen any documentation. 7 Q: Right, okay. I should like to turn to 8 a document that I do have a document number for, and that 9 -- you have the CD available to you, do you? Professor 10 Johnston; it's Document 4000086. 11 I appreciate that you didn't review this 12 document because it's from a period after your period but, 13 in my view, it might shed light on what happened during 14 your period as well. 15 A: I'm afraid I don't have Supertext 16 loaded. This will take a minute. 17 Q: I -- I do have a -- I can give you a 18 hard copy. I prefer hard copies myself. I'll give you a 19 hard copy if I may, but other counsel -- 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Can I just see it? 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yeah, sorry. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I take it this is from 23 Ms. Holmes' group of documents? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Right. Well, the 25 important -- important thing is the printed version, I


1 guess. 2 THE WITNESS: I prefer to see the 3 manuscript. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps, your Honour -- 5 Commissioner, it might be a good point to -- to simply ask 6 a question and reiterate a problem, to try to solve a 7 problem. 8 What we ask in our rules, that if people 9 are going to use documents for a witness that they provide 10 us with either the documents or the document numbers so 11 that we can deal with them. 12 And -- and it doesn't matter if it's an 13 expert or an aboriginal -- a person from the aboriginal 14 community or a police officer or a civil servant or a 15 former politician, the same rules apply to every one, that 16 when people are going to cross-examine, and have documents 17 that they give Commission copies of those documents before 18 the witness goes into the box so that they -- we have them 19 and we can organize. 20 But -- and I'd like to make sure that 21 everybody does that. And our rules provide for that. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well excuse me, Mr. 23 Millar. The rules say that I should provide you with any 24 documents that I'm going to use. These documents were 25 provided to me by you. I didn't think I had to provide


1 them to you again. And I didn't realize that I had to 2 more -- more specifically specify which documents I'm 3 going to use in any particular one. But -- but I shall do 4 that in the future. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well. The parties 6 shall, at the earliest opportunity, provide Comm -- 7 Commission Counsel with any documents they intend to file 8 as exhibits or otherwise refer to during the Hearings, in 9 any event, shall provide such documents no later than 10 twenty-four (24) hours. 11 The intent is to give notice and if it's 12 not clear, we'll make it clear. But it, that is the 13 intent. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The idea is 15 so everybody will have access to it while Counsel is 16 questioning the witness about that topic. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Absolutely, and 18 everybody does because they were all given it the same 19 time I was by Commission. 20 THE WITNESS: Excuse me -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: In any event, I 22 won't belabour the point. And if, I'm going to give you a 23 hard copy if you would prefer to look at that, I 24 understand that preference because I have that similar 25 one.


1 THE WITNESS: And a preference for the 2 manuscript -- 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: She doesn't have -- she 4 doesn't have the documents. She does not have Ms. Holmes' 5 documents. 6 THE WITNESS: I do not. I haven't seen 7 them, so -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, I certainly have 9 to provide you with a hard copy. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But I would like you to 11 -- do you have the original document from which this 12 transcription is made? 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All the 15 parties have all the documents, Mr. Rosenthal -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but the 18 witnesses don't. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, that -- 20 that's why I asked her if she had the same CD as we did, 21 and I misunderstood her answer. In any event -- 22 THE WITNESS: I do have the CD but I 23 haven't used it and I haven't seen Mr. Holmes' documents. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yeah, anyway the 25 document is there for you, and for Counsel, again, it's


1 4000086. And if you look at that portion of the record, 2 you'll see there are two (2) copies; there's a typed 3 version, which is a transcript of the written version, and 4 I was glad that it was typed, but as far as I could tell, 5 it's pretty accurate typing, but perhaps, maybe not. 6 So, I'll give the witness a moment, if I 7 may, to review the document. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 9 an extra hard copy of that document or just the one? 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Would -- would you 11 like a hard copy, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not using 13 my Supertext. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: Have you had time to -- sufficient 19 time to examine it, or -- or shall I wait. I'm happy to 20 wait if you wish. 21 A: Few more minutes. 22 Q: Certainly. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry, I 24 can't hear you, Mr. Falconer. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I've done it several


1 times; it's 4000086. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was trying -- 3 THE WITNESS: This transcript reads 4 4000411. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, perhaps we 6 could have a break. The power is gone, I think more 7 than -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In the back 9 part of the room? 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well this part of the 11 room too. So -- so, perhaps we could take a few minutes 12 break. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's -- 14 let's take a short break and see if we can fix up the 15 technical glitch. 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 17 for a few minutes. 18 19 --- Upon recessing at 9:21 a.m. 20 --- Upon resuming at 10:40 a.m. 21 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 23 resumed. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll just 25 wait a minute for everybody to get in. The glitch has


1 been fixed now, has it? Is everybody wired up, more or 2 less? 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: For the time being. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, let's 5 keep or fingers crossed. I don't see Mr. Falconer. Is 6 he -- 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: There he is. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There he is, 9 there. Okay. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: So, Mr. Commissioner, I was about to, 13 with a little difficulty, I'm glad we've solved all the 14 difficulties, ask Professor Johnston some questions about 15 Document 4000086. And that's the typed version, there is 16 also a -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- a handwritten version. Now, and I 19 appreciate that you haven't reviewed this document, but, 20 of course as a historian you know that subsequent things 21 can shed light on earlier things, sometimes, right? 22 A: Sometimes. 23 Q: Sorry? 24 A: Yes, sometimes. 25 Q: Now, this is a document dated November


1 18, 1894? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it's a -- a letter from a 4 barrister and solicitor to Superintendent General, 5 Department of Indian Affairs. 6 A: Where do you see barrister and 7 solicitor -- oh, I see, at the top. Okay, thank you. 8 Q: Now, it's obviously in the middle of 9 some conversation, it says: 10 "There seems to be some misunderstanding 11 in this. The Indians at these points do 12 not wish the reserves surveyed." 13 A: Do you know which reserve they're 14 referring to? 15 Q: Yes. At -- well -- do you know? 16 A: No, sir. 17 Q: Okay, well -- 18 A: This is partly -- 19 Q: But I'm not -- I'm not interested in 20 the survey at this point, so -- 21 A: Well the document has to be taken in 22 context. It's part of File 151900. There could be 23 hundreds of pages in relation -- 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: -- to this document.


1 Q: Right, but I'm -- 2 A: So I -- 3 Q: -- just interested -- I'm just 4 interested in the file and if -- if you could bear with 5 me. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, perhaps -- 7 perhaps the re-line does say "re-survey of reserves at 8 Kettle and Stoney Point" and that's the only reference on 9 it, Commissioner. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I'm not 11 concerned with the survey aspect though, so, if I could 12 turn to what I am concerned with. 13 THE WITNESS: All right. It just says 14 "reserve" in the singular, that's all, that I was 15 concerned about. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: It says, on the third line: 20 "To the Council" 21 Presumably it should be to of the Council, 22 but -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: But, 25 "To the Council, Chief Johnston of


1 Stoney Point and Louis Cloud chief at 2 Kettle Point both say that they never 3 draw up any such resolution and they are 4 two (2) of the Council." 5 Now what I'm interested in is not the 6 resolution or the survey, but the indication of Chief 7 Johnston of Stoney Point, and Lewis Cloud, Chief at Kettle 8 Point -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Would you agree that that suggests 11 that there were separate chiefs at the two (2) locations? 12 A: In 1890, yes. 13 Q: In 1894. 14 A: 1894. 15 Q: Yes. As to the past, we don't know 16 for sure. 17 A: Well as to the past, all evidence was 18 that they were called River Aux Sable Indians and that 19 they were living -- the latest document shows they were 20 living on the western reserve -- 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: -- which is now known as Kettle Point. 23 Q: What document is that, that shows they 24 were living on the western reserve? 25 A: It's the document from William Jones


1 where there's a suggestion they'll sell the eastern 2 reserve if they can get money -- 3 Q: I'm sorry, my hearing is very bad, 4 sorry? 5 A: It'll take me a moment to find it in 6 my document list, but it's a document I -- I produced 7 yesterday and discussed. 8 Q: Okay, perhaps we could wait until the 9 break on that. But may -- may I draw your attention to 10 some other aspects of this document -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- and see if it assists you in 13 looking back at the meaning of some earlier events. So, 14 there are -- there's a -- a -- you agree there are 15 separate chiefs at the two (2) locations as of 1894? As 16 to how early that started, we don't know from this 17 document, obviously, right? 18 A: Well, it says there's a chief but what 19 -- what -- a chief in what context? I mean these chiefs 20 are both council members of the Sarnia council -- 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: It's not clear to me that the one (1) 23 chief only has authority for one (1) area and the other 24 for the other because at this point they're still one (1) 25 band under the Indian administration at Sarnia.


1 Q: Well it says Lewis Cloud, chief at 2 Kettle Point, right? 3 A: He's a chief, he's at Kettle Point. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It say's -- no, it says 5 Chief of Stoney Point. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It says chief of 7 Stoney Point and Lewis Cloud, Chief at Kettle Point. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I wonder why My 10 Friend rose? 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Because if you're going 12 to read it, read it correctly. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I did read it 14 correctly, Mr. Millar. I read Chief at Kettle Point. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Now, I would also draw your attention 18 to some other aspects of this. Going down in the document 19 towards the end: 20 "I enclose you a document signed by 21 twenty-three (23) of the members of 22 these bands" 23 In plural, right? Do you see that part? 24 A: I'm trying to find it in the 25 manuscript, to be sure that's --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- what -- twenty-three (23) members 3 ...No, it's not clear to me in the manuscript that that's 4 what it says? 5 Q: It's not clear to you that it's 6 plural? 7 A: No. Do you have the manuscript in 8 front of you? 9 Q: I -- I gave my copy to the 10 Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry, I'm 12 reading it. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I had anticipated 14 working from this -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Isn't as 16 clear in the original as it is in the typed copy? 17 THE WITNESS: I don't even see the word 18 'band'. I see capital 'B' and I see capital 'B' followed 19 by a vowel followed by a consonant but ... 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Okay, well in the version that Mr. 23 Louis accessing it could be expanded and we can examine 24 this. Perhaps I'll leave that for Ms. -- Holmes, too, to 25 see if the word -- if the 'S' is there, okay?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Who prepared 2 the typed copy? Who prepared the typed copy? Do we know 3 that? 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Presumably Ms. Jones 5 -- Ms. Holmes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't know. 7 I don't know. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The transcripts from 9 that selection of documents came from Ms. Holmes' office. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, that's 11 fine. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, again, I'll 13 reserve that for Ms. Holmes, if I may. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Sorry, Professor Johnston, I -- 17 A: Yes, I'm still looking at the word. 18 Sorry. 19 Q: Okay. But -- and this -- is it okay 20 with you, I'll reserve that to Ms. Jones -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: I'm sorry, Ms. Holmes. Excuse me. 23 Now, also I'd asked you to note, it says: 24 "The members of these bands; these 25 Stoney Point and Kettle Point..."


1 Now, "Stoney" is spelt there with an E-Y; 2 is that correct? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It also says 4 "illegible". 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 8 Q: After -- yeah. I'm sorry? 9 A: Yes. I did -- 10 Q: And there's something illegible 11 afterward as well? 12 A: It's spelt with an 'E' at the top too 13 in the reference line. 14 Q: With an 'E' at the top too. Have you 15 become aware of the fact that there are two (2) different 16 spellings of Stoney as in Stoney Point? 17 A: No, sir, Stoney Point didn't occur in 18 the records that I looked at. 19 Q: I see. Okay. So you're not aware of 20 that until I just pointed it out to you right now? 21 A: Right but it doesn't surprise me. 22 I've seen six (6) different spellings of Aux Sable. 23 Q: Well, we'll save that for argument. 24 Now, this document though would suggest that -- would 25 reinforce the notion, it's not proof positive, that


1 certainly by 1894 there were two (2) separate bands, 2 right? 3 A: No. There's a -- there's a chief 4 living at each reserve -- at each point. I can't -- 5 there's one (1) band. This document refers to one (1) 6 band, "Councils of the band that is at Sarnia". 7 And under the Indian Act, my understanding 8 is they were one (1) band for administrative purposes with 9 Sarnia and subsequently separated. 10 Q: As far as the Department of Indian 11 Affairs was concerned, at this point they were one (1) 12 band with Sarnia? 13 A: Yes, and it says "the band". There's 14 -- there's references that are singular here. 15 Q: Yes. Now, as far -- this suggests 16 that as far as they were concerned, they were two (2) 17 separate groups living at two (2) different locations with 18 two (2) different chiefs? 19 A: No. They're members of a council and 20 there's a chief of Stoney and a chief at Kettle, that's 21 all that it says. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: I'm not saying that that's not the 24 case. But on the basis of this document I can't form an 25 opinion about that. And on the basis of my research there


1 -- there was no reference to Stoney Point Band or Kettle 2 Point Band in any of the documentation I saw. There was 3 reference to Kettle Point as a place. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're going 5 to move on now, Mr. Rosenthal? 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I have -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't know if Mr. 9 Rosenthal asked about the document that Ms. Holmes said 10 that she would find. It's 4000473; I believe, is the 11 document that she was referring to. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's a letter dated May 13 13, 1839 and it's Inquiry Document Number 4000473. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry. I -- I'm 15 not aware of what this document discussion is about. I 16 wasn't informed of it during my cross-examination. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No, this -- 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Rosenthal just 19 asked her to identify the document that she's used to -- 20 for the Western Reserve. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 22 Right. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He asked her the 24 questions and she said she would have to find it. We 25 found the answer --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 2 question. Okay. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- for Mr. Rosenthal to 4 ask the witness. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Mr. 6 Rosenthal's going to move on now to another point. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, thank you. I'm 8 concerned about the atmosphere from Commission Counsel, I 9 must say. In any event, I am going to move on. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: So, to another document that I just 13 appraised Commission Counsel about - because I wasn't 14 aware that we had to appraise specific documents when we 15 had been given them by Commission Counsel - but there is a 16 document that is 4000504 and in for Counsel in -- in our 17 records that's a twelve (12) page document and this page 18 that I'm going to be referring to is page 11 of 12, I 19 believe, as the records go but it's printed on the right, 20 page 9. And I -- I gave Commission Counsel copies, thank 21 you, to give to the witness, thank you. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And now, again, this is 23 from Ms. Holmes' group of documents. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand. 25


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Do I -- do you have 2 a copy, Commissioner? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 4 have it in front of me. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: Now, this document purports to list 12 the former chiefs of the band, 1826 to 1995, and it's from 13 a document as you can see on the bottom, by a Victor 14 Gulewitsch - I apologize to him as well, pronouncing his 15 name incorrectly - called the Chippewas of Kettle and 16 Stony Point, a brief history. 17 I believe, there's another document in our 18 brief that has the same list of traditional chiefs and 19 chief councillors and so on. 20 Now, I just wanted to point out to you and 21 suggest to you that this might again, go towards the 22 suggestion that they were living separately, the two 23 groups, Kettle and Stony Point, under whatever name. 24 If you look at the left-hand column, it 25 says, traditional chiefs and it says, Oshawnoo in 1826.


1 And also Wapagus in 1826, correct; two chiefs 2 simultaneously? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And then it says -- 5 A: But there's no indication of where he 6 gets the documents, the chieftainship of Oshanaman 7 (phonetic) in 1826. I have a record of Oshanaman was a 8 chief in 1841 -- 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: -- and I've seen in Burwell's field 11 notes, he draws a picture of a Oshanaman's house and 12 Walpole in 1826, perhaps that's what he's referring to. 13 In the documentation that accompanies that sketch, I'm 14 going from memory, but, I think Counsel can provide it, it 15 says that he claimed to be a Chief by intermarriage. 16 But, Wawanosh says that he's a chief 17 because Ironside made him a chief, but, he doesn't -- that 18 can be introduced. We -- so, we know because his -- his 19 residence was on the reserve, the western reserve as 20 surveyed by Burwell. 21 We know he was living on the western 22 reserve and we don't know where Wapagus was living. 23 Q: Yes. Now, you said you have no 24 indication in documents you saw and you've explained to 25 us, I believe and you make it clearer in your report, that


1 you're relying exclusively on documents produced by non- 2 First Nations people, right? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Well, First Nations documents are you 5 relying on? 6 A: Anything signed with a dodaim by a 7 First Nations person, I consider a document. 8 Q: But, you -- you explained that you're 9 not fluent enough to consider oral history with respect to 10 these matters, right? 11 A: I consider all history that I've seen 12 transcribed, that's right. 13 Q: And you -- you've been relying for your 14 indication as to who was chief and who was where and 15 there, and so on, on documents prepared by either Jesuits 16 or people representing the Department of Indian Affairs, 17 right? 18 A: No, the documents were written; that is 19 put down -- transcribed, by people who could speak and 20 write English. But, the speeches I consider to be, the 21 speeches of the Chiefs and the signatures, when a Chief 22 signs a treaty or a document then I consider that they've 23 made that record. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: You might have the secretary type the


1 record for you, but, if you sign it, sir, it's your 2 record. 3 Q: In any event, this -- this document 4 suggests and maybe oral history might help to conform, 5 that there were two (2) chiefs in 1826, right? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Two (2) chiefs in 1860, right? 8 A: They have six (6) chiefs here, in this 9 document. 10 Q: Yes? But this is talking about Kettle 11 and Stony Point? 12 A: No, it's not. 13 Q: Well, you have to look at the entire 14 document to -- 15 A: Well, this document comes from 1995; 16 the records that I've seen there's no chief specified as 17 the chief of Kettle Point. Oshanaman was living on Kettle 18 Point, we don't know where Wapagus was living. 19 Q: Yes. Okay. You don't have a strong 20 position on this matter, do you? 21 A: Well, I -- I formed the opinion on the 22 basis of the records I saw, sir. And you're asking me now 23 whether I'm changing that opinion. And at the moment, I'm 24 not. I will not -- I can't speak to who was chief in '94, 25 there may have been two (2) chiefs.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It seems 2 that's an unfair comment, Mr. Rosenthal. A witness is 3 testifying on the basis of the documents. It seems to me 4 you have a strong point. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We do, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which is 7 fair -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but, I 10 don't see that the witness is testifying on the basis of 11 the documents and her expertise. She isn't having the 12 leap of faith perhaps that you would like her to have, 13 but, she's testifying on the basis of her experience and 14 her expertise. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. I shall 16 move on. I do -- I am representing a strong point of view 17 of my clients. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 19 that. That's why you're entitled to cross-examine. 20 THE WITNESS: Actually, sir, I'm related to 21 a Oshanaman and I'm aware of the oral tradition that 22 relates into D'Kumsee (phonetic). All I'm saying is that 23 in the documents that I considered, he does not show up as 24 a chief, until this document from 1840. He gets referred 25 to as a chief by Burwell in 1826.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: Thank you. Now, I just want to 4 quickly just point out that this document also lists a 5 number of chief councillors, right? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And it has two (2) of them in 1872 and 8 -- and then some single years and then two (2) in 1899, 9 two (2) in 1907 and so on. And then there's another 10 column on the right hand side, elected chiefs since 11 independence. 12 I would put it to you that it means since 13 independence from the Sarnia band and -- 14 A: We can't speak to that, sir. 15 Q: I'm sorry? 16 A: I can't speak to that. 17 Q: You can't speak to that, okay. Well - 18 - no, I'll go on if I may. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: She can't -- in 20 fairness to the witness, My Friend puts a document and 21 says, elected chiefs -- chiefs since independence. Who 22 knows what the author of this document refers to as 23 independence? 24 It -- and that's the objection that -- that 25 -- that's the unfairness in the question. No-one knows


1 what the author of this document referred to as 2 independence and -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I --I -- Mr. 5 Commissioner, I don't think it's proper for your Counsel 6 to rise at that point. I -- I demurred. I thought she 7 might be able to tell from the context as I was 8 suggesting. When she said, no, I pass -- I was to move on 9 and -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- it was an unfair 12 rising, in my submission, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 Carry on, Mr. Rosenthal. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: There is another document that I, over 19 the break, appraised Commission Counsel I would be 20 referring to and I believe she gave a copy to the witness. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, no. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This is a -- this 23 one unfortunately I didn't make enough copies of for you, 24 sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I didn't 2 realise that I'd have this document problem, obviously. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But for My Friends 5 who do have the CD available, it's at 4000069. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 8 Q: And this -- I appreciate, Professor 9 Johnston, this is very difficult to read in -- in this 10 form and if you blow it up on the -- 11 A: I can read it, it's fine, don't worry. 12 Q: You can read it okay? Oh, good. 13 You're much better than I. 14 Q: This is at -- this is a document of 16 15 May, 1891, evidently, in the upper right hand corner from 16 Department of Indian Affairs, correct? 17 A: 1691 -- May 16 -- no, 1891, yes. 18 Q: Yes. And so a couple of years before 19 the -- the other document of 1894 that I referred you to. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I just -- My Friend -- 21 I apologize for interrupting My Friend, but My Friend gave 22 the number 400060 -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 069. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 069. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I believe that's


1 where I found it. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It may be just part 4 of -- some of these things are only part of the record, 5 but -- 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's part of the 7 seventeen (17) page document, sir. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. That's the 9 difficulty, I'm sorry. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Do you know which page, 11 Mr. Rosenthal? 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I'm sorry, I 13 don't. I apologise for my clumsiness then, sir. I didn't 14 realize exactly the situation I'd be in with respect to 15 these documents. In future, I'll -- I understand much 16 better the situation -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 18 think -- 19 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. This is not a 20 complete document, though. They have the first page but 21 I'm afraid that it might continue onto another page. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Counsel, just 23 explained -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I maybe -- I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- a


1 seventeen (17) page document. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 4 it's a seventeen (17) page document. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, but it's -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You just have 8 one (1) page of it. 9 THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But the seventeen 11 (17) pages means a number of sub-documents. This is a 12 letter that's -- 13 THE WITNESS: It's not a complete letter, 14 sir. It continues onto the next page. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 16 THE WITNESS: I think it continues onto 17 the second page at least. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: That -- that may be -- 21 A: The -- 22 Q: That -- that may be, but maybe -- in 23 any event, I'm just interested in the first phrase in that 24 letter, okay, so. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: You can't take -- if


1 you're going to ask a question about the letter, it's fair 2 to ask a question about the letter, but you've got to give 3 her the whole letter. 4 And we can make arrangements to try to copy 5 it or -- or let her look at it, but in fairness to the 6 witness, if it's one (1) page of a letter, My Friend can 7 ask the questions he wants but the witness is entitled to 8 look at the whole letter. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I presume 10 you're going to ask all these questions of Ms. Holmes when 11 she testifies, but you also want to ask them of Ms. 12 Johnston? 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. May I explain, 14 Mr. Commissioner, and again I -- with respect, I think 15 your Counsel rose much too quickly. Because the question 16 I'm going to ask doesn't depend, and I don't think Ms. 17 Johnston sorry -- Professor Johnston would feel it depends 18 on the context. 19 If she does, of course -- 20 THE WITNESS: Sir, I wouldn't give an 21 opinion without reading the full document, I'm sorry. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 23 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't give an opinion 24 without reading the full document. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, you don't even


1 know the question, yet -- 2 THE WITNESS: Just as a practice, as a 3 historian, I never make a conclusion before I've read the 4 whole document. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Well, then I 6 would request that Commission Counsel prepare it in 7 whatever appropriate form is required over the break and 8 I'll move on. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, Mr. 13 Rosenthal. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Now, Professor Johnston? 17 A: Yes, I was trying to find it in 18 Supertext, but, I -- I haven't used this -- 19 Q: I'm sorry, I'm going to move on and 20 Commission Counsel is going to prepare it in a way that he 21 considers adequate, so that I can't be criticized. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Carry 23 on, Mr. Rosenthal. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:


1 Q: Now, you have written right, that in 2 general, First Nations people have strong attachments to 3 their reserves? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And there's no question that there were 6 two (2) separate reserves, one at Kettle Point and one at 7 Stony Point, right? 8 A: Yes. But, in the period I was looking 9 at, I only had one record indicating where people were 10 living when they moved onto the reserve. 11 Q: Yes. Now, I understand then -- I know 12 you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that traditionally, say 13 before contact and maybe the early times of contact, at 14 least until it became regulated by the Department of 15 Indian Affairs, that groups of First Nations people, 16 sometimes are separated into other groups and so on, 17 informally, formally; they formed separate bands or 18 whatever the appropriate word is from time to time, right? 19 And it wasn't necessarily a big matter. 20 They would -- some people would just go and live in a 21 separate location, right? 22 A: You see that with Quakegwan, he had 23 been living at Sarnia and he moved to Aux Sable, yes. 24 Q: But, in general, the -- the lifestyle 25 was such, that it included groups of people living


1 together and then separating into sub-groups that went off 2 from time to time? 3 A: Yes. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, on page 21, of your report -- 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 A: Yes? 11 Q: -- you write as follows, beginning in 12 the middle of the page: 13 "Although the archival record provides 14 considerable detail concerning the names 15 and totems of the Aux Sable Indians, 16 there is no indication that they 17 distinguished among themselves with 18 regard to the ownership of the two 19 reserves. One document makes the joint 20 ownership of the two reserves clear. In 21 1840 in an effort to obtain government 22 assistance for building houses and 23 barns, the Aux Sable Chiefs considered 24 selling the reserve re-suited to 25 agricultural. William Jones reported


1 that the Indians of the River Aux Sable, 2 wished the Government to purchase the 3 eastern reserve at that place and to 4 appropriate the money to making 5 improvements for them on the western 6 reservation where they are settled. It 7 appears the soil of the eastern reserve 8 is not good. But there is some valuable 9 pine timber on it." 10 Right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: So, this is the one document that you 13 found that makes the joint ownership of the two reserves 14 clear? 15 A: Yes. Plus the treaty. 16 Q: Sorry? 17 A: The treaty. 18 Q: Apart from the treaty? 19 A: No, the treaty and then this document. 20 All the treaty documentation made for reserves, it didn't 21 say the reserve -- the reserves for a little or for any 22 particular group. 23 Q: I see. Well, would you agree that the 24 group at Sarnia, constituted a different band or tribe, 25 than from the groups at Kettle and Stoney Point?


1 A: Not initially, they signed the same 2 treaty. 3 Q: They signed the same treaty, but, did 4 they live at a separate location and regard themselves as 5 a separate group? 6 A: The people moved from Sarnia to Aux 7 Sable and it didn't create any problem. The numbers 8 doubled; there were thirty -six (36) people at Aux Sable 9 in 1833, by the 40's there were seventy-six (76) and they 10 all called themselves Aux Sable Indians but, some of them 11 had lived at Sarnia. So at that time people felt free to 12 move between the reserves. 13 Q: Yes, well, in general, you explained 14 before people moved quite a lot in those times, right? 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: But, there's no question is there, that 17 the people at Sarnia considered themselves part of a 18 separate group from those at River Aux Sable; isn't that 19 clear? 20 A: No, Quakegwan was at Sarnia and he 21 moved to River Aux Sable and he was called a River Aux 22 Sable Indian when he was living at River Aux Sable. 23 Q: I see. So, what you say about, no 24 distinction between Kettle and Stoney Point, you would 25 say, applies to Kettle, Stoney, Sarnia?


1 A: With respect to ownership of the 2 reserves, sir, the reserves -- all four (4) reserves were 3 signed by people who signed the Treaty. The Treaty itself 4 does not distinguish between the bands-- 5 Q: Yes -- 6 A: -- and the people moved -- there's 7 evidence of people moving from Sarnia to Sable, without 8 creating any disruption. 9 Q: Yes? 10 A: I think if there was -- if there was a 11 suggestion that only the Sarnia Indians could live at 12 Sarnia, then that doubling of the Aux Sable population in 13 the 1840 --early 1840's might have been of some problem. 14 Q: Was there any indication, in your view, 15 that the people at Sarnia distinguished themselves with 16 respect to ownership of the reserve, from the people at 17 River Aux Sable? 18 A: No. 19 Q: No. I see. So it's all one (1) big 20 group? 21 A: Sarnia -- people at Sarnia, some people 22 at Sarnia did not want to move, it's very clear. They 23 wanted Wawanosh to move to River Aux Sable. There was no 24 suggestion that he couldn't because he didn't own the 25 land.


1 What he said was, I don't want to go there 2 because my relatives are buried here and we won't be able 3 to farm up there. 4 So, I don't see a distinction in terms of 5 the ownership of the reserves. People had preferences for 6 where they lived. 7 Q: Well, did they have a concept of 8 ownership that coincides or even approximates the way we 9 use that word? 10 A: Well, they took money for the purchase. 11 They signed the -- 12 Q: Sorry? 13 A: Yes, I think so. 14 Q: Ownership of land in the same way that 15 we think of it? 16 A: Well, they sold it, sir. There was a 17 purchase agreement. They believed it was their land. 18 They supervised it. They complained about trespass and 19 they ultimately sold it. 20 Now, not individual ownership, if that' 21 what you mean. But, they had a proprietary interest which 22 they protected and ultimately alienated. 23 Q: And didn't they -- after the reserves 24 were established have that interest in their own reserve? 25 A: There's no indication of that in the


1 record that I looked at. 2 Q: I see. And in general, there isn't 3 that indication for First Nations people living in this 4 part of the world, that they -- 5 A: Sir, you would have to be careful about 6 the time-frames. When the treaty was signed the four (4) 7 reserves are reserved to those Chippewa Indians. Today at 8 Cape Croker people at Cape Croker think Cape Croker 9 belongs to the Cape Croker Indians and not to the Saugeen 10 Indians. 11 But, if you look to the words of the 12 Treaty, those reserves are reserved to the group that 13 signed the Treaty. 14 Q: Now you, I started to and in fact, I 15 did read from your report at page 21, about this one (1) 16 document -- 17 A: Yes -- 18 Q: -- this document is by a William Jones? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Who is from the Department of Indian 21 Affairs at the time? 22 A: He was an Indian Agent, yes. 23 Q: Indian Agent. And you told us 24 yesterday, no the first day of your testimony, when using 25 these European authored documents, there's always concerns


1 around buyers, concerns around perspective, you have to 2 understand whose making the record, why they're making the 3 record, what language they speak and so on. 4 There should be concerns about relying on 5 one (1) document like this, shouldn't there? 6 A: I haven't seen any indication that 7 Jones was not a reliable source. There are some people I 8 would consider not reliable. But, he's -- he says that 9 he's referring a request from the Indians and I see no 10 indication not to trust that. 11 Q: Now, this was in 1840, at the time that 12 they were -- they were still with Sarnia, right? 13 A: No. 14 Q: They weren't still with Sarnia? 15 A: Who are we speaking of, sir? 16 Q: The River Aux Sable was part of the 17 larger group still, right? 18 A: There were people living at the River 19 Aux Sable who were called the River Aux Sable Indians. 20 Q: Yes. But they were part of the band 21 that included -- included Sarnia at this time? 22 A: They were part -- William Jones was 23 responsible for the people living at Sarnia and the River 24 Aux Sable. So, they were part of his superintendency. 25 They were in a territory that was covered by one (1)


1 treaty. 2 But, in his correspondence he distinguishes 3 between requests coming from Sarnia, correspondence coming 4 from Sarnia, petitions coming from Sarnia and the requests 5 correspondence and petitions coming from the River Aux 6 Sable. 7 Q: And you take it as probably an accurate 8 report when he writes: 9 "The Indians of the River Aux Sable 10 wished the Government to purchase the 11 eastern reserve at that place." 12 You would take that as an accurate report 13 that all the people living at Stoney Point, the eastern 14 reserve is what became known as Stoney Point, right? 15 A: The eastern reserve became known as 16 Stoney Point, yes. 17 Q: And that the people of the combined 18 group, at that point, wanted that reserve purchased? 19 A: Well, he -- he was told that if they 20 actually wanted it purchased, they would have to had a 21 surrender and then they all would have signed on. And 22 then we would have known, in fact, if there was a 23 consensus. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: What I take it to be evidence of, is


1 that the people are settling for their farming purposes on 2 the western reserve. There are a number of documents 3 which deal with the request for more land. And it's clear 4 that they're trying to find money and land to improve 5 their life as farmers. 6 And so there's a suggestion, one suggestion 7 is possibly selling the eastern reserve. Another 8 suggestion is buying a hundred (100) acres in the Canada 9 Company tract, which a document I also referred to 10 yesterday. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, I 12 just looked at my watch and I believe it's about the time 13 that you -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How much 15 longer are you going to be? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: About twenty (20) 17 minutes, twenty-five (25) minutes, I think. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 19 should continue until you -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, I do need the 21 document that My Friend was going to prepare as well. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm anxious to 23 keep -- keep moving. But, I -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yeah, I will keep 25 moving.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. That's 2 fine. We'll take a break then. It's twenty-five (25) 3 after, we'll take a break until twenty (20) to. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, what I -- 5 the only thing that I'll be able to do is, I'll get a copy 6 of the document so that I can show it to the witness, if 7 that's okay with Mr. Rosenthal, during the break. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think that's what - 9 - I think that's what he has in mind -- 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I won't be able to 11 produce physical copies because I don't have those 12 facilities here. But I can show the witness the whole 13 copy. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't have anything 15 in mind. I thought -- I was doing as best as I could, I 16 just want the Commission to be satisfied. And if he's 17 satisfied, I'm satisfied -- the Commission Counsel. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Thank you, Mr. 19 Rosenthal. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, Mr. 21 Rosenthal 22 THE REGISTRAR: All rise please. This 23 Inquiry will recess for fifteen (15) minutes. 24 25 --- Upon recessing at 11:24 a.m.


1 --- Upon resuming at 12:25 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 4 resumed. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, if I 6 might, Professor Johnston is still working on this 7 document. It's very difficult to read. And so what I'm 8 going to propose is that we break now for lunch. 9 But, before doing so, I wanted to apologize 10 to Mr. Rosenthal if, with respect to the issue about the 11 documents. We're all feeling our way along here. And I 12 was a little critical -- I was critical of Mr. Rosenthal 13 and the rules aren't as clear as -- as they might be. 14 And as we go along we'll get better and I 15 did wish to apologize to Mr. Rosenthal for the comments 16 that I made. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 18 Millar. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 20 much. I'm sure we'll all get smoother as we go forward. 21 We were hoping -- we're all anxious to keep -- to keep 22 going too, all of us. Nobody wants to slow it down. But, 23 I do think we need to give Professor Johnston the time she 24 needs. 25 So, this is an appropriate time to break


1 for lunch. What do you say we go to two o'clock. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm just 4 thinking about Counsel, because they have to go out and 5 get something to eat. It's not -- 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Two o'clock -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I think two 8 o'clock is about as much -- we'll now adjourn until two 9 o'clock, hopefully we will complete Professor Johnston 10 today. 11 Thank you. 12 THE REGISTRAR: All rise. This Inquiry 13 stands adjourned until two o'clock. 14 15 --- Upon recessing at 12:26 p.m. 16 --- Upon Resuming at 2:00 p.m. 17 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 19 resumed. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, we're all 21 ready to go. What we've done, and I've provided to My 22 Friend, is created a text script of the document which is 23 4000069 and we provided you a copy and the witness has a 24 copy. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, do you


1 want to carry on, Mr. Rosenthal? 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. Yes, 3 sir, I do. It's going to be anti-climactic what I do with 4 this document after all that effort and I apologize, if I 5 in any way suggested that effort to be undertaken. I'm 6 just going to ask about the very beginning. 7 But I want to put it back in context if I 8 could. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: Good afternoon, Professor Johnston. 12 A: Good afternoon. 13 Q: I want to put it back in the context 14 of, you recall that I had asked you about Document 15 4000086, which was a 1994 letter from a George Moncrieff, 16 that, then the point -- the part that I was interested in 17 was, it says: 18 "Two (2) -- two (2) of the council, 19 Chief Johnson -- Johnston of Stoney 20 Point and Louis Cloud, Chief at Kettle 21 Point both say," 22 And so on; do you recall that document? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And you had properly pointed out that 25 all that establishes is that in 1894, at the time of the


1 document, there seemed to be separate Chiefs at those two 2 locations; right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now, the only reason that I wanted to 5 look at the other Document, 4000069, which we now have 6 typed out at great length, is, just for the first phrase 7 there, which says: 8 "With reference to the Petition from 9 Chiefs John Johnston and Louis Cloud and 10 other Indians of the Kettle Point and 11 River Aux Sable or Stoney Point 12 Reserves." 13 Now, this document is dated in 1891, so 14 would you agree that this pushes it back at least three 15 (3) years then, as to when they had two (2) separate 16 Chiefs, although, in this document it's not clear exactly 17 who's where, but it's the same named Chiefs; right? 18 A: It -- it's -- I agree that two (2) 19 Chiefs are named in this document from 1891, but I 20 understood that your question was directed to the issue, 21 in my report, at page twenty-one (21), where I provide the 22 opinion that the -- the joint ownership of the two (2) 23 reserves is clear. 24 And I'd like to read, actually, the balance 25 of this report because I think it does confirm my opinion,


1 that even as late as 1891, when there were two (2) named 2 Chiefs, the ownership of the Reserves is a matter of joint 3 ownership. 4 Q: So, you want to read the entire 5 report? 6 A: Yes, please. That's why we 7 transcribed it, because I think it speaks directly to the 8 issue, although I did not see this report in preparation 9 of my report. 10 And so, it's in Supertext, if Counsel -- 11 other Counsel have it in front of them; it's a seventeen 12 (17) page hand-written memorandum from a Mr. Vankoughnet, 13 who's the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, to the 14 Minister of Indian Affairs, dated the 16th of May, 1891. 15 It's styled as a memorandum, and at the first page it 16 reads: 17 "With reference to the petition from 18 Chiefs John Johnston and Louis Cloud and 19 other Indians of the Kettle Point and 20 River Aux Sable or Stoney Point 21 Reserves, to be separated from their 22 confreres [term for brothers; french 23 term] who occupy the reserve near Sarnia 24 and to have their reserve at Kettle 25 Point and River Aux Sable allotted


1 [their reserves, I'm sorry] at Kettle 2 Point and River Aux Sable allotted to 3 themselves, as well as to have their 4 shares of the monies at the credit of 5 the tribe which is formerly known as the 6 Chippewas of Chenail Ecarte and St. 7 Clair and which, [I turn to page 2 of 8 the document now] comprise the three (3) 9 bands above referred to placed at their 10 credit in an independent account or 11 accounts. The undersigned, [that's Mr. 12 Vankoughnet] has the honour to report 13 that the three (3) bands of Indians 14 comprehended in the tribe above 15 mentioned were parties to a treaty made 16 with the Crown in the year 1827 by which 17 they surrendered two million one hundred 18 and eighty-two thousand and forty-nine 19 (2,182,049) acres of land in what was 20 then known as the London and Western 21 Districts for an annuity of four 22 thousand four hundred dollars ($4,400) 23 and that under the provisions of the 24 said treaty to which the three (3) bands 25 were conjointly one (1) of the parties,


1 as before intimated, four (4) reserves 2 were set apart for their benefit, namely 3 at Sarnia, ten thousand two hundred and 4 eighty (10,280) acres, Kettle Point, two 5 thousand four hundred and forty-six 6 (2,446) acres, River Aux Sable two 7 thousand six hundred and fifty (2,650) 8 acres, Moore [That is Moore Township] 9 Two thousand five hundred and seventy- 10 five (2,575) acres. [Turn to page 3] The 11 last named reserve, [That is the Moore 12 reserve; another reserve in Moore 13 township] was subsequently surrendered 14 and the land sold for the benefit of a 15 portion of the community by mutual 16 consent. They having settled upon 17 Walpole Island in the River St. Clair. 18 A good deal of the land embraced in the 19 Sarnia reserve as at first allotted, has 20 also been surrendered and sold and the 21 money accruing therefrom has been placed 22 at the credit of the bands on the 23 Sarnia, Kettle Point and River Aux Sable 24 reserves in their joint account. 25 The total amount standing at their


1 credit being two hundred and nine 2 thousand, two hundred and twenty-two 3 dollars ($209,222) and the interest upon 4 this amount is nine thousand six hundred 5 and seventy dollars ($9,670) or about 6 twenty-one dollars and twenty cents 7 ($21.20) per capita of the three (3) 8 bands. 9 At a general council in the year 1836, 10 one (1) of the Indians interested in the 11 reserves and [we move to page 4] annuity 12 secured to them by the Treaty of 1827 13 above referred to, said Council being 14 held for the purpose of considering the 15 affairs of the community. They were -- 16 there were representatives from that 17 section thereof which as before stated, 18 had settled upon the Walpole Island 19 reserve, which was specially 20 appropriated as a future home for the 21 Indians after the conclusion of the War 22 of 1812 with the United States. 23 At this Council, a division of the 24 annuity and lands between the Walpole 25 Islanders and the three (3) other bands


1 settled on the Sarnia, Kettle Point and 2 River Aux Sable reserves was made. 3 The Walpole band agreeing to take one 4 thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400) 5 as their share of the annuity of the 6 four thousand four hundred dollars 7 ($4,400) as fixed by the treaty of 1827 8 and the small reserve in Moore Town 9 [sorry] in Moore. [turn to page 5] in 10 addition to Walpole Island. The Indians 11 composing the three (3) bands retained 12 the balance of the annuity, namely three 13 thousand dollars ($3,000) and their 14 reserves at Kettle Point, Rive Aux Sable 15 and Sarnia. 16 And these three (3) last bands have 17 since been treated by the department as 18 one (1) community, both as respects 19 their land and their monies. 20 It will be seen [sorry] It will thus be 21 seen that the lands as well as the funds 22 are the property in common of the three 23 (3) sections of the community and the 24 wish expressed by the Kettle Point and 25 River Aux Sable for separation from the


1 Sarnia section could not therefore be 2 given effect to without the consent of 3 the Sarnia Indians. With regard to the 4 various points referred to in the 5 petition which the Indians of Kettle 6 Point and River Aux Sable reserves 7 deemed some support of their contention 8 that they should be treated as a 9 separate community from the Sarnia band 10 as respects their land and monies, the 11 undersigned begs to remark, with respect 12 to each of the points ceri adam 13 (phonetic). Number 1: With respect to 14 the statement that a general council was 15 held on the Sarnia reserve on the sixth 16 ultamo (phonetic) [that would be the 17 sixth day of the preceding month] at 18 which it was resolved that the Indians 19 should enfranchised and to have twenty- 20 two and a half (22 1/2) acres allotted 21 to each family and the money at their 22 credit in the hands of the Government 23 divided among them. The undersigned 24 begs report that no records of such a 25 council having been held is to be found


1 in the department and that no report [on 2 to page 7] thereof has reached it from 3 its agent. He would moreover state that 4 even supposing that such a resolution 5 was come to at a general council as that 6 stated, the Indians could not compel any 7 individual member of the community to 8 become enfranchised or to withdrawn his 9 or her proportion of money standing at 10 his or her credit in the department. 11 The 93 section of the Indian Act, while 12 given permission to any band at a 13 Council at which the superintendent 14 general or his agent, duly authorized to 15 attend was present, to decide that every 16 member of the bank [and this was 17 underlined] who chooses and who is found 18 qualified may become enfranchised and 19 receive his or her share of the 20 principal money of the band [on to page 21 8] and receive a suitable allotment of 22 land set apart for such member for the 23 purpose, does not give the band the 24 power of [and this is underlined.] 25 compelling any member of the band to


1 take these steps, but, it leaves it 2 optional with such member to do as he 3 pleases. 4 Point number 2: With regard to the 5 statement that owing to the general 6 council of the three bands being held 7 always on the Sarnia reserve, and the 8 objection that the petitioners thereto 9 on account of the distance and expense 10 of getting there, which prevents a 11 sufficient number of their band from 12 being present and that therefore they 13 are always out voted and their counsel 14 [That is their advice counsel S-E-L] is 15 not listened. The undersigned begs to 16 state that the Indians of the [we're on 17 to page 9 now] Kettle Point and River 18 Aux Sable Reserves, it is presumed 19 voluntarily selected locations on these 20 reserves as their places of residence. 21 And if this is so, they should be 22 willing to bear the inconvenience caused 23 by the general council of the three 24 bands being held on the reserve where 25 the most numerous of the three bands


1 resides. And as regards to the local 2 matters of the reserves, they have a 3 council of their own and control the 4 same without interference so far as the 5 department is advised by the Indians 6 residing upon the Sarnia reserve. 7 Point number 3: The subject referred to 8 under this number, is similar to that 9 which is dealt with above as point 10 number 1 of the petition and does not 11 appear to call therefore, for any 12 further remark. [Now we're on page 10] 13 Number 4: The matter of the difficulty 14 experienced by the Kettle Point and 15 River Aux Sable Indians in obtaining 16 proper drainage for their lands, is 17 shown in statements made under this 18 heading to have been attended to by the 19 department, when it was brought to its 20 notice, through the proper channels, 21 that is the Indian agent, although they 22 appear to have experienced delay through 23 discussion of the same, owing to their 24 having previously referred the matter to 25 the Sarnia Council. Why they should


1 have taken that step is difficult to 2 understand as being a local matter. It 3 would appear to be one which their 4 Council might have referred directly to 5 the Indian agent who if it was necessary 6 should [turn to page 11] then have 7 brought it under the consideration of 8 the general council of the three (3) 9 bands. And then if they fail to act 10 thereon, he would have it to the 11 department. As regards to the other 12 matter referred to under this heading, 13 namely the annoyance and trouble caused 14 the Indians by a half-breed selling 15 whiskey on or about their picnic 16 grounds, inquiry will be made of the 17 Indian Agent as to why he has allowed 18 this person to break the law in the 19 above respect. And instructions will be 20 sent him to see that it is put a stop to 21 immediately and if necessary, that the 22 party complained of be brought to 23 justice. 24 Point number 5: With regard to the 25 contention of the petitions [We move to


1 page 12] that the reserves occupied by 2 the Kettle Point and the River Aux Sable 3 Indians, never belonged to the Sarnia 4 portion of the Band, but, that the 5 forefathers of the former, lived on them 6 long before the surrender and that these 7 reserves had always been distinctly 8 separate, the undersigned begs to refer 9 to the foregoing part of this report, 10 from which it will be observed that the 11 Indians of Sarnia, Kettle Point and 12 River Aux Sable were jointly parties to 13 the treaty of 1827, under which the 14 three (3) reserves were set apart as 15 joint property of the three (3) bands of 16 Indians, and though as before stated, in 17 respect to local matters the bands have 18 separate Councils for the different 19 reserves. Nevertheless in respect to 20 ownership of the land therein, the 21 reserves have always been looked upon as 22 the joint property of the three (3) 23 bands of the community. In referring to 24 the supplementary letter of the sixth 25 instant, from the chiefs to George


1 Moncrief, Esq. MP, which gentlemen 2 forwarded to the department by letter of 3 the ninth instant, the undersigned begs 4 to remark on the points therein referred 5 to, taking them in order as given in the 6 Chief's letter. 7 Number 1: As to the Sarnia Indians 8 constantly ruling over the Indians at 9 River Aux Sable and Kettle Point, as 10 they please, as before stated, the local 11 matters on each reserve are managed by 12 the local council of the bands. [I'm on 13 page 14 now] It is difficult therefore 14 to understand what is meant by the 15 Sarnia Indians ruling over them as they 16 pleased. 17 Number 2: As to the allegation that the 18 Sarnia Indians dispute the rights of the 19 Indians at Kettle and Stoney Points to 20 reside at the latter points, the 21 undersigned concedes that this has 22 reference to the old dispute which 23 agitated the minds of all the Indians on 24 the three (3) reserves, respecting the 25 rights of some of the Indians who others


1 of them claimed had come from the United 2 States to occupy any of the land on 3 those three (3) reserves or to share in 4 the distribution money. 5 This matter was, however, settled, by a 6 vote which is called for from the 7 community and which decided that the 8 parties objected to, [We're on page 15 9 now] should be left undisturbed. 10 Number 3: With reference to the 11 statement that the Indians of the Sarnia 12 reserve are selling out their land piece 13 by piece and will soon have none, and 14 will then want some of the land at 15 Kettle Point and River Aux Sable 16 reserves, and may proceed to sell a 17 portion of those reserves, it may be 18 stated that the Indians of the two (2) 19 latter reserves share in common with 20 those of the Sarnia reserve and equally 21 in the proceeds of the sales of land on 22 the Sarnia reserve and the amount of 23 interest and annuity received per capita 24 annually from the invested capital being 25 equal.


1 Point Number 4: With regard to the 2 complaint that the Sarnia Indians had 3 sold the timber on the Kettle Point and 4 River aux Sable reserves the [we're 5 moving to page 16 now] undersigned begs 6 to report that the sale of the timber 7 resulted in benefit to the Indians of 8 the three (3) bands as they have all 9 shared in the proceeds of the sale. 10 Point Number 5: As respect to the 11 Indians of the River Aux Sable and 12 Kettle Point reserve being constantly 13 irritated by the interference in many 14 ways of the Sarnia Indians with them, 15 and by their demands, what is specially 16 referred to is not stated and therefore 17 it is impossible to make any remarks on 18 this subject. 19 Point Number 6: With regard to the 20 expressed preference of the writers to 21 be allowed to manage their own affairs, 22 as stated in a previous part of this 23 report, this could only be brought about 24 by joint agreement between [and we move 25 to page 17]


1 the three (3) bands interested at a 2 council summoned for the purpose and 3 attended by all voting members of the 4 three (3) bands." 5 And the letter -- a memorandum signed 6 Vankoughnet Department -- sorry, Deputy Superintendent 7 General of Indian Affairs. 8 So, with respect to my opinion that the 9 reserves were jointly owned both as a matter of 10 interpretation of the treaty and as a matter of 11 interpretation of the documents which I reviewed in 12 preparing my report, I take this document dated 16 May, 13 1891 as confirming that. 14 Q: I -- I understand that you take that 15 position and I'm going to explore it a bit, but I would 16 like to first make sure that I got the answer to my 17 earlier question. I'm sorry, I-- I'm not sure if I 18 clearly got the answer. 19 But you remember that my original question 20 was: Does the 1894 documents which has the words 'Chief 21 Johnston of Stoney Point and Louis Cloud Chief at Kettle 22 Point', now, is it reasonable to infer from that document 23 in 1894 and this document dated in May 1891, mentioning 24 Chiefs John Johnston and Louis Cloud and other Indians of 25 the Kettle Point and River aux Sable or Stoney Point


1 reserves, to conclude that that situation of Chief 2 Johnston being of Stoney Point and Louis Cloud being chief 3 at Kettle Point undoubtedly held at least as early as 16 4 May, 1891? 5 A: You're asking what does it -- what 6 does it -- can you repeat your question please? 7 Q: I'm asking -- 8 A: Are there two (2) chiefs? 9 Q: You had pointed out with respect to 10 the -- the first document that I showed you, the 1894 11 document -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- that all that establishes is that 14 that was the situation as of 1894, right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: With respect to one (1) being a Chief 17 of Stoney Point, the other being a chief at Kettle Point, 18 to use the words, right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And so, would you agree that the two 21 (2) documents together suggests quite strongly that the 22 situation that is described in the 1894 document in that 23 respect existed at least by 16 May, 1891? 24 A: That there were two (2) chiefs, one at 25 Kettle and one at Sable?


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Yes that was my question. Do you 4 agree? 5 A: That there were two (2) chiefs, yes, 6 but that's not connected to ownership of the reserves 7 because -- 8 Q: I'll -- we'll -- deal with that in a 9 moment, but there was a chief at Kettle Point and a chief 10 at Stoney Point, right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: At least, as of May 1891 and we don't 13 know about before then for sure, right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Thank you. Now, the document that 16 you've read to us, you notice that it talks about the 17 three bands a lot, right? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: The three Bands, being Sarnia, Kettle 20 Point and Stoney Point -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- right? There are equally three (3) 23 bands who are part of this larger Indian Act amalgamation, 24 right? 25 A: There were three (3) Bands who were


1 party to the Treaty and they're now part of the Indian Act 2 Department organization as one (1) band. 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: The Indian Act treats them as one 6 Band -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- but it's recognized in this 9 document that there are three Bands in fact? 10 A: For local matters only. 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: And not with respect to ownership of 13 the Reserves. 14 Q: Well, now, the ownership, yes, it's 15 talked about joint ownership; right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: That's the Indian Act view of the 18 situation. 19 A: It's the view of the Treaty which was 20 negotiated -- 21 Q: I see. 22 A: -- by the Chippewa Nation. 23 Q: Where does it say that in the Treaty? 24 A: The Treaty says: 25 "The parties to the Treaty are various


1 named leaders, including Wapagus" 2 Who we know by 18' -- at least by 1819, was 3 a Chief of the River Aux Sable." 4 And it says: 5 "This is an indenture," 6 That's -- the Treaty is styled as an 7 indenture: 8 "and it's between the Chiefs and 9 principle men of that part of the 10 Chippewa Nation of Indians inhabiting 11 and claiming the territory are tracked 12 hereinafter described." 13 So the parties are principle men of the 14 Chippewa Nation and then the reserves are said: 15 "Expressly reserving to the Nation of 16 Indians and their prosperity at all 17 times hereafter." 18 Q: I see. 19 A: So the reserves -- the Treaty is 20 negotiated in the name of the Nation, and the reserves are 21 set aside, not for any particular band or any particular 22 person, for the Nation of Indians. 23 Q: Yes? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: But are you extrapolating from that to


1 the conclusion, that the people at each of the reserves -- 2 A: There were no people at any of the 3 reserves, they were all throughout the territory. The 4 evidence is they don't start settling in villages until 5 the 1830's and '40's. 6 They're -- they're using the whole 7 territory, they're the Chippewa Indians residing in that 8 part of the territory. They sell the large territory, 9 they eventually settle on three (3) disc -- four (4) 10 discreet reserves. 11 Q: And it's not your understanding that 12 these portions were chosen as reserves because people 13 either lived there or wanted to live there, specifically? 14 A: They were the lands that people would 15 not give up. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: I don't think they were -- there's no 18 evidence that they were living there in 1819. 19 Q: I see. 20 A: And in a permanent basis. A permanent 21 residence is something that's introduced under the 22 influence of the Indian Department and the Methodists for 23 agricultural people. 24 Q: In any event that this is -- this will 25 help you with respect to whether there was an 's' in the


1 previous document, three (3) bands. There were -- 2 A: In -- by 1891 there were three bands, 3 as early as 1819, Wapagus is saying he's the leader of the 4 Aux Sable Indians. 5 Q: Okay. Or 1891 anyway, there were 6 three (3) bands, right? 7 A: There was one (1) band which 8 functioned as a general council, which owned the Reserves 9 and monies. There were three (3) separate Bands which 10 dealt with local matters. 11 Q: Perhaps we'll leave it at that. Now, 12 you told us about the importance of burial grounds to 13 First Nations people and you've explained that that's, at 14 least in part, based on a different concept of the soul, 15 or of two (2) aspects of the soul, -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- which means that the -- the body 18 has more importance to First Nations people than it does 19 to those who believe that the soul leaves the body upon 20 death, right? 21 A: I don't think I said it quite that 22 way. 23 Q: But, is that a fair summary? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Okay. Would you give me a fair


1 summary, please? 2 A: I -- I didn't say that the remains of 3 the dead were more important to aboriginal people. I said 4 that our burial practices -- in our burial practices, the 5 care and concern for feeding and continuing to shelter the 6 dead differ in some respects from other -- from other 7 cultures. 8 But I would assert that the remains of my 9 mother's grandmother, who's not aboriginal, is any less 10 important to me than the remains of my father's mother. 11 Q: Okay, but that makes a special 12 importance -- the actual situation with respect to the way 13 First Nations people regard death, gives a special 14 importance to their burial grounds, is a fair summary; is 15 that fair? 16 A: With respect to what I understand of 17 the Anishnaabeg tradition, there's -- there -- there are 18 obligations that continue with respect to the remains of 19 the deceased, yes. 20 Q: Yes. Now, I expect that there will be 21 evidence at these proceedings, that there were burial 22 grounds located at both of the two reserves we've been 23 talking about, the First Nations reserve at Stoney Point 24 and the reserve at Kettle Point? 25 A: I can't speak to that, sir.


1 Q: I'm sorry? 2 A: I can't speak to that. 3 Q: No, no, I -- I appreciate that. I'm 4 suggesting to you we will have evidence of that and then 5 I'm asking you, if that is a fact would people residing at 6 Stoney Point have a special connection to that reserve, by 7 virtue of burial grounds of their ancestors being at that 8 location? 9 A: I would expect so. But, you can ask -- 10 Q: You'd expect so, perhaps? I think it's 11 an obvious answer, but, I wanted to get your expert 12 opinion that it's an obvious answer because my opinion, 13 it's not worth anything. Okay, so it's obviously, so, 14 right? Right? 15 A: That if the people that are -- yes -- 16 that the graves of ancestors are important. And so if the 17 people living in one place have their ancestors buried in 18 that place, that there would be a special attachment to 19 that place. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I expect there to be evidence at 23 this Inquiry that the father of many of my clients, a man 24 named Dan George, who was one of the people expropriated 25 in 1942, from Stoney Point Reserve, had always wished to


1 return to Stoney Point and finally did so to be buried in 2 1990. 3 If that evidence were to be accepted, would 4 that -- given what you've told us, indicate why my 5 clients, for example, his children and grandchildren, 6 might have a special attachment to that land? 7 A: Yes. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Now, moving from 1891 or 1894, to 1942, 12 further beyond your area of specialization here, but, I 13 just wanted to put the following to you. We understand 14 that there will be evidence that in 1942, the Stoney Point 15 Reserve was seized by the Federal Government of Canada, 16 under the War Measures Act. 17 And that the persons who were living on 18 that reserve were then displaced and mainly -- mainly 19 forced to settle at Kettle Point and that that created 20 resentment on both sides, among Kettle Point people and 21 Stoney Point people and created problems that we see the 22 effects of to this day, in their children and 23 grandchildren. 24 So, I'm suggesting to you, we may have 25 evidence to that effect. If that evidence is tendered,


1 would that tend to support the notion that the Stoney 2 Point people might have some entitlement to their own 3 reserve? 4 A: I can't -- I don't think that I can -- 5 from the point of view of ownership of the reserve? 6 Q: Yes? 7 A: I can imagine that being separated from 8 the graves of ancestors would be very traumatic and that 9 proximity to the graves of ones ancestors is very 10 important. And so anything that would continue to enforce 11 that separation, or continue it would be something very 12 difficult. 13 I don't -- I wouldn't go so far as to say 14 that that translates into entitlement to ownership of 15 lands outside the cemetery. But, I would say, that they 16 would have definite responsibilities and obligations for 17 those burials. 18 Q: I expect that there will be evidence at 19 this Inquiry and, in fact, there was some tendered in the 20 standing materials we presented to this Inquiry, that 21 Dudley George from 1993 until the time of his death in 22 1995, was working as what might be called, or what is 23 called, and I apologize again for my pronunciation, but, I 24 will spell it as well, Etwaagnikejig, excuse me everybody, 25 but, I'll spell it, E-T-W-A-A-G-N-I-K-E-J-I-G, which I'm


1 told means a nation builder and that he, in particular, 2 was celebrated as a nation builder for the Stoney Point 3 First Nation. So, I'm suggesting to you there will be 4 evidence to that effect, I know -- I know you don't know 5 that of your own direct knowledge. 6 I'm asking you, in light of all the above, 7 if you would be willing to somewhat, at least, soften the 8 very last sentence of your report, on page thirty-two 9 (32), where you write, in your summary findings, the last 10 sentence: 11 "But there is no indication that they 12 can be distinguished on the basis of 13 discrete interests and lands reserved at 14 Kettle Point and at the mouth of the 15 River Aux Sable". 16 In light of the evidence of two (2) 17 different Chiefs, in light of the evidence that I 18 anticipate, that Dudley George recorded himself as a 19 nation builder for Stoney Point, in light of the graves of 20 their ancestors that are at that location, would you 21 acknowledge that perhaps there would some basis for 22 discreet interest in those people in that reserve? 23 A: If you're speaking of spiritual 24 interest, I would. If you're speaking of proprietary 25 interest, which is what I was considering, I would say


1 that my opinion is with respect to the documents I 2 considered up to the period of 1845, so, as of 1845, it's 3 my opinion there were no discreet proprietary interests. 4 Q: Well then I've suggested some matters 5 that occurred since that might shed light on 6 interpretations there and you recall, you told us your 7 early interpretation when you looked at the situation at 8 first, you thought there were probably two (2) different 9 groups, two (2) different peoples, but then your totemic 10 identity study indicated that the totemic identities were 11 similarly distributed and therefore, you concluded that 12 your initial impression was wrong. 13 Would you not agree, that the other factors 14 that I mentioned to you, and the fact that -- that people 15 were fighting for Stoney Point First Nation, might mean 16 that your first impression was correct, of two (2) 17 different groups, and they are two (2) different groups 18 who lived close together, and obviously interacted to some 19 large extent, which would explain the similar totemic 20 identities? 21 Isn't that a reasonable possible 22 conclusion? 23 A: Not in 1845. I agree, by the 24 twentieth century there are two (2) separate 25 communities --


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: -- and in 1845 I did not see evidence 3 of that. 4 Q: Okay. So, you mean by the twentieth 5 century that there were two separate communities? 6 A: There were two (2) separate 7 communities in terms of their band structure, but not in 8 terms of the ownership of the reserves. The ownership of 9 the reserves was determined by the Treaty in 1827. 10 Q: As far as a right to land, as First 11 Nations people would understand it, would that be 12 determined by the interests that you mentioned, or the 13 technical ownership that you mentioned? 14 A: I don't think that anyone has the 15 right to separate anyone from the graves of their 16 ancestors, but proprietary ownership, speaking to the 17 power to sell or alienate the lands, my understand is 18 vested -- was vested in Sarnia, Kettle Point, and Stoney 19 Point, as those bands are referenced in 1891, and until 20 the separation of Sarnia from those bands, continued to be 21 joint ownership. 22 And after that separation, we still -- I 23 haven't seen the documents, but I haven't seen anything to 24 indicate a separation of ownership as between the Kettle 25 Point Reserve and the Stony Point Reserve.


1 Q: I don't believe you answered my 2 question. 3 A: Sorry, can you repeat it? 4 Q: The question was: Which should 5 predominate for First Nations people, the ownership in the 6 sense that you've described it, technical ownership 7 according to Canadian law is -- 8 A: It's not according to Canadian law -- 9 Q: -- according to the Treaty, if you've 10 interpreted it correctly. 11 A: The Treaty was signed by the leaders 12 of the Chippewa Nation. 13 Q: Yes. What should predominate that or 14 the other interests that you have acknowledged at least in 15 the twentieth century, emerged as distinct interests 16 between the two (2) reserves? 17 A: I can't speak to a distinct 18 proprietary interest, I -- I acknowledge that there were 19 two (2) separate Chiefs, but there's no evidence of a 20 distinct proprietary interest. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think we've been 22 over that question -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 24 have now, Mr. Rosenthal. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Mr. Commissioner.


1 And thank you Professor Johnston. Thank you Mr. 2 Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 4 very much, Mr. Rosenthal. Thank you. 5 Any other parties wish to cross-examine at 6 this point? 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Eyolfson 8 indicated he might have some questions. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 10 Eyolfson...? On behalf of the Aboriginal Legal Services. 11 MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: Thank you, 12 Commissioner. Good afternoon, Professor Johnston. 13 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 14 MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: I just wanted to ask 15 you a few follow-up questions. 16 THE WITNESS: Okay. Excuse me, I've lost 17 my pen. Can someone provide me with a pen, so I can make 18 my notes? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: 25 Q: Now, with respect to burial sites, in


1 the regions covered by your report, where would we find 2 Aboriginal burial sites today, in general, I'm not asking 3 for specific locations? 4 A: The -- in southern Ontario or on Lake 5 Huron shoreline? I can't speak to southern Ontario 6 generally, I do have some experience of burials on 7 Georgian Bay and Lake Huron shore. 8 And they're on the Georgian Bay side, the 9 shore is very rocky. There is -- have been found on 10 cobble beach strands and in cliffs and in ledges -- or 11 sorry in caves and ledges, the topography on the eastern 12 side of Lake Huron is very sandy. 13 And we've -- there have been burials found 14 at the Brusnaklea (phonetic) Power Development, in sand 15 dunes in the McGregor Point -- pardon me, McGregor Point 16 Provincial Park, in sand dunes in a variety of locations 17 at Salvo (phonetic) Beach in sand dunes. 18 And so I would say for the people on the 19 Lake Huron shore, their preference was to -- and it's 20 understandable I think, it's easier to bury people in sand 21 than in cobble beaches. 22 That there's a preference on following the 23 old strand lines of the old -- Lake Huron has changed very 24 much over the past several thousand years, with the 25 glaciers and there's various, what are called strand


1 lines, the high -- for the older lake beds and these 2 strand lines tend to be in, within about a mile or two of 3 the current shore line. 4 They tend to be very, very raised dunes. 5 And in my experience, that's where a number of Anishnaabeg 6 burials have been found. 7 Q: Okay. So we wouldn't find these burial 8 sites only on present day reserves? 9 A: Oh, I see what you're asking. No, 10 well, I think once people started living on reserves, 11 their preference was to keep their dead close. But, we've 12 seen that the reserves didn't exist as reserves until 1827 13 and people did not restrict their residence there until 14 much later. 15 So, in my territory, as I said, which goes 16 almost as south as far south as Goderich, there have been 17 burials found in areas that aren't reserved. 18 Q: Right. And you explain the importance 19 for aboriginal people of living near their ancestors? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And however, after the contact period 22 and the dispossession of Aboriginal land, it seems that 23 this would not have always been possible for Aboriginal 24 people to remain near their ancestors? 25 A: No, in my territory we had a settled


1 village at Owen Sound, it was called the Nawash Reserve. 2 And for a variety of reasons, our chiefs, including my 3 great-grandfather signed a surrender in 1857. 4 There was a clause in that treaty that said 5 that an acre would be reserved for a burying ground. And 6 our people moved from Owen Sound up to Cape Croker it was 7 very hard to get back to Owen Sound on a regular basis. 8 And it was very hard for people to leave 9 the graves of their ancestors and in the absence of -- of 10 the people at Owen Sound, that burial ground was actually 11 desecrated and destroyer and that's caused much hardship 12 and trauma in -- in our community. 13 Q: Okay. On that point then, I wanted to 14 ask you, are you aware of burial sites then that are in 15 what are presently heavily populated areas or urban areas? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you had mentioned one (1) example, 18 which was your own community? 19 A: Yes, in Owen Sound. 20 Q: Okay. Maybe you could just explain a 21 little bit about what the area is like. Is the burial 22 site in question, right in the town on the outskirts of 23 town, what is it surrounded by? 24 A: It used to be called the town plot of 25 Brook and it was across the Potawatomi River from the City


1 of Owen Sound. And Brook was amalgamated into the City of 2 Owen Sound in the early nineteen (19) -- late 1800's. 3 And our burial ground was on a hill 4 overlooking the bay in the vicinity of the Methodist 5 Church nd it was very well marked. And there were grave 6 markers and fences. And after we moved to Cape Croker 7 there's evidence that some of the settlers even used that 8 as a burial ground, when people died. 9 But in the -- between 1901 and 1903, the 10 Federal Government negotiated with the township to allow 11 them to purchase that half acre and people took the 12 gravestones out of the area, and used them for bases in 13 their baseball diamond, in a park which was located below 14 the hill. 15 And the township sold the land to a company 16 that made bricks. And they found that the soil was good 17 and the burial ground was -- had a lot of clay. And the 18 Indian Department said that they couldn't get a patent for 19 the land until they removed all the remains. 20 But a local citizen complained that they 21 were making bricks -- because some of our people weren't 22 buried in coffins, they were just buried -- and so they 23 tried to move the coffins, but they didn't remove all the 24 graves. 25 And -- and so they -- they continued the


1 brick operation. And the government never patented the 2 land because the township never proved that they had 3 removed all the bodies. 4 They couldn't have patented the land anyway 5 because it was reserved by our treaty and we had to -- as 6 I said, mentioned in the report, at a vigil in 1991 and 7 recovered those lands. 8 Q: Thank you. I'm sorry that must be very 9 difficult for your community. 10 A: It's all right. 11 Q: Now I presume also in southern Ontario, 12 we now have urban centres where aboriginal people once 13 reside, at least part of the time in the year? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Are you aware of whether or not, there 20 are any aboriginal burial sites, in or around large urban 21 centres, such as the greater Toronto area? 22 A: Well, we know that the Credit Indians 23 lived at the Credit and the first proclamation that was 24 passed to protect burials was for their burials at the 25 Credit River.


1 We know that there were Seneca in the -- 2 large Seneca villages in the vicinity of Toronto before 3 the conclusion of the war between the Anishnaabeg and the 4 Iroquois. And I've read newspaper reports of ossuaries 5 being disturbed in developments within the city limits of 6 Toronto. 7 Ossuaries meaning Iroquois people buried -- 8 had practised a secondary burial system and so they would 9 have all of their deceased, or very large numbers of the 10 deceased interred in one (1) common grave. 11 And so when you encounter, that's called an 12 ossuary, with multiple burials in one (1) -- in one (1) 13 grave and ossuaries have been disturbed in Toronto. 14 Q: Okay. Have there ever been or are 15 there legal mechanisms available to protect aboriginal 16 burial grounds or to deal with aboriginal grievances 17 concerning these matters when there's disturbances for 18 example? 19 A: Well, we saw the proclamation of Peter 20 Russell that threaten to prosecute people who disturb 21 burials. And we saw the action that T.G. Anderson took 22 when Dr. Darling was disinterring people for dissection. 23 There was no formal legislative provision 24 that I'm aware of, pre-confederation, with the exception 25 of Russell's proclamation. There is a provincial, piece


1 of provincial legislation known as the Cemetery's Act, and 2 it was amended in the early 90's, so that it would protect 3 aboriginal burials. 4 So there is, currently in Ontario, the 5 Cemeteries Act, has provisions dealing with aboriginal 6 burials and dispositions of those sites, when they're 7 encountered. 8 Q: Are you aware of whether or not, those 9 provisions have been effective? 10 A: Not in my experience. We have been 11 attempting to get a declaration of a cemetery. In my 12 community there's a sacred site off our reserve, just 13 opposite at Hope Bay. 14 And burials were encountered there during 15 an archeological assessment. And we sought to have those 16 -- that land set aside as a cemetery. 17 And the Cemetery Act, has two (2) possible 18 declarations, either as an unauthorized aboriginal 19 cemetery, which is I think, a poor choice of words. What 20 it means by, unauthorized, is the people were buried there 21 before the Registrar of Cemeteries existed 22 and/or an irregular burial. 23 Unauthorized -- unauthorized Aboriginal 24 cemetery is one (1) where people were buried with the 25 purpose of being buried, which sounds a bit tautological.


1 What it meant, though, is that people were intentionally 2 buried. 3 An irregular burial is an idea that if, 4 let's say someone died alone in the bush somewhere, and 5 eventually were covered, became buried, that that would be 6 an irregular burial. 7 And the distinction between irregular 8 burials and cemeteries is crucial because if it's an 9 irregular burial on private land, the land owner, at his 10 discretion, can have the remains moved to a municipal 11 cemetery. 12 But if it's an unapproved Aboriginal 13 cemetery, the land owner, if it's on private land, cannot 14 remove the remains without the consent of the 15 Representative First Nation. 16 So we had to actually struggle very hard to 17 prevent the registrar from declaring the burial that we 18 were concerned with, an irregular burial, it was an infant 19 burial, a secondary burial in a -- in a circular stone 20 lined feature, with capping stones, and we were persuaded 21 that there were many other features in the vicinity and 22 that people wouldn't bury an infant and not bury, 23 eventually, as the mothers or fathers want to be buried 24 there. 25 So the registrar was persuaded to order a


1 further investigation as he has power to do under the 2 Cemeteries act. And the problem with the investigative 3 powers under the Cemeteries Act is that the registrar will 4 only make a declaration if it's shown to him that the 5 features contain human remains. 6 So he insisted on the features being 7 opened, which is a prohibition of the rule that graves 8 shouldn't be disturbed. It took us two (2) years to 9 persuade the Elders in the community, under a very 10 controlled situation, with traditional people present, 11 that we would open, in fact, some of the features, just 12 remove the stones to -- so that the archaeologist could 13 make a positive identification of human bones. 14 When that process was carried out, we then 15 identified three (3) burials. We were hoping that the 16 registrar would then draw a circle around the three (3) 17 burials and call that a cemetery. But these burials were 18 in circular stone lime pits, not in rectangular rows. 19 And so, he just drew a circle around each 20 pit, and he wouldn't call the whole area a cemetery. 21 And so, we're still, my community, I 22 haven't been involved in this process for more than four 23 (4) years, but my community is still trying to negotiate 24 the transfer of those lands back to Reserve status, so 25 that they can be protected.


1 But the cemeteries process, the -- the 2 distinction between irregular burials and -- and 3 unapproved cemeteries, is very problematic, the insistence 4 of the registrar on opening graves is very problematic. 5 The other problem that we have under the 6 Cemeteries Act is that when police arrive at the scene, 7 when human remains -- remains are encountered, this -- 8 this has happened several times, when I was working at 9 home. 10 The -- the Cemeteries Act says that the 11 remains are not to be disturbed, they're not to be moved, 12 they're not to be tested, without the consent of the 13 Representative First Nation. 14 They're not to be moved or disturbed until 15 the archaeologist can say whether it's a cemetery or an 16 irregular burial, and in our experience, every time the -- 17 the coroner and the Police were called to examine a burial 18 that had been discovered, they picked up and removed all 19 the remains, put them in plastic bags or boxes, and sent 20 them to Toronto. 21 And in doing that, they offend not only the 22 Aboriginal prohibition on disturbing burials, they also 23 often destroy evidence of -- of identity, because burial 24 practices are very cultural specific and it is important 25 how the bones are arranged, and what other matter material


1 might be found with the bones. 2 So in our experience, there's -- the 3 Cemeteries Act as drafted, is actually better than any 4 other that -- that can be found in Canada. It's the only 5 one (1), to my knowledge, that protects graves of 6 Aboriginal people. But the way that it's being 7 interpreted by the registrar and by the Police and by land 8 owners, is terribly problematic. 9 Q: Thank you for answering those 10 questions. I've got a few other questions for you. I 11 want to move a little bit away from the topic of burial 12 grounds. 13 In your reports, you identified some 14 factors that would appear to pose challenges to Aboriginal 15 people in demonstrating a connection to their land, in the 16 non-Aboriginal context. You had started out by mentioning 17 oral traditions, as opposed to the documentary type of 18 evidence, as well as outside naming. 19 A: Mmm hmm. 20 Q: And would you agree that these factors 21 have created hurdles or challenges for aboriginal people 22 in -- in asserting rights and land claims, in the legal 23 context, as well? 24 A: In the work that I did for my 25 community, it created huge problems. As I said, we were


1 called the Chippewas of Nawash. Around the Bruce 2 peninsula, my grandmother told me that her people had 3 always been there, and there's no evidence of Chippewas 4 before the British arrive. 5 And so that's, in fact, why I struggled so 6 long with trying to find an alternative way to make sense 7 of what I'd been taught. 8 Q: Right. And how about the oral 9 tradition, in particular? 10 A: Well, that's what I started with, was 11 my grandmother's teachings. And then I looked at the 12 documentary record and I couldn't make sense of them, but, 13 that doesn't mean that I gave up on her traditions. 14 I took what she taught me and just kept 15 looking until I found something that made sense of it. 16 Q: And I imagine these realities would 17 also pose challenges in light of jurisprudence on 18 Aboriginal rights, particularly under the constitution, in 19 terms of demonstrating or asserting claims? 20 A: Under Section 35 of the Constitution 21 Act, 1982, the Supreme Court has imposed very onerous 22 evidentiary burdens in proving continuity for a title 23 having to go back to sovereignty, for rights having to go 24 back to contact. And so, yes, those are problems that are 25 faced by any Aboriginal litigants.


1 Q: Okay. Are there any other factors, 2 that in your view, have created particular challenges for 3 Aboriginal peoples in asserting legal claims concerning 4 Aboriginal under Treaty rights? 5 A: In terms of demonstrating continuity, I 6 think there's a great variability in communities, in terms 7 of the strength of the language and whether people know 8 their totemic identity. And the -- the access to evidence 9 of identity and oral tradition. 10 I think the people, in my experience, there 11 is that variability. There are a number of families on 12 our reserve who don't know their totemic identity. So I 13 think that is partly attributable to missionization and to 14 the education system that was introduced. 15 And that those factors over several 16 generations has made it difficult for people to -- to see 17 or demonstrate those continuities. 18 In the work that I did in my community, a 19 huge hurdle has to do with the costs of litigation. And 20 the Federal Government's practice is it will sponsor 21 research under the specific claims process. But, as soon 22 as the community brings litigation, they cut the research 23 funding. 24 The Six (6) Nations has had their funding 25 cut and Nawash and Saugeen had their funding cut, as soon


1 as we started litigation. 2 So the research is very expensive and very 3 time consuming. The litigation is very expensive and time 4 consuming and the government does not support that. 5 Q: And what about gaining access to legal 6 representation to assist in bringing these claims forward? 7 A: At the present, it's not a problem, 8 but, historically there was a prohibition in the Indian 9 Act, that prevented tribes from hiring lawyers to bring 10 claims. 11 When we started our land claims research in 12 the '60s our Chiefs wanted to get access. By then, their 13 prohibition on hiring lawyers lasted until 1951. 14 I think it was formally introduced in the 15 Indian Act in the '20s, but, I've seen documents going 16 back to the 1870s, where because Ottawa had control of our 17 money, people couldn't -- couldn't hire lawyers unless 18 Ottawa released the money and there's lots of time when 19 they refused to release money to pay lawyers. 20 But even in the '60s when people could have 21 -- could at least legally retain a lawyer, in our 22 experience, we were trying to get records about our lands 23 under the Treaty and the department refused to let the 24 Chiefs have access to those records, or to let researchers 25 hired by the Chiefs have access to those records.


1 Q: So there were difficulties in terms of 2 obtaining the necessary evidence to advance the claim? 3 A: When that evidence is still within the 4 exclusive control of the Department of Indian Affairs, a 5 lot of the records have not been microfilmed and they're 6 accessible at the National Archives. 7 But, there are difficulties accessing 8 information that is still retained by Ottawa -- by the 9 Department of Indian Affairs. 10 MR. BRIAN EYOLFSON: Those are all the 11 questions I have. Thank you very much Professor Johnston. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that it? 17 Those are all the people who indicated. Thank you, Mr. 18 Eyolfson. 19 Is that it? Those are all the people who 20 indicated an intention to cross-examine. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I believe, Mr. Horton 22 may have a question. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Horton...? 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 4 Q: Professor Johnston, my name is Bill 5 Horton, and I represent Chiefs of Ontario. And on their 6 behalf I'd like to thank you for your work and your 7 evidence. 8 You were asked some questions about your 9 totemic analysis and I want to make sure that I have a 10 correct understanding of the value and contribution of 11 your work in this area. 12 And I know that it covers a lot of 13 different grounds and basis, but it struck me and I'd just 14 like to have you tell me whether I'm right, that at least 15 one (1) of the areas in which the totemic analysis has a 16 great deal of value, is in dispelling misconceptions that 17 are out there about First Peoples, in the period of 18 contact and early contact, would that be a correct 19 statement? 20 A: Which misconceptions do you mean? 21 Q: Well, for example, the totemic analysis 22 as you've described it to us, establishes that there was a 23 social structure and organization to the communities that 24 existed in this area at the time of contact? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And -- 2 A: I go further than that. There were -- 3 there's territorial organization and governance 4 organization, and my opinion is, that in the earliest 5 contact period that was largely influenced by totemic 6 identity. 7 Q: Yes. And your totemic analysis, also 8 helped to demonstrate that there were norms within those 9 social organizations. There were -- there were rules by 10 which those societies were organized? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And in addition, I took from your 13 totemic analysis, that it was very clear from that 14 analysis that there was an established system of religious 15 belief and spiritual values and that comes through -- very 16 clearly through the totemic analysis? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And as you've just mentioned, the 19 totemic analysis is particularly helpful in establishing 20 the relationship to the land, in terms of patterns of 21 usage and cycles of usage, of particular geographic areas, 22 would that also be a correct understanding? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And of course, very clearly, using the 25 totemic analysis, you've established that there's an


1 extremely strong attachment to particular locations which 2 have burial sites? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And Professor Johnston, your evidence 5 also chronicled a series of abuses and injustices towards 6 First Peoples throughout the period that you examined, not 7 to say that they didn't continue after that. 8 But in the period that you examined, I take 9 it that there is no indication that the colonial powers 10 differentiated between totemic groups in terms of these 11 abuses and injustices that you've described? They were 12 suffered in common by the First Peoples in this area. 13 A: I would say so, yes. There's evidence 14 that at least some people in the department knew about the 15 totemic system and used it in their record keeping. But 16 it didn't -- I don't think that they treated one (1) 17 totemic group better than another. 18 Q: And so essentially, in terms of those 19 abuses and injustices, there is a common history that is 20 shared by all of the First People's in this area, would 21 that be a correct statement? 22 A: In southern Ontario, in terms of the 23 dispossession of lands and attempts to influence people's 24 decisions about their spirituality and their lifestyle was 25 a common experience.


1 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. Thank you very 2 much Dr. Johnston. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 7 much. More from Mr. Henderson...? 8 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you, sir. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 11 Q: Professor Johnston, my name is Bill 12 Henderson and I represent the Chippewas of Kettle and 13 Stoney Point. Again, I'd like to add our thanks for the - 14 - the contribution that you've made in the context of this 15 Inquiry. 16 I have some general questions and you may 17 be pleased to know that I'm going to talk about the period 18 covered by your report, and some of the elements that you 19 -- that you discussed previously. 20 And I want to start with the Royal 21 Proclamation and you -- you've indicated the -- the 22 general provisions of, I don't think I need to take you to 23 the text, but -- 24 A: Yeah, okay. 25 Q: -- you indicated the general


1 provisions for the protection of what was described in the 2 proclamation as the Indian hunting ground, or more 3 generally known as the Indian territory for the several 4 Tribes and Nations. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And in the context of the -- the area 7 covered, are you familiar with the expression 8 "proclamation line"? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And what -- what does that describe? 11 A: It describes the separation of the 12 thirteen (13) settled colonies on the east from the Indian 13 territory, so the proclamation line roughly followed the 14 Appalachian, and everything east of the proclamation line 15 were settled colonies, everything west of the proclamation 16 line were Indian territory, reserved as hunting grounds 17 for those nations. 18 Q: And after the proclamation was put in 19 place, I understand that there were two (2) Commissioners 20 appointed, a northern and a southern, -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- to deal with the several nations 23 and tribes west of the proclamation line? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And the northern Commissioner was Sir


1 William Johnson -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- you referred to? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the area that he would have dealt 6 with would have been the Ohio River Valley amongst -- 7 amongst other areas? 8 A: And -- and northward. 9 Q: And northward. 10 A: Mr. -- Mr. Stewart had charge of the 11 southern territory, the Carolinas down in -- in further 12 south, in probably Virginia as well, but Sir William 13 Johnson was in charge of Pennsylvania, the lands that were 14 opposite, Pennsylvania, New York and up into the Great 15 Lakes region. 16 Q: Yes. And as part of his work, well we 17 find in the Proclamation, references to great frauds and 18 abuses. Is it your understanding that the -- the frauds 19 and abuses referred to largely occurred in the Ohio 20 valley? 21 A: As well as in the territory of the Six 22 (6) Nations, yes. 23 Q: Yes. Thank you. You are familiar, 24 although you did not, I'm -- you may have referred to it 25 briefly, you're familiar with the Quebec Act of 1774?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And in terms of the Proclamation 3 protection of the territory that we've been discussing, 4 what did the Quebec Act do? 5 A: The Quebec Act -- the -- when the King 6 first settled the boundaries of Quebec, there's a map in 7 the materials which shows it was not co-extensive with the 8 territory claimed by New France. And very little of the 9 Colony of Quebec actually came into what is now Ontario, 10 with the exception of an area around Cornwall, and the 11 Quebec Act extended the boundaries of the Province of 12 Quebec further into the Great Lakes region, to take in 13 what is now, at least the southern parts, of Ontario. 14 So it -- it enlarged the territory. It 15 also restored French civil law within the Colony of Quebec 16 and freedom of religion. It did not speak directly to 17 Indian lands or Indian rights under the Proclamation and 18 it's my view that it did not have an effect on the 19 Proclamation with respect to those aspects within the 20 territory, notwithstanding the Ontario Court of Appeal's 21 Decision in Chippewas of Sarnia. 22 Q: Yes, I'm -- I'm regrettably familiar 23 with that Decision. When you described the extension of 24 the -- of the Colony of Quebec, would it be roughly 25 accurate to say that it was extended, the boundaries of


1 the Province of Quebec were extended to include Kingston, 2 Pittsburgh, down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and 3 north along the Mississippi to the Hudson's Bay territory? 4 A: To Rupert's land, yes. 5 Q: Yes. Thank you. And is it your 6 understanding that the intention of putting that area 7 under the governance of the Governor of Quebec, was to 8 prevent the types of frauds and abuses that the 9 Proclamation had referred to in the first place, but the 10 Governors of the Colonies were not necessarily carrying 11 out? 12 A: Well, it was clear that the Governors 13 of New York and Pennsylvania were very angry, in fact, 14 that the land went to -- under the administration of 15 Quebec. I've read the debate that surround the Quebec Act, 16 and I'm not entirely sure that that's at least their 17 stated motivation. I am sure that as a result of those 18 lands being put in the control of Quebec that fueled the 19 resentment of the American colonies and was a factor in 20 the American War of Independence. 21 Q: Is it one of the specific grievances 22 listed in the Declaration of Independence of 1776? 23 A: It is. 24 Q: And of course, shortly after that, we 25 have a much attenuated Province of Quebec, out of which I


1 believe Ontario or the colony of Upper Canada was created 2 in 1792? 3 A: Or '91 -- 1791, Constitution Act, yes. 4 Q: All right. Thank you. And that was 5 largely to accommodate the loyalists including the Indian 6 loyalists -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- coming from the States into this 9 territory. 10 A: It also -- the Quebec Act had 11 instituted French civil law throughout Quebec and then the 12 division into Upper Canada and Lower Canada allowed the -- 13 the Civil Law continued in Lower Canada, but, then the 14 English common law was introduced into Upper Canada. 15 Q: Yes, and I believe one of the reasons 16 for that was the loyalists were more familiar with the 17 common law and completely unfamiliar with civil law? 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: Thank you. Now, in terms of the 20 proclamation itself, do you recall a provision that 21 enabled Crown officers to pursue fugitives from justice 22 into the Indian territory? 23 A: I would have to look at my copy. 24 Q: No, if you don't recall it, that's 25 fine.


1 A: Can you read it to me? 2 Q: No. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: There are some provisions after the 7 land provisions which do pertain to the presence of people 8 and particularly traders within the Indian territory. 9 Q: Yes, I do have a version that says -- 10 thanks to My Friend, Mr. Ross: 11 "We do further expressly enjoin and 12 require all officers whatever, as well 13 as military as those employed in the 14 management and direction of Indian 15 Affairs, within the territories reserved 16 as aforesaid for the use of the said 17 Indians, to seize and apprehend all 18 persons, whatever who stand in charge 19 with treason, misprisims (phonetic) of 20 treasons, murders or other felonies or 21 misdemeanours shall fly from justice and 22 take refuge in the said territory and to 23 send them under a proper guard to the 24 colony where the crime was committed." 25 A: Yes, that's there in the Royal


1 proclamation. 2 Q: Now, having made express provision for 3 that in the proclamation, I do not understand the 4 proclamation to evade any express provision that would 5 subordinate then several nations or a tribes to British 6 Criminal Law. 7 A: No. 8 Q: Now, is there any provision that would 9 subordinate them to British common law? 10 A: Not at this time, no. 11 Q: And no provision in the proclamation 12 that would have interfered with their governance or their 13 customs or usages in any way? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Thank you. When we get to the treaty 16 of 1827, it's a fairly brief document and you've gone over 17 it, is there anything in the treaty that says, that the 18 Chippewa Nations -- parties to that treaty will be 19 subordinate to British Criminal Law? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Or to British Civil Law? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Or that there will be any interference 24 with their governance, habits or usages? 25 A: No.


1 Q: You described yesterday a situation 2 which occurs in another unfortunate court report, or is 3 described there where Chief Wawanosh was disposed briefly? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: That was within ten (10) years of the 6 treaty? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Who deposed him? 9 A: Well, there were a series of petitions 10 and complaints that when from members of the community, of 11 both the communities at Aux Sable and Walpole and Sarnia. 12 And a Commission of Inquiry was held, witness statements 13 were taken, an investigation was conducted and his removal 14 was recommended. And that removal was effected by British 15 officials. 16 Q: By British officials? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Thank you. Had similar removals from 19 office or suspensions been done by British officials with 20 respect to other First Nations? 21 A: Chief Wabadik (phonetic) was threatened 22 with removal in the 1840's and 50's, but, it wasn't 23 carried out, but, it was a threat that I have seen 24 commonly in the -- at least the documentation in the 25 1840's and 50's.


1 Q: And would it be consistent with the 2 evidence you gave with respect to forced changes of 3 circumstances and lifestyles that there is a general 4 erosion of respect for the First Nations, for their 5 leadership, for their governance, and for their loss 6 through this period. 7 A: We start to see by the 1850's that the 8 government is interfering with the choices of the people 9 for their Chiefs, and they insist that the Chiefs' 10 appointments be approved by the Indian Department. 11 Their example is when the Chiefs want to 12 travel to a general council and they're told that they 13 can't hold general councils without government permission. 14 They have to travel distances for these general councils 15 and there's evidence that the Department would not allow 16 them to use their annuities for those travel expenses. 17 T. G. Anderson was particularly interested 18 in controlling the travel and communication of various 19 Chiefs, and by the 1860s, they were trying to insist on an 20 elected system. 21 The Chiefs that were still living at that 22 time, at least in my territory, the hereditary Chiefs, 23 were allowed to continue, but when a Chief died, the 24 Department often interfered with the selection of the 25 upcoming Chief, eventually insisted on elections that were


1 -- from which the women were excluded from -- from voting. 2 Q: Okay. Many writers have associated 3 the erosion of respect for First Nations and their 4 leadership and their customs, and for that matter, 5 lifestyles and beliefs, with the decreasing need for 6 Indian allies in warfare. 7 Do you consider that to be a fair analysis 8 or a significant factor? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: The 1827 Treaty, as you've described, 11 was a session, described itself as a session, whereas the 12 1790 Treaty was a purchase. These are both terms from the 13 Royal Proclamation. 14 What was ceded in 1827 by the First Nations 15 was the 2 million acre territory that was ultimately taken 16 up for settlement, but no session occurred with respect to 17 the Reserves, which were literally reserved and withheld 18 from the general session; is that correct? 19 A: Yes, there are two (2) possibilities, 20 or at least two (2) possibilities, for Reserves and the 21 way they're treated in the Treaty. There are some areas 22 where the government takes a surrender of the whole 23 territory and then grants back the area, so I would call 24 that a ceded Reserve or a granted back Reserve. 25 If the lands in question are completely


1 accepted from the transfer or the purchase, then their 2 styled, or I style them as unceded Reserves. And I would 3 characterize the Reserves from the Treaty twenty-nine (29) 4 as unceded Reserves. 5 Q: Thank you. And when you characterize 6 them as unceded, to your mind, does that suggest that 7 Aboriginal title to the whole territory continues 8 undiminished and unabated, within those unceded 9 territories? 10 A: That is my opinion, yes. 11 Q: Thank you. You also described, as a 12 result of the 1764 Niagra Treaty, the presents and 13 annuities that became a part of the covenant chain, -- 14 A: Not annuities, Sir. I would restrict 15 those to the purchases. But the presents were part of the 16 covenant chain. 17 Q: Presents. It was the Sir that took me 18 aback. The -- and those were made at one (1) or more 19 locations on an annual basis and relied upon as -- as 20 continuing evidence in manifestation of the covenant 21 chain? 22 A: That's right, it was a renewal of that 23 relationship. It was seen as a tribute almost, in some 24 situations. 25 Q: Are the 1764 Niagara presents still


1 made? 2 A: No. 3 Q: When did they stop? 4 A: The Government wanted -- started 5 expressing concerns to stop them in the 1830's. That's 6 why, when Bond Head wrote that report, saying that there 7 were in fact promises for those presents and they were -- 8 they were evidenced by the wampum belts that he had seen 9 as Siginac read (phonetic). 10 The -- the initial promises did not 11 distinguish as between Indians resident in upper Canada 12 and Indians in other areas, because upper Canada didn't 13 exist in 1764. 14 But in the late 1830's they started telling 15 the visiting Indians, who now found themselves on the 16 American side of the border, that if they didn't come and 17 live, they would lose their presents. So those presents 18 to the non-resident Indians ceased by 1843, I think. 19 They continued to tell people that they 20 wanted to cut back the presents and, at least in my 21 territory, the cessation of the presents was used as an 22 incentive to surrender land, because people didn't know 23 how they would survive if they didn't have land revenues 24 without the present. 25 There was a period in time when they --


1 they ceased the presents for all but the elderly and 2 infirm, and definitely by 1860 the presents were 3 completely -- had completely stopped. 4 Q: So the coven and chain in that form, 5 did not last a century? 6 A: No. 7 Q: The presents were completely 8 discontinued after being diminished over a period? 9 A: And there was great protest throughout 10 by the Anishnaabeg people reminding, reminding, reminding 11 the Department that these promises had been made. 12 Q: No doubt. Now, in terms of the treaty 13 of 29 and the 1827 treaty, it made provision for an 14 annuity of presents. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And those were gifts in kind or specie 17 that were -- 18 A: I wouldn't speak of presents because 19 that does introduce some confusion. The annuities were to 20 be paid in goods. 21 Q: Yes. Okay. The annuities in goods 22 were promised, again, in perpetuity? There was no 23 provision that they would stop at any point? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Did they stop?


1 A: I can't speak to that. In my 2 territory, they did. They had a provision in the 1850's 3 where they sort of amortized the annuities and they paid 4 out a lump sum into the various trust accounts. 5 So, we don't have pay days any more in our 6 community. There's no per capita distribution. 7 Q: Okay. And you're not aware of, whether 8 or not the same thing happened in this area? 9 A: No, but, it would surprise me if it 10 didn't because those policies tended to be at the 11 departmental level. 12 Q: That would surprise me too, but, I 13 think we can get evidence on that from another source, 14 Commissioner. 15 Thank you very much, Professor Johnston. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 17 much, Mr. Henderson. 18 Mr. Ross has decided that he has some 19 questions as well. Welcome, Mr. Ross. 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Not many questions, Mr. 21 Commissioner, just to clear up one or two things that were 22 raised. 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 25 Q: First, Professor Johnston, I would


1 really like to thank you for your contribution. I have 2 something in common with you to the same extent that 3 people suggested that your people had no more contact or 4 ownership rights to the land than the bobcats than the 5 caribou, in South Rhodesia, which went to the Privy 6 Council, it was said that another group over in another 7 continent had no more connection to the land than the 8 giraffes and the elephants. 9 That aside, I would like to ask you one (1) 10 or two (2) things about the -- around Treaty 29. When 11 that document was signed, it was clear that there were 12 three (3) bands -- 13 A: No, sir, it wasn't. 14 Q: Sorry -- three (3) chiefs -- 15 A: No, sir. 16 Q: Three (3) different units? 17 A: The -- what -- if you look at the text 18 of the treaty, they're called the Chippewa Nations and 19 there's several chiefs and principal men of the Chippewa 20 Nation. 21 And they don't distinguish them as the 22 Sarnia Indians, or the Sable Indians. And in fact, I had 23 to work from the 1840 documents to figure out which of the 24 signatories in '27 were Sable Indians. 25 Now, there's several versions. This treaty


1 was negotiated in 1819 and 1820 and 1825 and 1827. I 2 can't find evidence of a Sable signatory, in the 1827 3 agreement, and -- but Wapagus did sign the provisional 4 agreement in 1825. 5 So we know that a Sable chief signed the 6 '25 agreement, the 1825 agreement. And I know that 7 Quakegwan who signed the '27 eventually moves to Sable, 8 but, he doesn't move until the late 1830's. 9 Q: I see. And I refer you then to the 10 last document which was translated -- sorry, which was put 11 in normal print from the transcript which you had? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And it makes reference in here - and My 14 Friend Mr. Rosenthal drew your attention to it - about 15 three (3) bands, the interest of three (3) bands. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: I take it that in current day reading, 18 that would refer to Sarnia, the Walpole Island and the 19 current Stoney Point bands, would it? 20 A: No. From the context of this memo, 21 Walpole separated itself out in 1836 and so after 1836, 22 the three (3) bands that remained cojointly -- or remained 23 jointly were Sarnia, Kettle and Sable. 24 Q: Okay. And among those three (3) bands, 25 there was no right of dominance of any one (1); am I


1 correct with that? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And since that time, we know that 4 Sarnia has separated? 5 A: yes. 6 Q: And this might be a little bit beyond 7 the scope of your terms of reference and if it is, I will 8 -- I'll just ask you to, perhaps, just give me your best 9 answer. 10 With Sarnia having separated, there will -- 11 there will be no right of dominance among the other two 12 (2) remaining Bands, would there? 13 A: I would need to see the terms on which 14 Sarnia separated. But if there was not a formal 15 separation as between Kettle and Sable, then there would 16 be no -- there would be no right of dominance. 17 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you very kindly. 18 Those are my questions, Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you for 20 that. 21 Mr. Millar, I think we've reached the end 22 of the cross-examination. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes, Commissioner. I 24 have no questions in re-examination, unless you had some 25 questions.


1 I wish to, on behalf of the Commission, 2 then, thank Professor Johnston for her -- all of her work, 3 it's been very valuable and thank you, very much. 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 6 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 7 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, it's now 9 twenty (20) after 3:00 and although Ms. Holmes is here, 10 and has been here waiting to go on all week, I suggest 11 that by the time we have a break, it will be a quarter to 12 4:00, and it would make more sense to start her evidence 13 when we come back in August. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I take it 15 that no one disagrees with that position? 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The problem is, is if 17 we start, we're going to have to go over it again to -- to 18 really put it in -- in -- to bring it alive for everyone, 19 so... 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. I 21 think we've had a very good start in this Commission. I 22 going to thank Professor Johnston as well, and not only 23 Commission Counsel, but all Counsel who have cross- 24 examined. It's been very helpful in cross-examination, 25 obviously, as well as examination-in-chief.


1 I do think it would be unfortunate to start 2 a witness like Professor Holmes at a quarter to 4:00 on 3 the last day that we have set aside, when we are not re- 4 convening until August. It would mean a long hiatus 5 between the beginning of her testimony again. 6 Now I think this would be, in the 7 circumstances, an appropriate to adjourn, and we will 8 reconvene, what day is it, August the -- 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's August the 17th. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 17th. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's a Tuesday, we'll 12 be sitting in August; August 17th, August 18th, and August 13 19th, and we had proposed again on August the 17th to 14 start at 10:30 and the other days to start at 10:00. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All those 16 three (3) days will, in terms of the time frames, be 17 similar to the three (3) days that we just experienced? 18 They will be here in this location and will -- 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes, Commissioner, 20 they will be the -- the August Hearings, as the Hearing 21 days in September will be here in Forest. And for members 22 of the public, I remind everyone again that the schedule 23 is on our website, it's ipperwashinquiry.ca. Thank you, 24 sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you


1 very much. I think that concludes our business for today. 2 Thank you, very much. The Hearing is adjourned. 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 adjourned until Tuesday, August 17th, at 10:30 a.m. 5 6 --- Upon adjourning at 3:20 p.m. 7 8 9 10 11 Certified Correct, 12 13 14 15 16 _____________________ 17 Wendy Warnock, Ms. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25