• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CLAIMS UPDATE N E W S L E T TE R SAUGEEN OJIBWAY NATION MNOOKMI 2011 Geewaedinooong Ae-pungishimook Waubunoong TREATY 72 (1854) Despite The Colpoys Bay Reserve previous promises to protect subject to TREATY 93 (1861) Zhauwunoong the Saugeen Peninsula, the Crown tells the SON it cannot protect the land from settlers, and the SON must allow this land to be opened up for settle- ABORIGINAL TITLE CLAIM AREA CANADA ment for the Crown to be able to protect the SON’s rights USA Georgian Bay The Nawash Reserve at Owen Sound subject to Chippewas of Nawash TREATY 82 (1857) Lake Unceded First Nation Huron The Half Mile Strip subject to Chief’s Point TREATY 67 (1851) Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation SydenhamMeaford River Collingwood Nattawasaga Saugeen River River TREATY 45 ½ (1836) The SON agree to open up the land south of Owen Sound for settlement, and the Crown promises to protect the Saugeen Peninsula forever for the First Nations and their members Maitland River Arthur Goderich MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEFS HOW WE GOT HERE Chief Ralph Akiwenzie wrote There is very little I can add to the solemn agreements between our The Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s the following message on impassioned words of my dear friend, Nation and the Crown. They are not (SON) territory was approximately Chief Ralph Akiwenzie. His message 2 million acres when the February 20, 2011, less than relics of the past, but rather living is exemplary of the vision and wisdom legal documents. The treaties are a Europeans arrived in the area. The two weeks before he passed he has brought to the many issues testament to the courage and dedica- British initially dealt with the away. It is one of his last facing our Nation. The resolution of tion of our ancestors to protect our Ojibway Nation on a nation-to- messages to the Nawash our Aboriginal Title claims will only relationship to the land (including the nation basis. They formed military alliances to advance Brit- community: further add to a tremendous legacy water) so that it would continue to that he left for us all. sustain us physically, culturally, and ish interests in the region. As they spiritually for generations to come. gained military power, the British This newsletter is intended to update I would like to acknowledge the We must continue to stand strong in policy began to change. The Crown both Chippewas of Nawash Unceded efforts of our Elders who have been our understanding of the treaties and sought what they considered to First Nation and Saugeen First Nation so fundamental in building the strong ensure that the hard work of so many be land surrenders by negotiating communities about the ongoing efforts evidentiary “back bone” for these of our people has not been in vain. It is treaties with First Nations through- of our legal advisors, Olthuis Kleer claims. I would also like to acknowl- imperative, to echo the sentiments of out the late 18th and into the 19th Townshend LLP, and our researchers edge the long standing efforts of our Chief Ralph Akiwenzie, that we stay centuries. This left many bands to advance the major land claim and current and past leaders who have the course. We will not falter. without enough lands to support the Aboriginal Title claim. They are fought so hard for the recognition We will succeed. themselves. to be commended for their dedication and protection of our rights, interests and commitment to the cause. I wish and way of life. Your dedication is an to also acknowledge the important inspiration to us all and a reminder Kitchi Miigwetch, TREATIES AND role that the Elders of both communi- of the strong resolve of our people. Chief Randall Kahgee SURRENDERS OF LAND ties have played in the research and To our legal team, I would say Kitchi Saugeen First Nation testimonies given. Kitchi miigwetch to miigwetch for your dedication to our Treaties are agreements Polly Keeshig-Tobias, The Illustrated History of the Chippewas of Nawash (Chippewas of Nawash, 1996) past Chiefs and Councillors who have people, communities and our Nation between First Nations protecting the relationship that First demonstrated leadership toward reach- and your commitment to justice for and the Crown. While the Nations had with their land. THE CLAIMS ing our common goals. our ancestors and our future Crown used treaties to gain access to land for settlement The SON and the British concluded I firmly believe that justice will prevail generations. Finally, to our people: In 1994, the SON brought an and mining, First Nations a treaty in 1836 that dealt with the in the very near future whereby the you are the foundation and strength action in court claiming that understood treaties as SON’s traditional territory. In ex- future generations will be the ultimate to our Nation. Without your past and INSIDE THE UPDATE Treaty 72 was unfair based building nation-to-nation change for opening up a portion of benefactors once these claims are continual support, we would relationships and protect- their land for settlement, the British on the Crown’s behaviour resolved. In the meantime, I feel that simply not be where we are today. HOW WE GOT HERE ........3 ing their relationship to promised the SON that the and broken promises. the education process must be acceler- The journey we have embarked on is the land. The Crown often Saugeen Peninsula would be pro- In 2003, the SON brought ated with the younger generation (our “our” journey. Through unity comes THE TREATY 72 promised to protect First tected forever for their use. But, another claim seeking a youth) in that these claims be included strength. I am confident that together CLAIM ...................................4 Nations’ rights and to set not too long after, the government declaration of Aboriginal in their school curriculum at all levels. we will succeed in our quest for justice aside tracts of land for the claimed that they could no longer title to portions of Lake Huron Finally, to our community member- for the Crown’s legacy of broken exclusive occupation and THE ABORIGINAL protect the Saugeen Peninsula ship, I say: let’s keep the momentum promises and the reaffirmation of use of the First Nations and and Georgian Bay waterbeds. TITLE CLAIM ........................6 from settlers unless that land was going as our identity and future are at our Title to the lakebed that has been its members. Although a number of subject to another treaty with the stake! Therefore, your continual vested with our people and our Nation treaties read as surrenders of PROTECTING SON Crown. This resulted in Treaty 72 support is vital to our eventual success since time immemorial. land throughout the SON’s in the courts. RIGHTS & INTERESTS .......7 in 1854, where the SON allowed traditional territory, there are I hope that this newsletter offers the First Nations had a different under- much of the land on the Peninsula no treaties that relate to the Kitchi Miigwetch, opportunity for our young people to THE LEGAL PROCESS ........8 standing of what treaties with the to be opened up to settlement, be- British meant. They thought the lieving that there was no other way ownership of the lakes and Chief Ralph Akiwenzie better understand and appreciate our Ogimaa, Chippewas of Nawash history, treaties and our rightful place treaties were a means of building for the Crown to protect the bands’ waterbeds. Unceded First Nation within our homeland. Our treaties are a nation-to nation relationship and interests. THE TREATY 72 CLAIM IS NOT ABOUT ❖ RETURN OF LAND IN PRIVATE HANDS In 1854, the SON signed Treaty 72 ❖ COMPENSATION FOR with the Crown. The treaty dealt THE TREATY 72 CLAIM IS ABOUT LOSS OF USE OF THE with land on the Saugeen Peninsu- ❖ THE “EQUITABLE VALIDITY” OF TREATY 72 OF 1854: FISHERY la. The SON is challenging Treaty Given the circumstances and the relationship between the ❖ 72 based on the following: IMPLEMENTATION OF SON and the Crown, was the treaty fair? If it wasn’t fair, THE TREATY: The Crown accepted a duty to then Treaty 72 is not equitably valid. To the legal extent The claim is not about protect the Saugeen Peninsula possible, the court must wind back its provisions and provide whether the treaty was for the SON a remedy to the SON. This is different than asking whether properly implemented, i.e. • In Treaty 45 ½, 1836, the Crown Treaty 72 is valid according to rules of common law, which did the SON get full value assured the SON that if the First would be about undoing everything that has happened for lands, or what happened Nations allowed land in the since 1854. to the money from the southern part of its traditional ❖ RETURN OF LAND IN GOVERNMENT HANDS: land sales. This would be a separate claim. territory to be opened for Return of lands that have NOT been purchased by people who did not participate or know about the Crown’s breaches ❖ THE VALIDITY OR INVA- Polly Keeshig-Tobias, The Illustrated History of the Chippewas of Nawash (Chippewas of Nawash, 1996) of duty, i.e. government lands such as national parks, road LIDITY OF TREATY 45 ½ WHAT DOES allowances, and shore road allowances. “EQUITABLE” MEAN? ❖ It’s important to under- COMPENSATION FOR NON-RETURNABLE LAND stand the difference between ❖ COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF USE OF THE LAND • The Crown did not properly RETURN OF LAND: COMPENSATION: EQUITABLE validity and advise SON about their rights If the land is still owned by the Based on the advice of experts, the COMMON LAW validity.

Load more

  5

Copy Link