Final Report

CHAPTER 2 HISTORY OF STONEY POINT AND KETTLE POINT 2.1 Expert Testimony at The Inquiry Joan Holmes was called as an expert witness in Aboriginal ethno-history and Aboriginal–government relations at the Part 1 evidentiary hearings. She was also retained by the Inquiry to write a report on the history of Kettle and Stony Point1 First Nation and the related reserves. By way of background, Ms. Holmes has a master’s degree in Northern and Native Issues as well as a degree in Anthropology. In her twenty-one years of experience, her work has concentrated on the historical relationship between the Crown and First Nations. Ms. Holmes has testified as an expert witness in court proceedings and has acted under joint retainers for First Nations and the federal government. Ms. Holmes is the author of many historical research studies on First Nations. She has examined the history of the Anishnabek2 and Ojibway communities in the areas of Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Bruce Peninsula, and Manitoulin Island. The relationship of these communities with the British Crown before treaties were entered into has been a focus of her studies. Ms. Holmes has also examined treaty negotiations between these First Nations and the Crown both before and after Confederation. The different approaches of the Crown and First Nations people to the treaties, and the reserves that were lost as a result of surrender or expropriation, has been the subject of her work. Ms. Holmes has studied the legislation prior to the Indian Act in 1876. She has also written on the development of the Indian Act, as well as the policies and practices of the Department of Indian Affairs. Ms. Holmes was retained by the Commission to provide historical background on Kettle and Stony Point. She was asked to begin in the pre-treaty period and canvass the major events of First Nations people in this geographic 1 When “Stoney” is used in relation to the Stoney Point Reserve, it is spelled with an “e.” When “Stony” is used as part of the name for the Indian Act Band Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, it is spelled without an “e.” In this report, “Kettle and Stony Point” refers to the people who resided at the two reserves and their ancestors. 2 Note: Anishnabek is also spelled Anishnaabek, Anishnabeg, and Anishnaabeg. 19 20 • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1 area. This included the establishment of the Kettle Point and Stoney Point Reserves, the treaties entered into with the government, and the loss of portions of these reserves to the Crown. It also included the appropriation of the Stoney Point Reserve by the Department of National Defence, and the response of the First Nations community to this government decision. Ms. Holmes examined approximately 350 documents to complete this work. Most of the older documents are located at the National Archives of Canada. More recent material was accessed through the Department of Indian Affairs Central Registry. Professor Darlene Johnston was also called as an expert witness at the Inquiry on Great Lakes Aboriginal history and traditions. Professor Johnston teaches Aboriginal Law, International Indigenous Law, Law and History, and Property Law at the University of Toronto Law School. Her Master of Laws thesis, “Litigating Identity: The Challenge of Aboriginality,” examined the evidentiary tests in Aboriginal rights litigation. Ms. Johnston received a Bachelor of Common Law (LL.B.) and Master of Laws (LL.M.) from the University of Toronto Law School, as well as a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in History from Queen’s University. Professor Johnston is the author of numerous articles and book chapters, the topics of which include Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the obstacles in using the Ontario Cemeteries Act to protect Aboriginal burial sites. She has written on the enfran- chisement provisions in the Indian Act, as well as the ambivalence of many First Nations people toward the concept of Canadian citizenship. Professor Johnston was a land claims research coordinator for the Chippewas of Nawash and Saugeen First Nations from 1992 to 2001. She made submissions in 1989 and 1991 to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs at the House of Commons. Professor Johnston has presented papers at numerous conferences in Canada as well as the U.S. on such subjects as “Anishnabek Totemic Identity and Landscape,” and “Traditional Knowledge and Aboriginal Rights.” Professor Johnston was asked by the Ipperwash Inquiry to provide historical and cultural perspectives on the Aboriginal people of the Great Lakes, particularly southwestern Ontario, and to examine the connection of these First Nations people to their land and burial grounds. She wrote a report for the Inquiry, “Connecting People to Place: Great Lakes Aboriginal History in Cultural Context.” To prepare this paper, Professor Johnston examined archival records, particularly those located at the Department of Indian Affairs. Professor Johnston provided expert testimony at the Inquiry’s evidentiary hearings. She is a descen- dant of the Great Lakes Aboriginal people. HISTORY OF STONEY POINT AND KETTLE POINT • 21 2.2 The British Conquest and The Royal Proclamation of 1763 Both before and at the time of the British conquest of New France in the mid- eighteenth century, the ancestors of Kettle and Stoney Point were Chippewas3 and Potawatomi living in the area of Lake Huron and the River St. Clair. After the Seven Years’War with New France in 1760, the British Crown became concerned about its relationship with First Nations people in this area. The British were intent on ensuring that the French remained out of this territory, and on securing control of the fur trade. In order to achieve these objectives, the British thought they should establish a co-operative and amicable relationship with First Nations people in this area. The ancestors of Kettle and Stony Point, however, had more allegiance to the French at this time, whom they thought would eventually regain control from the British.4 These First Nations people also believed that the British had been involved in fraudulent land deals. They consequently did not trust them and were concerned about establishing a relationship with the British Crown. In 1763, King George III made the protection of Aboriginal land an official Crown policy. He issued a Royal Proclamation, also known as the Indian Charter of Rights.5 The Proclamation established an “Indian country” where Aboriginal land was protected from encroachment or settlement. The Royal Proclamation established a territory beyond the settled colonies where land settlement was for- bidden. This land had to be voluntarily ceded to the Crown before non-Aboriginal settlers could occupy it. The Proclamation was intended to impose the Crown between the settlers and the Indians in order to avoid exploitation. The area occupied by the ancestors of Kettle and Stony Point lay within protected Indian country. As stressed in the expert testimony, the Royal Proclamation “is a very important document in Aboriginal history.” First Nations people con- sistently refer to the Royal Proclamation and look to it “for their protection, and as a basis for their relationship with the Crown”; “it’s a document that is well known, both amongst First Nations and amongst the Crown authorities.” Several important principles are contained in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the most fundamental of which is that First Nations people are to be treat- ed with honour and justice. As Holmes wrote in her report for the Inquiry, “[t]he British made these rules because they believed that fair and open negotiations 3 Name given to the Anishnabek people by the British. 4 Throughout the French regime in the Great Lakes area, from 1615 to 1670, the Anishnabek and the French were close allies. 5 It is also now referred to as the Magna Carta of the Indians of Canada. 22 • REPORT OF THE IPPERWASH INQUIRY — VOLUME 1 over Aboriginal land would help establish and keep peaceful relations with the Indian nations living under their protection.”6 The British created an Indian Department at this time under the guidance of Sir William Johnson. Its purpose was to manage Indian affairs on a uniform basis in conformity with the principles enunciated in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. 2.3 The Treaty of Niagara — The British Offer Two Wampum Belts Sir William Johnson of the British Indian Department was discharged with the responsibility of circulating copies of the Royal Proclamation to the Aboriginal peoples in the Great Lakes area and of securing an alliance with the Anishnabek people. In 1764, Sir William Johnson met with more than 1,500 Anishnabek Chiefs and warriors at Niagara Falls. As explained by Professor Darlene Johnston, the Treaty of Niagara was not written in alphabetic form; rather it was done accord- ing to Aboriginal protocol with the delivery of speeches and wampum belts. Sir William Johnson consummated the alliance with the Anishnabek with the delivery of “two magnificent wampum belts” accepted by the Aboriginal people. He offered the “[G]reat Covenant Chain Belt” to the Anishnabek and promised they would not become impoverished and their lands would not be taken: My children, I clothe your land, you see that Wampum before me, the body of my words, in this the spirit of my words shall remain, it shall never be removed, this will be your Mat the eastern Corner of which I myself will occupy, the Indians being my adopted children their life shall never sink in poverty. The “Mat” refers to Indian country. The Anishnabek promised in turn to be loyal and to support the King in both peace and war.

Load more