flag HISTORICAL REPORT
ON INVERHURON AND INVERHURON PROVINCIAL PARK

DRAFT
Dr. David T. McNab and Mr. Paul-Emile McNab
14 Howland Road
Toronto, Ontario
M4K 2Z6
TELEPHONE: (416) 465-1018
FAX: (416) 465-2568
E-MAIL: dtmcnab@yorku.ca
January 23rd, 2009


CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION
B. THE EARLY INDIGENOUS HISTORY OF THE SAUGEEN (INVERHURON) TERRITORY
C. GUS WEN TAH, THE COVENANT CHAIN OF SILVER AND THE TWO ROW WAMPUM
D. THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763
E. INDIGENOUS HISTORY OF THE SAUGEEN (INVERHURON) TERRITORY IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES
F. ENGLISH IMPERIAL POLICIES AND THE TREATIES IN THE SAUGEEN TERRITORY IN THE 19TH CENTURY
G. THE METIS AND THE SAUGEEN (INVERHURON) TERRITORY
H. THE MAKING OF THE TOWN OF INVERHURON IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
I. TOURISM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INVERHURON PROVINCIAL PARK IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY
J. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE BRUCE NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY AND THE CLOSING OF CAMPING AT INVERHURON PROVINCIAL PARK, 1976-2006
K. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE BRUCE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN THE LATE 20TH AND EARLY 21ST CENTURY
L. THE ONTARIO METIS AND THE POWLEY CASE
M. HISTORICAL SUMMARY
N. NOTES
O. APPENDICES

A. INTRODUCTION

The Inverhuron area (originally part of the Saugeen-meaning the Place where the mouth of the river flows-Territory) is located between Douglas Point to the north and Point Clark to the south adjacent to Lake Huron, which is located north of Kincardine in present day Bruce County. It has a history of both Anishinabe (also identified as the Three Fires Confederacy-the Ojibwa, Potawatomi and the Ottawa) and Metis cultures. Metis means "mixed" from both Indigenous and largely European cultures-usually, but not always, French and Scottish. In Indigenous languages, such as Cree, Metis is apethaghosinan which means the "half son of my people". Metis connotes the relationship of the "other son" in the Indigenous family and clan context. The Metis people were originally part of the cultures and societies of Indigenous First Nations and Europeans. This situation was officially recognized in the first Indian Acts in the colonial history of the Canadas. It was only in the late nineteenth century under the 1876 Indian Act that this relationship was changed formally by federal government fiat. After the end of the second Metis resistance movement (the first resistance movement occurred in 1869-70) was put down by Canadian armed forces in 1885, and one of their leaders, Louis Riel, was hanged, Metis citizens effectively became and were treated as "outlaws" in their Homeland of Canada.
This Territory was protected from Lake Huron (this name was given to this Lake by the French instead of "Wendat"-meaning those who dwelt on the islands or on the peninsula) by natural bays filled with sandy places to land canoes along its shores. It had been a summer camping and fishing place used for thousands of years by its Indigenous inhabitants. It was a sacred place; one of the ceremonies in late summer was held, among other things, for healing. Much later, in the 17th century, the colonial name of this place became the Gaelic Inverhuron, "inbhir", meaning river mouth. This name for the place was called (erroneously) after the Huron people who were believed by the French imperialists to have resided there. While geographically separate, these two Indigenous areas share a common history at least until the late nineteenth century.
The history of the Saugeen Territory (which included the area of Inverhuron) begins in (at least) the aboriginal pre-historic settlement (1600-800 B.C.) and has at least six thousand years of history and is commonly referred to by archeologists as the Inverhuron archaic. Indigenous settlement had dominated the region simply known as Inverhuron for hundreds of years. The Iroquois, Wyandots (also known as Hurons), the Anishinabe (the "original people", known also as Ojibwa) and the Metis all have a deep-rooted history in the region. By the 17th century, the Saugeen Anishinabe had developed strong economic and trade partnerships with both the French and British independent and corporate traders (North West and Hudson's Bay Companies). In fact, it was the relationship between the Anishinabe and the French (and later the Scottish traders both as independent entities and employees of the Hudson's Bay Company) that formed the origins of the Metis history in the Inverhuron area (and the Saugeen Territory adjacent to Lake Huron) as well as the waters and the islands within it. Before the late 19th century, there were no roads or railroads in this part of Upper Canada (later the Province of Canada and then southern Ontario). Many of the Metis traders who came to the shores of Lake Huron came by way of canoes and later sailing ships.
By the mid-19th century a town known as Inverhuron had emerged as a Metis and a Scottish place. It had now become an important fishing, trading and hunting post and as well as a key shipping port, with a newly-established harbour. In a short time Inverhuron quickly became a thriving place for shipping and trading grain and other commodities such as furs and fish. However, in 1882 and 1887 two significant fires had destroyed the warehouse and the pier and had severely devastated the entire town. The origin of the fires was never quite known, however, there have been many whispers that its rival Kincardine had been blamed for its destruction. The town was never rebuilt and much of the area returned to its natural state-a beautiful sandy beach and the dunes on it. Stuart Ogg has written a noteworthy early history of these, and subsequent events, in his "History of Inverhuron" which is attached as Appendix A.
While the town of Inverhuron was no more, by the turn of the twentieth century, Inverhuron soon became a resort area in the spring and summer months for both cottagers and tourists. By 1957, a portion of the former town and the smaller geographical area simply known as Inverhuron officially became a Provincial Park in Bruce County. In the 1960s Ontario Hydro began to develop its nuclear plant at Douglas Point and this environmental change impacted on the Inverhuron Provincial Park in the 1970s and subsequently to this day.
By the early 1960's Inverhuron Provincial Park became one of the most desirable destinations for visitors and overnight campers. It had been named after the original townsite and had been declared a provincial heritage park, preserved for recreation, education, scenic and historical significance by the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. In fact, in 1961, Inverhuron had become a popular tourist destination and the total number of campers had reached 21,737 and a total number of visitors had reached 101,353 for a total attendance of 123,090. However, the popularity of Inverhuron Provincial Park as a unique tourist destination became endangered in 1969, when Ontario Hydro constructed a heavy water plant at Douglas Point. It was adjacent to the park. The plans for a new installation of a heavy water plant, known as the Bruce Heavy Water Plant (BHWP), posed a threat as it would share the shoreline with Inverhuron Provincial Park. Both uncertainty and concern emerged for Inverhuron. The danger to the environment and the odor of hydrogen sulphide (sulphur)-"a rotten egg smell"- was released periodically from the plant into the air and the adjacent living space.

In order to resolve the situation and meet the concerns of the public in Bruce County, the Ministry of Natural Resources, formerly the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, and Ontario Hydro had negotiated an agreement in 1972. In it, title to Inverhuron Provincial Park was turned over to Ontario Hydro and then leased back to the Ministry for 999 years. This land was to be maintained and operated as a park for day use only. Ontario Hydro agreed to finance the purchase of private lands that would be required for the opening of a new provincial park at MacGregor Point, which was located approximately twenty-five kilometres north of the Inverhuron site. The integrity of the provincial park system became endangered as the sale of a provincial park to industry came into question and it became a dangerous precedent for the provincial government. However, the failure to purchase the private lands surrounding the MacGregor Point areas, caused in a delay in the opening of that park and the closure of overnight camping at Inverhuron in 1975. Many environmental and safety concerns were raised which affected the day, and overnight, campers at Inverhuron and to the adjacent properties surrounding the heavy water plant. The danger and effects to human life became apparent in the area of Inverhuron, because of the possible descent of hydrogen sulphide gases. The documentation suggests a real possible risk did exist to the public who frequented and inhabited the areas of Inverhuron during the operational period of the BHWP. This report will explore both the ancient and modern history of the area known formerly as part of part of the Saugeen Territory, including Inverhuron Provincial Park.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Eugene Bourgeois, who has resided in Inverhuron since the early 1970s, and has been a witness to many of these events. He has also drawn to our attention the plethora of issues involved in this historical research. We would like to thank him for inviting us to do historical research on these issues.

B. THE EARLY INDIGENOUS HISTORY OF THE SAUGEEN (INVERHURON) TERRITORY

The rich Indigenous history of the Saugeen Territory (including the Inverhuron area) dates back to time immemorial when these places were occupied by Indigenous people. Their Territory, although never surveyed during the 19th century Treaty period or thereafter, was in very general terms from Point Clark to Tobermory as well as all the waters and islands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. See below for a map of the Ontario Treaty areas (the 1862 Treaty area, including the Inverhuron area, is shown immediately below the Bruce Peninsula) :
history-histpic01


Anishinabe and Haudenosaunee people had camped at Inverhuron at least up until the 1300s (and thereafter). According to archeologists, the Haudenosaunee were the occupants about the 14th century. According to the Indigenous Knowledge and concepts-the bowl with one spoon, this Territory was shared among Haudenosaunee and the Anishinabe people. In fact, in the past few decades, archaeologists and excavations have confirmed the Indigenous histories at Inverhuron. Many historians and archaeologists have frequented Inverhuron for its vast archaeological history that has uncovered its significance to Canada. Both Fritz Knechtel and Peter G. Ramsden have provided many reports on Inverhuron and its historic settlement. However, to local residents, the history of the Inverhuron area is common knowledge as a result of Knechtel, a local amateur archaeologist, who conducted the first research in the 1930s.
When the land had initially been purchased for park purposes in the 1950s, the Department of Lands and Forests had asked the Royal Ontario Museum's archeologists to assess the area. The results of the excavation uncovered one of the most abundant and informative archaeological deposits in Ontario, in which a series of ancient cultures had been unearthed, representing a cultural evolution that had spanned several thousand years. Both, historians and archaeologists have identified and divided the Indigenous history of Inverhuron into five separate categories. The first was known as the Inverhuron Archaic Culture spanning from 3000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. Their culture was identified as early hunting and gathering peoples. This culture was a local expression of the "Archaic period" which shared general similarities with other tribes over a large area of eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. After the examination of the tools found at this site, archaeologists had determined that the tools used by these peoples were unshaped flakes of stone. Also the site revealed that buffalo bores had been identified and dated approximately from 1200-900 B.C. Buffalo has been extinct in this area for hundreds of years. The second period was known as the Early Woodland Culture ca. 900 B.C. - 500 B.C. Archaeologists had discovered pottery which indicated the end of the archaic period and the beginning of the "Woodland" periods. The Indigenous people, who occupied this area, were thought by archeologists to be mainly fisherman, since discoveries of artifacts have included native copper fish hooks and stone sinkers for the nets. They were likely also farmers, gatherers and hunters. The third period known as the Middle Woodland Culture ca. 600 B.C. - 1000 A.D. saw a further refinement in the tools and the subsistence methods used by the previous Woodland cultures. This period saw an increase in the population. It has been determined that agriculture took hold during this period and the villages at Inverhuron became larger. Archaeologists had also found stone artifacts that included bird stones, polished adzes, wedges, flint cores and native copper beads and punches. The third period was known as the Late Woodland (Early Iroquoian Culture) ca.1100 A.D. - 1650 A.D. Although hunting, gathering and fishing remained an important method of culture, agriculture came to the forefront as the main form of economic subsistence. They grew maize, beans, squash and other vegetables. The Late Woodland culture caught passenger pigeons, loons, ducks, bears, fishers, otters, beavers, porcupines, foxes and whitetail dear. At the time of European contact, according to archeologists, the Indigenous people of Inverhuron included the Petun, or Tobacco Nation. They were citizens of the Iroquoian-speaking family and tribes who inhabited much of what we would term today southern Ontario and the St. Lawrence Valley and New York State.

C.GUS WEN TAH, THE COVENANT CHAIN OF SILVER AND THE TWO ROW WAMPUM
The Indigenous Treaties, under the Covenant Chain of Silver, have a long history that was recorded in wampum belts, in oral traditions as well as in the written record of Europeans. It was an innovation of the Indigenous Nations (Haudenosaunee and the Anishinabe, aka the Council of Three Fires and the Lakes or Western Confederacy) firstly among themselves and later, since the 17th century, with Europeans. The Saugeen people (who included the Anishinabe and the Metis who had been adopted by the former) were part of the Council of Three Fires. One of these Treaties, the Two Row Wampum, epitomized the Covenant Chain of Silver and what it represented to the relationship between the French and then English imperial governments and the Aboriginal Nations: namely, Peace, Respect and Trust. The Two Row Wampum has been defined as a "bed of white wampum shell beads symbolizing the sacredness and purity of the treaty agreement between the two sides": Two parallel rows of purple wampum beads that extend down the length of the belt represent the separate paths travelled by the two sides on the same river. Each side travels in its own vessel: the Indians in a birch bark canoe, representing their laws, customs, and ways, and the whites in a ship, representing their laws, customs, and ways. In presenting the Gus-Wen-Tah to solemnize their treaties with the Western colonial powers, the Iroquois would explain its basic underlying vision of law and peace between different peoples as follows: "We shall each travel the river together, side by side, but in our own boat. Neither of us will steer the other's vessel. This Wampum Belt was initially given by the English to the Haudenosaunee to cement the Treaty entered into at Albany in 1664. The Haudenosaunee people were the "grandfathers" to the First Nations of the Western Confederacy. The significance of the Covenant Chain of Silver and the Two Row Wampum cannot be underestimated in terms of land and sovereignty. Sir William Johnson, the English Crown's Imperial appointee to the Indian Department in 1755, highlighted its magnitude in 1764. Johnson's statement was made (after the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and after the Treaty of Niagara of 1764) through which the Western Confederacy became a party to the Covenant Chain: ... as I know it has been verry [very] customary for many People to insinuate that the Indians call themselves Subjects, although I am thoroughly convinced they were never so called, nor would they approve of it. Tis [It is] true that when a Nation find themselves pushed, their Alliances broken, and themselves tired of a War, they are verry [very] apt to say many civil things, and make any Submissions which are not agreable [agreeable] to their intentions, but are said meerly [merely] to please those with whom they transact Affairs as they know they cannot enforce the observance of them. but you may be assured that none of the Six nations, Western Nations [including the Western Confederacy] &ca. ever declared themselves to be Subjects, or will ever consider themselves in that light whilst they have any Men, or an Open Country to retire to, the very Idea of subjection would fill them with horror. Indeed I have been just looking into the Indian Records, where I find in the Minutes of 1751 that those who made ye Entry Say, that Nine different Nations acknowledged themselves to be His Majesty's Subjects, altho' [although] I sat at that Conference, made entrys [entries] of all the Transactions, in which there was not a Word mentioned, which could imply a Subjection, however these matters (notwithstanding all I have from time to time said on that subject) seem not to be well known at home, and therefore, it may prove of dangerous consequence to persuade them that the Indians have agreed to things which (had they even assented to) is so repugnant to their principles that the attempting to enforce it, must lay the foundation of greater Calamities than has yet been experienced in this Country. It is necessary to observe that no Nation of Indians have any word which can express, or convey the Idea of Subjection, they often say, 'we acknowledge the great King to be our Father, we hold him fast by the hand, and we shall do what he desires' many such like words of course, for which our People too readily adopt & insert a Word verry [very] different in signifiation [signification], and never intended by the Indians without explaining to them what is meant by a Subjection. Imagine to yourself Sir, how impossible it is to reduce a People to Subjection, who consider themselves Independant [Independent] thereof by both Nature & Scituation [Situation], who can be governed by no Laws, and have no other Tyes [Ties] among themselves but inclination, and suppose that it's explained to them that they shall be governed by the laws liable to the punishments for high Treason, Murder, Robbery and the pains and penaltys [penalties] on Actions for property or Debt, then see how it will be relished, and whether they will agree to it, for without the Explanation, the Indians must be Strangers to the Word, & ignorant of the breach of it. The Western Confederacy (including citizens of the Metis Nation) formally adhered to the Covenant Chain at the Treaties of Montreal (1701 and 1760), Detroit (1760-1765) Niagara (1764) and Lake Ontario at Oswego (1766). Subsequently, it became a framework for future Treaties in the 19th and 20th centuries.

D. INDIGENOUS HISTORY OF THE INVERHURON TERRITORY IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES

Indigenous citizens (including Metis citizens since the 17th century ) have continued to reside in Inverhuron. They included the Haudenosaunee (people of the Longhouse, also known as Iroquoian people, also identified as the Six Nations, the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora and Seneca). Anishinabe (the original people, also identified as Ojibway or Chippewa) were also residents of this Territory. They shared these lands and waters with the Haudenosaunee based on the Indigenous political concept of the Dish with One Spoon. The descendants of all of these peoples still live in this Territory in what is today part of southwestern Ontario along the Lake Huron shoreline.
By 1649, the Wendat people had lost their Homeland on the shores of Georgian Bay as a result of disease spread by French missionaries among them. Some moved south and settled on Reserve south of the Detroit River provided to them by the Council of Three Fires after the McKee Treaty (Treaty #2) was negotiated on May 19th, 1790 at Detroit. By 1650, the Haudenosaunee, the Council of Three Fires citizens and the Metis were left in the Saugeen Territory. By 1652, both the Council of Three Fires and the Haudenosaunee met at the Saugeen River and a peace treaty was reached, although it would only last for about three years.
On Lake Huron alone, over 700 war canoes of the Three Fires Confederacy had gathered. One of the first battles took place at the mouth of the Saugeen River in 1655. However, the only known accounts of these wars were the oral accounts and traditions of the Indians involved. For example the Reverend George Copway, a Methodist Mississaga, who resided among the Saugeen Indians in the 1840's gave the following account of the war on the Saugeen peninsula:
The Ojibways … annually sent some of their number to trade with the French at Quebec or Montreal. A party of these were waylaid and killed by the Iroquois. Threats of reprisals were treated by the latter with scorn. After a second party had been similarly attacked and slain, a council of nations was held resulting in some of their chiefs being sent to confer with the Iroquois. The meeting was held at Saugeen and resulted in the Iroquois agreeing to pay a bale of furs for each man that had been killed, and in addition granted permission to the Ojibways to pass peaceably on trading trips to Montreal. This treaty held good for three years, when bands of Iroquois waylaid simultaneously several parties of Ojibways returning from a trading journey. This happened in the fall of the year… In the meantime runners were sent to the various allies in the coming war. In the month of May following, the combined forces gathered in two parties, one at Lake St. Clair and the other at Sault Ste. Marie, seven hundred canoes being there assembled. This latter party divided into two bands. One advanced on the enemy by way of the Ottawa valley, while the other proceeded to Penetangquishene. The Lake St. Clair division at the same time came up the east coast of Lake Huron to the mouth of the Saugeen River, where a fierce battle was fought with the Iroquois, who ultimately gave way and fled before the savage onslaught of the Ojibways.
Following the nearly forty years of war, the majority of the Haudenosaunee were forced out of the area and some of them eventually fled to an area south of Lake Ontario.
Peace followed thereafter (the Great Peace of 1701). The Three Fires Confederacy (and the Metis) continued to reside in the Saugeen Territory. The fur trade increasingly became a significant adjunct to the Indigenous economy in the Great Lakes. This change did not alter the sovereignty of First Nations, including the Metis Nation.
Metis initiatives in the fur trade and in other activities have been obscured. Metis society began, it is said by Metis historians, nine months after the coming of the first white men to the North American continent. Now the citizens of the Metis Nation have begun to give voice to their history in the Saugeen Territory and also Inverhuron. In 2005 they published their own history: Historic Saugeen and Its Metis People edited by Patsy Lou McArthur. In it, Jim McLay, the head of the Sauguinge Metis Council wrote the following about the early history of the Metis in the Saugeen Territory: "Lake Huron in the 17th Century"
While searching for my ancestors I began to wonder about those first Europeans that came to Lake Huron. This started with a reference to a la Vallee with the Jesuit missionaries in 1626. Although much more research into the early French families, the Huron survivors, and their descendents should be completed to document the genesis of the Metis Nation, here is what I've learned so far about Lake Huron in the 17th century.
Etienne Brule lived with the Algonquin people starting in 1610 and the Recollect Father LeCaron arrived among the Huron at present day Midland in 1615. Champlain arrived in Huronia shortly after, having met the Ottawa near the mouth of the French River. He called them the Cheveux Releves, the "high or staring" hairs. Later he visited the Ottawa again describing the Neutral Nation as being two days to the south. Therefore the likely location of this meeting is the west shore of Georgian Bay in Grey County.
In 1626 the first Jesuit priests Fathers Brebeuf, De Noue, and Joseph de la Roche Daillion arrived at Huronia and established the mission of St. Marie. Daillion continued on beyond the country of the Petuns (the Tobacco Nation centered in the Nottawasaga valley), to the country of the Neutrals. This Nation had 28 villages spreading from the Grand River along the north shore of Lake Erie. He was accompanied by two employes Grenolle and la Vallee. The employes returned and Daillion stayed to found the mission Notre Dame des Anges. The Iroquois decimated the Huron Nation in 1649 and the missions were abandoned. About 300 Huron survivors mostly women and children returned to Quebec with the Jesuits. Probably the descendants of these people were prominent in the fur trade returning to Lake Huron starting 50 years later.
The seminary college of Notre Dame des Anges was built at Quebec in 1637 and served to educate some of the young Huron. A Monsieur de laVallee is the sponsoring godfather for a Huron boy in 1643. The Lavallee mentioned above is likely fur trader Godfrey Guillot Lavallee. Although genealogists indicate he was born in Ruffec, France about 1614 perhaps he is older as he would only be 12 in 1626. He married Marie D'Abancourt, the widow Jolliet, in 1651 and his stepsons Adrien and Louis were educated at Notre Dame des Anges. Their son Petit Jean was also a servant at the school in 1666 after his father drowned the year before. The Iroquois killed Petit Jean at the Long Sault in 1692. Petit Jean Lavallee was the great grandfather of fur trader Pierre, and great great grandfather of Denis, both of Lake Huron in the 18th and 19th centuries respectively. Tonnelier (cooper) Denis Lavallee died at Grande Baie (Colpoy's Bay, Grey County) before 1856 but his Metis descendents remain. The Lavallee Metis families in the west are also descended from the Petit Jean family line. Portion of Sanson's 1656 map
history-histpic02


Part of Lahontan 1690 map

Sanson, geographer to the King of France, drew a map of New France based on the Jesuit's descriptions and published it in 1656. This map shows the Ottawa at Manitoulin Island and marks the missions of St. Simon and St. Jude on the Saugeen Peninsula. The map is criticized because of the text scale and placement, and its anecdotal origins. However other references to these missions exist. Father Andreestablished the mission of St. Simon for the Ottawa of Manitoulin in 1669 after they return to Lake Huron leaving Father Marquette at La Pointe on Lake Superior. Baron de Lahontan map of 1690 indicates a "supposed" fort at the tip of the peninsula that may be St. Simon. Further evidence is given in an 1873 anecdotal report to the Indian agent William Bull of the remains of an ancient stockade in the bush between Tobermory and Baptist harbour similar to the description of Marquette's fort at La Pointe. Sanson's map also shows the mission St. Pierre near southern Bruce County. The mission of St. Francois shown on the map may correspond to the ruins of a house reported by fur trader Edward Petit near the Aux Sauble River in the 1830's.
history-histpic04


In 1688 Baron de Lahontan abandoned the French military fort St. Joseph at the south end of Lake Huron for Mackinac in the north. He rallied support from some Ottawa, Huron and Ojibway and returned along the east coast of Lake Huron. He spent four days at the mouth of the Maitland River, which he called the Theononanta. The Tionontate people are "the people from over the hills" (from the Nottawasaga valley) in the Huron language. His map shows two of their destroyed villages north of the Maitland River. A stone carved with the date 1668 found at Colpoy's Bay in the 20th century also hints to the location of further Jesuit activity.
In 1669 two Sulpician priests Dollier de Casson and Galinee were travelling with La Salle to the Ohio. At a Seneca village between the Grand River and Burlington Bay they met Jolliet stepson of Godfrey Guillot Lavallee. Whether this is Louis or Adrien is debatable. Although Louis purchased supplies to go fur trading in 1669, Adrien was sent to find the copper mines of Lake Superior by Jean Talon governor and king's attendant in Canada. Whichever brother it is, he is the first explorer to use the route via Detroit and Lake Erie. Adrien had been one of 28 traders with Radisson and Groseillers to Green Bay, Wisconsin, in 1654, and Louis later gained fame as an explorer/trader to the Mississippi with Father Marquette in 1673. La Salle returned to Quebec with Jolliet but later built the first ship on the Upper Great Lakes. The Griffon was lost on Lake Huron in 1678 but La Salle was not with his ship and later reached the mouth of the Mississippi.
history-histpic07


Galinee's 1670 map
Jolliet told Dollier and Galinee of his route along the east coast of Lake Huron and the priests decided to go this way to Sault Ste. Marie. They destroyed [what they described as] large stone idol at the west end of Lake Erie [likely at Bob Lo Island in the Detroit River] on their way. Gallinee was a cartographer and used a jacobstaff to measure his latitude. His map of 1670 gives detail where he has actually been, but speculates that Lake Huron and Michigan are one lake. It does indicate the mouth of a large river in the location of the Saugeen.
During the 1690's warfare between the Iroquois and the Anishnabe Three Fires Confederacy of Ottawa, Ojibway and Potawattimie Nations, returned the Lake Huron territory to the Huron survivors and these allies. Over the next century the dynamic Lake Huron fur trade centered from Mackinac develops. Here at Saugeen, the earliest evidence of trade begins with the 1798 wreck of John Askin's trade ship "Weazell". So there is a century-large gap in local history from the Battle of Skull Mound, fought on the banks of the Saugeen, and the wreck of the Weazell.
Who am I in all this? I'm the great great great grandson of Angelique Lavallee. Proof of her parentage hasn't been found but she sponsored several baptisms of the children of known daughters of Denis Lavallee and Catherine Francoeur. So Angelique is likely an older daughter. One other Lavallee, Alexis, also has Lake Huron Descendents. He is close in age to Denis with unknown parentage, but is possibly a cousin. Angelique was born on St. Joseph Island about 1820 and married Drummond Island voyageur Charles Desjardins. They raised their family about Georgian Bay, baptizing children at Chebonaning (Killarney) 1838, Penentanguishene 1840's, then in the Nawash village and at Cape Croker.
The Charles Desjardins family share family and cultural ties with the Metis families at Big Bay, Owen Sound, Saugeen, and Penetanguishene and around the Lake. Their son Pierre married Florence Boucher of the Boucher, Laramee, Cloutier, Metis family lines. The story of these families is told in her mother's narrative in the A.C. Osborne paper "The Migration of Voyageurs". Their children were raised at Owen Sound and Cape Croker. After Florence's death in 1891, the children stayed with the nuns at Penetanguishene while Pierre was away at fishing camps. Daughter Adeline married Roland Edmonstone and raised a large family at Vail's Point and at the fishing station on Jenny Island in Rattlesnake Harbour, Fitzwilliam Island. Their daughter Gertrude married Hugh Kenneth McLay and their sons were raised at Stokes Bay. Raymond is my father and I grew up at Southampton working on Lake Huron-like my father and all those generations before!
history-histpic09

Gertrude Edmonstone

history-histpic08

Ray and Ken McLay with their Dad's boat



Throughout the first half of the eighteenth century the Anishinabe Nation and the Metis Nation in the Saugeen Territory inhabited a large portion of the current Bruce County. The area known as "Saugeen" begins at Point Clark on Lake Huron extending north to lands end at Tobermory and east and south into Georgian Bay as far as Owen Sound. The term "Saugeen", in English derived from a corruption of the Ojibway term meaning "mouth of a river." These First Nations became allies of the French and they gathered, fished, trapped and hunted along the many rivers and lakes around the Saugeen Peninsula.
However, while the Anishinabe maintained a strong partnership of trade with both New England and New France, there were three factors that threatened the Ojibway in the Saugeen Territory. Firstly, the Ojibway had lost a crucial ally in France when it was defeated by the British in the Seven Years War (1755-1763). Secondly, the American Revolution (1774-83) led to an influx of United Empire Loyalists (UEL) from the former American colonies to Quebec and what became Upper and Lower Canada in 1791. Thirdly, the War of 1812-14, and the United States invasion of British North America, prompted many Indigenous Nations to fight alongside the British forces (as well as the Americans) in order to protect their Homelands. In return, the English empire promised the Haudenosaunee two large Reserves adjacent to the Grand (formerly the Bear) River and at Tyendinaga on the Bay of Quinte in Lake Ontario. The influx of the Haudenosaunee and the UEL gradually increased with the majority arriving from c. 1780 to 1797.
The Anishinabe (Three Fires Confederacy) and the Metis Nation were allies of the English empire throughout these years. The relationship lasted through the War of 1812. For example, Chief Newash of the Saugeen First Nation, fought alongside the English forces along with Tecumseh. Following the War of 1812, the English no longer needed this military partnership and gradually their policy shifted in an attempt to "civilize " and "christianize" them through a policy of amalgamation.

E. THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was promulgated by King George III after the Seven Years War, partly in response to the Anishinabe and Seneca resistance movements earlier that year. The Royal Proclamation was an English imperial document, among other things, that established the administrative framework for the new English colonies in Quebec, and in the rest of North America. It also recognized and reaffirmed the "Indian territory." It established English imperial rules regarding the treaty-making process under the Covenant Chain as well as for Aboriginal trade with non-Aboriginal people.
This Proclamation also recognized the significance of Indigenous trade and trading. For the Metis, such trade was their economic mainstay:
And we do, by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever, provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade form the governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside, and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit, by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade . . . 21
The Proclamation reaffirmed that the "Indian Territory", as well as the uses of that Territory by the First Nations and their citizens, was to be their "absolute property." They retained sovereignty and the control of their trading networks and their trade. These diplomatic initiatives came from the Indigenous Nations under the Covenant Chain of Silver- the Two Row Wampum. It would be reaffirmed one year later in a grand council of Nations at Niagara in 1764, including presents as well as provisions to the Western Confederacy of Nations (including the Three Fires Confederacy) as well as to citizens of the Metis Nation.

F. ENGLISH IMPERIAL POLICIES AND THE TREATIES IN THE SAUGEEN TERRITORY IN THE 19TH CENTURY

After the War of 1812-14 the English imperial government began to develop policies towards Indigenous Nations in Upper Canada-including the Metis Nation. The citizens of the Metis Nation are a product of the trading relationships since the 17th century, for natural resources- of fish, fur, wood, horticultural, and later commercial agricultural products. In addition, the commerce and trade of ideas and diplomacy involved in the present-giving and the treaties were also significant. By the late 18th century, if not well before, Metis traders were also masters of facilitation. Their mediation skills, which involved complex, multiple cultural and linguistic issues, were paramount well into the 20th century. Often, for example, they performed the roles of messengers or runners for First Nations or Confederacies or for their own villages. A high premium was put on the education for both the Indigenous and European children and the learning of languages. Some, like the Ross, Isbister and the Kennedy families, went to the best schools in Canada and in Britain and became prominent in the nineteenth century. Others like the Ironside and Askin families were significant as cultural mediators with the Indian Department. Metis people have woven together the various diverse patterns of their past and present into a new fabric, a tapestry of "being and becoming". As such, they have had a highly significant and ubiquitous impact in the history of Canada and Ontario. To limit Metis people in Canadian history to the drudges or the journey-men of the fur trade, skews and belies their history and traditions.
The Metis were highly regarded in the nineteenth century, and earlier. Metis were recognized as an important part of nineteenth Canadian and Ontario society. Their mixed and fluid identities and ancestries were usually an advantage rather than a handicap. For example, Herman Merivale (1806-74) one prominent nineteenth century commentator (as well as the permanent head of the Colonial Office in the mid-nineteenth century), perceptively assessed the Metis Nation and their favourable impact in this way, although drawing on the "scientific racism" of "blood quantum" :
There is one mode of amalgamation of the races which it would probably be impossible to prevent, were it desirable: I mean by the mixture of blood. Some observers seem to consider that the multiplication of "half castes" is proceeding at such a rate, wherever unrestricted intercourse exists between natives and whites, as to threaten the extinction of the pure blood of the former. Certainly, in many Canadian and North western tribes, a very large proportion of the present generation is supposed to partake of European blood. Now, this result except so far as it proceeds from corruption of morals, an enormous evil in new settlements, and one of the great causes of the degradation of aborigines does not seem, in itself, undesirable. Certainly, the custom of intermarriage between the two races perhaps even that of forming durable connexions [connections] affords a considerable check to that mutual repulsion which arises merely out of prejudices of colour, and for which there can be no substantial reason where slavery does not exist. And there is strong testimony to the superior energy and high organisation of many of these half blood races.
"Amalgamation" in this context meant the development, through a sharing of cultures, of a new society. The Metis were, for Merivale and other English imperialists, to be the harbingers of cultural change. They had created a new and distinctive society as well as a New Nation.
By the late nineteenth century, however, this cultural view of race changed substantially promoting negative racial views, or in fact outright racism. By the early twentieth century Metis people, swamped by white settlement, would, it was hoped, assimilate and nothing further would have to be done. This attitude is still a constant of federal Metis policy in the early 21st century.
Racial stereotypes have never been useful in identifying Metis people. Their identities have remained fluid in both time and space. The focus of any study of Metis thought and history should be, if one is really attempting to find out what actually happened, on the people themselves as individuals, families and their activities. Labels given to them by others often do not reflect who they are and what they are doing. Metis people were distinct local group(s), communities and extended families, residing in their own communities and using their lands and the surrounding natural resource base. They were located at or near the ancient centres of Aboriginal population, at the strategic points of the confluence of lakes and rivers, always on the water. Recognizing, and thereby following these ancient seats of influence, the Northwest Company and the Hudson's Bay Company's posts or (outposts) of the fur trade set up their business nearby. To use a modern metaphor-the fur trade followed the flag of the Aboriginal Nations. Some trading centres in Ontario, included, among others, present-day Toronto, Elora, Southampton, Inverhuron, Manitowaning, Penetanguishene, Ottawa, Kingston, Sault Ste. Marie, Michipicoten, Thunder Bay, Fort Albany, Moose Factory, Fort Frances and Kenora. Some of the more prominent families included the Johnson, Johnston, McKee, Elliott, Askin, Hamilton, Kerr, Richardson, Chatelain, Claus, Ironside, Jones, Simpson, Lavallee, Isbister, Kennedy and Ross families. They were prominent individuals, sometimes appointed by white officials, as collaborators, acting as "Indian Chiefs", or "Headmen". They were officials of the Indian Department and held a variety of important positions. They acted as facilitators and cultural mediators, translators and interpreters at treaty negotiations. They were also negotiators for their own interests, keeping a watchful eye over their local and Territorial affairs.
Gradually, after the numbered Treaties were negotiated in the 1870's, and especially after 1885 when their second resistance movement ended with the hanging of their leader, Louis Riel, the Metis began to lose their former significance. Their Aboriginal and Treaty rights and title were seen to be by non-aboriginal governments extinguished. Early twentieth century legislation removed their special rights or their legislative exemptions to fish and hunt at will. This had a concomitant impact on the status of their communities. They came to be regarded (in racist epithets) by their non-Aboriginal neighbours as "white Indians". Highly pejorative, even racial, they were also thought to be erroneously "wards of the state". Marginalized, they were seen by white Canadians to exhibit the worst of both worlds.
By the mid-18th century, if not before, the Metis were being and becoming a new "Nation". They had developed their own society and distinct communities, through their trading origins, including their multi-faceted work in the fur trade. In Ontario, in addition, they participated in the local economies, such as the timber trade in the Ottawa valley. The Metis were involved in the more traditional natural resource harvesting activities, including hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering. They were successful farmers. They became local merchants and middlemen. They grew hay in the wetlands adjacent to their settlements and had market gardens, growing produce both for sale and for their own subsistence and abundance. Like that of their Indian brethren, the Metis economy was seasonal and complex and bountiful. All that changed dramatically with the coming of the white man and his technology and massive industrial development which eclipsed the village economy by the mid-twentieth century. The Metis economy gradually became one of poverty rather than abundance.
The political independence of the Metis was evident in the present-giving process. For example, they were residing at the village adjacent to the English imperial naval base at Penetanguishene on Georgian Bay. They sent a petition early in 1840 to the Governor General of Canada. It gave their economic and political circumstances. They wished to be included with Indian people and other "half Breeds" in the annual present giving.
Before the mid-eighteenth century, presents were distributed by the French and then the British Imperial government to Aboriginal people, including the Metis, as recognition of their independence and sovereignty. It was part and parcel of the Covenant Chain of Silver entered into in 1664. It cemented the alliance between the Aboriginal Nations and the British Crown, both in times of peace and war. Presents, provisions as well as rations, were also provided by the Crown. Treaty-making could not begin without the distribution of presents.
In response to the 1840 petition, Samuel Peters Jarvis (1792-1857) , then Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, suggested that "...the sooner this disability [not receiving presents] is removed from the half breeds the better, for I am persuaded that such an opinion ["the intermarriage of Indian women with white men has the effect of checking or retarding their civilization"] cannot be sustained by facts." The Metis were considered by him to be separate. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that they were in different camps.
At various places and times, some Metis resided with Indian people or they lived adjacent to each other in their own communities such as at Inverhuron, Southampton, Penetanguishene, Thessalon, Sault St. Marie or at Fort William (now Thunder Bay). Some Metis were included in the annual present giving; others were excluded. Jarvis believed that all Metis should be included in the present giving. He rejected the arguments that were often advanced to deny them the presents. But he made no attempt to relate "present giving" either to Aboriginal or Treaty rights. Perhaps conveniently, they were seen to be separate considerations from a local governmental perspective by the middle of the nineteenth century.
Some Metis people were beneficiaries, as were Indian people, in the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties of 1850. Named after the Treaty negotiator, William Benjamin Robinson (1797-1873) , these Treaties have had a painful history, involving issues pertaining to First Nations' waters and lands, including islands and mineral rights. There was a joint resistance movement in 1849 at Mica Bay near Sault Ste. Marie. As a result, the attention of government was drawn to the outstanding Aboriginal title and rights of the Metis and the Indian people north of Lakes Huron and Superior. Also sometimes known as the Michipicoten War, this resistance, like at Oka in 1990, was put down by armed force. Two Aboriginal spokesmen were imprisoned and taken to Montreal and put into jail. The government agreed to appoint a commission of inquiry into their rights along the north shores of Lakes Huron and Superior.
The two Commissioners appointed were Alexander Vidal (1819-1906) from Sarnia, a land surveyor and Thomas Gummersal Anderson, (1779-1875) , the local Indian Superintendent at Manitowaning. After the Vidal-Anderson commission reported in December, 1849 the government finally took action. William Benjamin Robinson was appointed the government's negotiator for these Treaties. He had the authority of the Governor General, then Lord Elgin (1811-1863), representing the Crown for the purposes of negotiating the treaties. He was, like many others on the government side, involved in conflicts of interest. He was participating in land and mineral exploration and development in the area. Lord Elgin appeared, in fact, at the final round of negotiations in September of that year, and stated that he had given Robinson his authority, as Queen Victoria's representative, to negotiate these Treaties.
In his official report, on the proceedings after the Treaties were signed, it was stated that there were 84 "half breeds" in the Robinson Superior Treaty area, and 200 "half breeds" in the Robinson Huron Treaty area. They presented their claims to become beneficiaries of those Treaties. These Treaties became a precedent for the Metis in respect of non-aboriginal government policies, including recognition in the early Indian Acts and "amalgamation" through education and other means.
By the early 19th century, many missionaries from both the United States and England began to arrive in Upper Canada and the Saugeen Territory. These missionaries would make periodic stops among the Saugeen Indians with the purpose of christianizing and civilizing them. But, the British also sought the expansion of land and territory for the many new settlers who arrived in the area. By 1836, the Lieutenant governor of Upper Canada Sir Francis Bond Head became interested in securing Indian lands for the new non-Aboriginal settlers. Bond Head did not believe in the concept that the "Indian" would come under these civilizing influences brought forth by Christian missionaries.
Treaty # 45 and #45 ½ (1836) are provided in full in Apppendix A to the report. By these Treaties, a large portion of land (the majority of which consists of Bruce County today) appears to have been shared by the Anishinabe with the Crown. However, this area did not include the Bruce Peninsula and the remaining Anishinabe and Metis remained. As a result, a large portion of land acquired in the treaties of 1836, known today as Bruce County was known as the District of Wellington. However, the spirit and intent of this Treaty, which was to share the lands and natural resources, was not honoured by the Crown.
It was not until January 1st, 1850, that the area was officially named Bruce County. The name Bruce had been chosen after the then Governor General of Canada, James Bruce, the 8th Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, Scotland. By 1850, Bruce County, along with the majority of Canada West had experienced an influx in immigration and settlement in the area. However, the Crown had not yet secured the Saugeen Peninsula in the northern part of Bruce County. With the European population expanding, the Saugeen Anishinabe became threatened by these new settlers and squatters who began to inhabit their remaining ancient hunting grounds. For example, Laurence Oliphant, then the Superintendent General for Indian Affairs, wrote to Lord Elgin:
They [the pioneers] threatened, in my presence, to settle upon the Indians reserve (Saugeen) in defiance of the Government. The general principle that Indian concessions are beneficial alike to the Indian and the white, was here merged in a more important consideration. So keen was the struggle for land, that a surrender of the territory for the purpose of sale, appeared the only method by which the property of these tribes could be conserved to them. It therefore became an obligation upon the Indian Department to spare no pains in endeavouring to wring from those whom it protects, some assent, however reluctant, to the adoption of the only means by which this object could be achieved. That there should be some disinclination existing on the part of a partially civilized community to cede for ever those lands which formed the hunting grounds of their fore-fathers, … is to be expected.
By 1850, the new wave of immigration among European settlers dramatically increased the population of Canada West and more specifically Bruce County. As a result, the Saugeen Indigenous people were faced with the prospect of having their land and, more importantly, their ancient and sacred hunting grounds taken away from them. The Indian Superintendent Thomas G. Anderson had been under considerable pressure to achieve a surrender of the lands of the Bruce Peninsula in 1854. By Treaty #72 (1854), a large reserve of the Saugeen Peninsula was shared with the Crown and five small pockets of land which became Reserves within the Saugeen Territory. Peter S. Schmalz provided the following details about the Treaties in the Saugeen Territory with his specific focus on the Anishinabe (Ojibwa):
The most important territory still owned by the Ojibway in the early 1830's was over two million acres of land in the Saugeen Peninsula and watershed. A detailed analysis of the ten surrenders involving these 'Saugeen' Ojibway over a period of fifty years (1836-86) demonstrates an increasing sophistication in the Ojibwa' understanding of the value of land, the way in which they were aided by missionaries and philanthropic groups and the attitudes that they had towards the transactions. Unlike almost all the previous surrenders, the Saugeen cessions reveal the views of missionaries and a great variety of individuals, including the Indians themselves, several of whom have left their own records of the events.
Schmalz did not refer to the Metis individuals, families and communities who also resided there and who had been recognized by Robinson, the government negotiator who had been appointed by Lord Elgin in 1850 at the Adhesion to the Robinson Huron Treaty at Penetanguishene on September 10th, 1850. Nor did Robinson recognize them at Penetanguishene in his Report on this Treaty.
The terms of the Treaty of 1854 were concluded on the basis of manipulation, economic and false promises by the Indian Department and the imperial and the local colonial governments. The spirit and intent of this Treaty, which was to share the lands and natural resources, was not honoured by the Crown. This Treaty #72 has been published by the federal government, as follows (see Appendix B).
As a result of this Treaty, all that would remain of the Saugeen Anishinabe Territory by the early 20th century would be small Indigenous villages and farms that would eventually become fewer and smaller reserves. The official policy of the colonial and than Canadian government became the policy of amalgamation which, in turn, gradually became one of assimilation after 1885. This Canadian government policy was represented, as stated by the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott (an Indigenous person himself ) in the early 20th century: "The happiest future of the Indian race is absorption into the general population, and this is the object of the policy of our government. The great forces of … education will finally overcome the lingering traces of native custom and tradition." Both the Saugeen and Newash reserves were subsequently established in Bruce County. Many of the children of these reserves were forced after 1885 (by changes to the Indian Act) to attend residential schools off reserve, where many experienced almost a century of assimilation into Canadian society and others were faced with verbal, physical and sexual abuse in the residential school system. Only recently has the current federal government apologized for that system. The government had also intended that the land would be closed off to traditional activities and would turn it into enclosed areas as private property intended for cultivation and farming for the new European settlers who outnumbered their Indigenous counterparts by the late 19th century.

G. THE METIS AND THE SAUGEEN (INVERHURON) TERRITORY

There had been many explorers, fur traders, Metis voyagers and Indian missionaries; however no Europeans had attempted to settle in Bruce County until the mid-19th century. As these settlers began to arrive they began to take up permanent settlement, they started working to build up the area by opening up roads and clearing forests, establishing trading posts and building schools. All that remained of the Metis trade and traders by the late 19th century were the small trading posts and forts erected by them at Cape Croker, Stokes Bay, Red Bay, Southampton and Inverhuron. Local amateur historians, such as Norman Robertson, erroneously believed that these places had been erected by "French fur traders" as there had also been evidence of small relics of French origin found at the sites of these old ruins. However, there were also indigenous markers which indicated Metis use and settlements at these places.
According to British Admiralty surveyor, Henry Woolsey Bayfield, the earliest cartographic evidence of fur traders at the mouth of the Saugeen River on Lake Huron is in 1822. Bayfield noted on his map of Lake Huron "Indian Traders", meaning those who trade with the "Indians", and buildings on the north side near river's mouth. However, the Metis historian Patsy Lou McArthur wrote that trading at Saguingue (Saugeen) occurred prior to 1822, both of which were recorded by Bayfield and Robertson:
By the late 1700's, Matchedash traders came across to an outpost at Saguingue, using the Saguingue Peninsula Portage to enter at Colpoy's Bay. Robertson's History of the County of Bruce records trading at Saguingue as early as 1818, when Dr. Mitchell sent Pierre Piche from Drummond Island to trade there. As well, in 1820, Mitchell hired voyageur Joseph Normandin for "the dependencies of the South." The location in Goderich was confirmed years later by Normadin's own recollections. So it is known that trading locations in the environs of Saguingue were established in the early 1800's. Additional research on our Metis community history might extend this frame and show our continuous residency here dating back to the 1700's, if not well before.
There is a deep rooted history of the Metis, in the Saugeen region, who still reside there today that dates back to the fur traders and explorers who traveled through and who developed relationships with the Indigenous persons residing in the region and on the shores of Lake Huron. Many of these French and Metis explorers and traders came through the Great Lakes waterways to Saugeen and developed relationships with Indigenous women based on trade and a variety of other activities. These men were able to adapt much more to the Indigenous ways of life. McArthur wrote that on the history of the Metis people and their relationships with the Indian communities:
It is known that Metis communities originated and flourished close to Indian villages. And that Metis favoured particular areas due to kinship ties with local natives and experience. Despite all conjecture, the question "What trade was here first?" will never be answered. Nonetheless, those mentioned and other trading families were in the environs of Matchedash and lower Georgian Bay prior to European settlement. The adherence of French-origin trading families to the Roman Catholic Church has proven invaluable for researchers to demonstrate those among the early residents of the area.
The marriage and birth records of the Roman Catholic Church remain as evidence of the Metis presence, of their survival and persistence. As a result, the majority of these French traders adopted many forms of Indian life such as native dress, hunting, canoes and snowshoes. Many of these activities won over the approval of their Indigenous companions. These relationships formed during the fur trade by these explorers formed the very basis of the Metis identity in Canada. However, this history is often forgotten by many historians who fail to acknowledge the importance of Metis culture and identity in Canadian history. This view is only now being addressed in the early 21st century.
The following excerpt is taken from the Robertson's History of the County of Bruce and chronicles the facts about the early fur traders at Saugeen given by Joseph Longe, senior, to Joseph Normandin, an old voyageur. However, Robertson fails to acknowledge the importance and history of the Metis people by name in his book, while only providing these related incidents of Metis people's such as Fred Lamorandiere, the Indian interpreter at Cape Croker:
One Pierre Piche, in the year 1818, came from Lower Canada to Mackinaw to take part in the adventures and profits of the fur trade. He engaged with one Dr. Mitchell, of the military post of Michilimackinaw, as it was then called (The Indian name of that island was "Mishi Mikinac," meaning a "great turtle".) Having heard of the richness of the Saugeen country in furs he went there to establish a trading post. It was on the flat, on the south side of the Saugeen River, that he built for himself a house and store, and completed the establishment by taking to himself a wife from the tribe of Indians residing in that vicinity. He received his supply of goods of trading through Dr. Mitchell, and afterwards from his sons George and Andrew. The Mitchells resided first at Mackinaw, but when that was ceded to the United States, they moved to Drummond Island, and when that, too, became American territory, to Penetanguishene. Piche was a man of great strength and bravery, and on account of these qualities he succeeded in obtaining and keeping control of the best part of the fur trade in the vicinity of Saugeen. He had many competitors, however, who obtained their supplies from W.S. Gooding of Goderich, Joseph Longe, sen., who supplied these facts, being one of them. On Piche's death, about 1828, his business was taken up by Edward Sayers, he in turn was succeeded by Achille Cadotte and Registe Loranger; the latter had been a clerk in Mitchell's store at Penetanguishene. He came to the Saugeen trading post with his bride, Adelaide Lamorandiere, remaining there until the breaking out of the rebellion in 1837. The competition to purchase furs was keen, and many were the 'ruses de guerre' used by the traders to get ahead of a competitor; consequently men good for a long, fast tramp through the woods to visit the various Indian camps were in demand. Among those so employed were A.M. McGregor (afterward Capt. Achille Cadotte), Louis and Sam Thibeault, Thader Lamorandiere and Joseph Longe, jun.
Pierre Piche is just one of the above mentioned Metis who came through present day Bruce County to begin fur trading in the region, these voyagers had developed trade partnerships with the Indigenous people for furs and also for the fishing industry. By 1826, the Hudson's Bay Company had established an outpost at Saguingue in order to compete with fur traders such as Piche. The history of the Metis community in Bruce County had existed well before the influx of European settlers in the 1850's:
As can be seen, a stable, continuing Metis community existed in the environs of Saguingue prior to European settlement. When Saguingue was officially opened for settlement around 1850, Metis were living on their lakefront lots which they had occupied since the early trading days of the 1820's. Despite the influx of European settlers, they remained united as a Metis community while playing significant roles in the town's development. They became coopers, fishers, boat builders, schooner captains, sailors and lighthouse keepers.
There were many independent traders such as Piche who came through the Lake Huron shorelines during the 1820's and 1830's. These traders opposed the monopoly of the HBC and (from their own long history) they were "free and independent" and as such traded on the shores of Lake Huron (and throughout the Great Lakes waterway system), while developing trading relationships with other Metis and others. These families at Saguingue, among Piche were the Borland, Sayer, de Lamorandiere, Mitchell, Cadotte, Loranger, Longe, Thibeau, McGregor, Gooding, Johnston and the Rolette families. However, the HBC would also employ First Nations, Metis, French and British fur and fish traders who depended on Anishnabe hunters to supply deer, bear and marten skins as well as fish of all kinds. However, in spite of this Metis presence from the early 17th century, Robertson erroneously denied it in his history of Bruce County and that has remained the historical view until recently when Metis voices are now being heard.
Two prominent Metis, however, figure ironically in the early "white settlement" of Bruce County. Metis Captain John Spence and William Kennedy (1814-1890) were regarded until the late 20th century as the two "white founders" of Southampton. They both carried on the fisheries in the Saugeen Territory since they had purchased the "Niagara Fishing Company" from the previous owner Captain A. Murray Macgregor. Robertson included them in his history of the flourishing fisheries and fur trade on Lake Huron and the surrounding area. Their journey from Kingston, Ontario to Lake Huron included the purchasing of a canoe from the Indigenous people (in which they had both traveled down the Severn River). They then made their way on foot by an Indian trail to the mouth of the Saugeen River, in June of 1848. (However, the exact date has been debated by historians) The only other "new settlers" considered to be the founders of Southampton with Spence and Kennedy were John McLean and Robert Reid both of whom were retirees from the HBC as were Spence and Kennedy. One of them was a missionary named J.K. Williston and a teacher named James Cathay, both had served from 1846-1849 and from 1856 to 1862. However, the missionaries living among the Saugeen Ojibwa dated back to 1834 when the Reverend Thomas Hurlburt, a Methodist missionary, had been appointed to the Wesleyan Church and had served at Saugeen.
Both Spence and Kennedy were Metis and previously servants of the Hudson's Bay Company. They both had vast experience in exploring and traveling the Great Lakes, both trading and fishing and marrying with the Indigenous people. They came to the Saugeen Territory by sailing down the little Sauble River to the mouth of the Saugeen River. They had erected log houses. Kennedy had established a fishery at the mouth of the Saugeen River in 1848, while he ended up residing in Southampton, before leaving on an Arctic expedition in search of Sir John Franklin in 1851-3. Thereafter he resided in Toronto until the early 1860s. Captain Spence stayed with his family in Southampton up until his death in 1904.
The history of the Metis in Bruce County remains visible and vibrant to this day. There are over two million Metis people living both in rural and urban communities across Canada and they are now officially recognized under Canada's Constitution as Aboriginal people along with "Indians" and "Inuit". There had been many Metis, (such as Brule, Piche and Kennedy) who traveled through to Lake Huron and onto the shores of Inverhuron and Southampton. Descendants of these Metis persons must not be forgotten in the rich history of the county that comprises over six thousand years of history:
The Metis are the offspring of trade and diplomacy, at the centre of a meeting ground" between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. It is not often there is a true "middle ground". Early on, the fur trade was a dominant influence. When the fur trade diminished in southern Canada in the nineteenth century, lands and waters replaced fur. Negotiations in the treaty-making process continued in the twentieth century. Their role in Canada's history declined accordingly. They participated in the treaty-making process, but the participation has been whittled away and denied by the federal government in the twentieth century. It was a hollow recognition in 1982 when the Metis and their communities were placed in Canada's Constitution as Aboriginal people while their land rights were denied.
However, a landmark decision in a dispute over the issue of hunting moose near Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario, known as the Powley Case, (R. vs. Powley) in which Steve and Roddy Powley, two Metis hunters, were arrested and charged with killing a moose for food for their families, the eventual decision was a victory for the Metis people of Ontario, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled and recognized the hunting rights of the Metis at Sault Ste. Marie. That decision helped to solidify the rights of many Metis not just in Ontario, but all across Canada.
The Metis have a rich history that is still of great significance, and vital to, the Saugeen Territory, including Inverhuron, and to present-day Bruce County. These Metis identities and family histories have been obscured until recently in Ontario historiography. A preliminary list of these historic and current Metis family names is cited below:
Beausoleil
Bosley
Borland
Bourgeois
Belhumeur (Joseph & Louis)
Cazelet
Cosley
Cadotte
Cameron, (John)
De Lamorandiere
Desjardins
Gooding
Granville
Gunn
Higgins
Johnston
Kennedy
Lange
Lavallee
Longe
Loranger
Leduc
McGregor
McLean (John)
Mitchell
Normandin, (Joseph)
Payette, (Pierre)
Piche, (Pierre)
Reid, (Robert)
Rollette
Sayer
Spence, (John)
Thibeau.
And there were other families in addition to these names. Others were usually hiding in plain sight.
One of the important links in discovering the Metis history of the Saugeen Territory has been the plethora of water highways from the 17th century to the early 20th centuries. The Metis travelled by sailing ships and canoes up and down the Saugeen River and through Lake Huron and the other Great Lakes and the connecting waterways. The historic tradition of the canoe is closely tied with the historic nature of Indigenous traditions:
So valuable was this scientific invention that it was soon appropriated by the European visitors for use by missionaries, explorers, the military, professional artists, as well as fur traders. The significance of the canoe in Aboriginal oral traditions and history cannot be overemphasized. It is central to the creation stories, to the cultures providing a balance practically and spiritually as a means-an instrument-of understanding the natural world and providing a means of working within it.
During this time period, the only method of transportation was by water landing on the shores of Lake Huron or the Saugeen River by ship or canoe. Modern roads were not built until the early 20th century. The exact location of Saugeen follows the water still today. According to historian Patrick Folkes, it begins at Clark Point, Lake Huron, extends north to lands-end at Tobermory, and then east and south into Georgian Bay as far as Owen Sound. It comprises the broad open shores and sandy beaches of Kincardine, Port Elgin and Southampton, the limestone shelves of the western slope of the Bruce Peninsula, the green-topped islands lying in the straits between Tobermory and Manitoulin Island, and the bold cliffs of the Georgian Bay flank.
The Metis exclusively used canoes and sailing ships as the primary method of transportation through the Saugeen Territory. However, the use of canoes had been used in many different forms throughout this extensive history of Saugeen. The Metis had used canoes for many different purposes such as fishing, trade and through many battles and conflicts such as the battle of Skull Mound from the early 1690's where approximately "four hundred canoes, each containing eight warriors were involved in a two-pronged attack".
Many of the conflicts that were fought, such as (the Seven Years War 1755-63) were primarily by or on water using ships and canoes. One of the strengths the British possessed over the French was the Royal Navy and the overall weakness of the French Navy which played a prominent role of the fall of New France. By the mid-19th century, the arrival of European settlers did not diminish the importance of the canoe. In fact, it became more prominent as the settlers adopted their way of life to these transportation and trading systems.
Much of the economic prosperity developed through the Hudson's Bay Company or Northwest Company came through the usage of the canoe. It had made possible for generations the fur trade in Upper and Lower Canada and had connected the vital waterways of the Great Lakes, which was the primary economic activity (fur trade) before the confederation of Canada in 1867. The only reduction in the usage of either ships or canoes came just before the Second World War, when the construction of roads became quite prominent, especially in southwestern Ontario.

H. THE MAKING OF THE TOWN OF INVERHURON IN THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY

The making of the town of Inverhuron has not been published just as its Indigenous history has been obscured. In the 1970s, Stuart Ogg wrote a noteworthy early history of these, and subsequent events, in his "History of Inverhuron" which is attached as Appendix A. It is significant that this place has seemingly become forgotten in Canada's history in spite of the environmental issues-the beauty of the place which still exists-resource development-tourism and nuclear power-contexts which have always been present in its lands and waters. These issues have always been present in this place and, as such, its history is a microcosm of the place we know as Canada.
Two of the most well known persons to have first settled at Inverhuron on a permanent basis were William Gunn and Louis Leduc. Gunn, a young Scotsman, had been given credit for developing a general store and the first post office at Inverhuron. Leduc, a Metis, had occupied a small shanty near the shoreline. Many squatters began to arrive at Inverhuron at this time and before long many of the best lands had been claimed.
Gunn, first arrived in Kincardine in 1852 where he established a general store, shortly before leaving for Inverhuron. Besides Gunn, the first Metis were named Leduc, who were fisherman. Other early settlers at Inverhuron included the Hodgins, Stantons and the McManemy brothers. The first Sauble plot was laid out in 1851 and officially became Inverhuron when Gunn established a post office along the shoreline. A log school was opened in 1854 called "S.S. No. 1 Bruce" and Gunn also acted as a Superintendent for the school. According to historian Stuart Ogg who had researched the first school built at Inverhuron up until 1953:
The first school built in 1854 (the first in Bruce Township) was a small, square, log building with a cottage roof standing about 50' south of the brick school erected in 1875. It had benches with no backs and no desks. The first recorded teacher was Miss Roach, hired at an annual salary of $200.00. The brick school, near the corner of Caley and Victoria Streets was built by Messrs. Clelland and MacDougall, Tiverton, at a cost of $945.00. It stood on level, grassy land. In front of it between the school and the lake, were sand hills. There were no trees, but glimpses of the lake could be seen from the school. The children picked strawberries around the school. The trustees put a fence around the schoolhouse, but sand drifted in and covered it, threatening to cover the school. December 12, 1855, Hugh Matheson, school secretary records:- "The trustees of Union school section I have imposed 3 farthings on the pound, school section for schoolhouse purposes." (land tax). The debating society used the school; it was also the centre for community affairs and church services. Spring 1946 - 100 trees planted."
Stuart Ogg provides a list of the teachers at the Inverhuron School in his report:
1860 Miss Roach
1865 Miss Joanna Morrison
1875 John MacKenzie from Cape Breton
1880's Lizzie and Annie MacKenzie
1903 Miss A. Clark
1910 Kate McEwan
1919-20 Leila Nelson
1920-21 Adam McLeod
1921-23 Greta Shewfelt
1923-24 Katherine Steinhoff
1926-27 Tena Kinmond
1927-28 Katie Urquhart
1929-30 Helen Perrin
1943-45 Katie Paterson
1945-47 Jean Smith (Mrs. Dent)
1948-50 Aneita Gottschalk
1951-52 Jean Catto, Alberta Smith
1952-53 Jean Conquergood
By 1855, while there was considerable growth, there was still not a recognizable town. However over time, a village began to emerge and Gunn took advantage of this opportunity by becoming a postmaster. By 1856, the village had grown to some 200 people. As well, the first public library had been established in the county boasting a collection of thirty-nine volumes. There also was a wharf at the mouth of the Little Sauble, the southern part, a grist mill is still visible at low water level.
While the small town of Inverhuron began to flourish in the 1860s, fishing and farming became two of the primary activities for many of the settlers. In 1862 the log school was re-established as U.S.S. #1 Bruce and Kincardine. A Miss Roach became the first teacher, followed by Isabella Sinclair and Johanna Morrison. William Gray, a stone cutter from Scotland took over the mills and later invested in salt mining and shipbuilding. While Inverhuron became prosperous many of its residents, likely Metis, worked in logging or fishing. The area surrounding Inverhuron was also ideal for farming and supported a number of farms and improved land, which was then valued at approximately $30 an acre. By 1865 the mills were owned and operated by Martin Cook and James Lothian. Lothian along with Peter McCrae, Hugh Matheson and William Gray all served as school trustees at points in time.
The bay of Inverhuron was an ideal spot for a harbour. Many of the residents at Inverhuron had encouraged Gunn to petition the government in 1865 for a harbour. Inverhuron was seen as an ideal spot for a harbour for transportation and shipping purposes in Bruce County. However, instead of a harbour, a pier had been built and the town had experienced a period of growth in the form of trade and shipping. There had been tremendous growth in Bruce County since 1848, primarily due to the growth at Inverhuron. This fact was outlined in the 1868 petition by the residents of Inverhuron which provided a detailed statement showing progress in the County of Bruce addressed to the Governor General of Canada, then Viscount Monck:
In 1849, no settlement had taken place in Bruce, with the exception of a few pioneers who had settled in the eastern portion of the county adjoining the County of Grey. In 1852 the total population of Bruce was 2,837 souls. The quantity of land cleared at that time, 2,272 acres. Wheat crop of 1851, 10,000 bushels. The government sale of the greater portion of the county of Bruce took place on Sept. 27th, 1854. Agreeably to the returns of the census taken Jan. 13th, 1861, the population of Bruce was 27,494 souls. The quantity of land cleared at that time 89,500 acres. Wheat crop of 1860, 660,000 bushels.
The value of farming lands according to the same returns was at the time $5,980.525
Real estate in villages $500.000
Value of live stock $624.485
Value of farming implements $130.125
Value of mills, manufactures $580.000
Value of crops and products of the farm, 1860 $1,030.690
Total amount of sales of Crown and School lands in Bruce in round numbers $1,200.000
Interest on same, being payable in ten years, say $300.00
Estimated contribution to General Revenue on duty paying goods and excise per annum at least $50.000
Amount of taxes, for all purposes, imposed by County Council, townships and villages, in 1865 $65.000
Amount of county rate alone, in 1869, including interest and sinking fund on gravel road debt $300.00 and county buildings $40,000. This is exclusive of township and village taxation for school rates and general purposes $71.000
A by-law had just been passed (Nov. 1869), by the rate-payers of Bruce granting a railway bonus, payable in 20 years, of $250.00
The rate of progress during the present decade may not be as great as during that ending January 1861, but a very large addition to the population, immense material improvement, and greatly increased prosperity have taken place in the County of Bruce since 1861.
In 1872, 60,000 bushels of grain were shipped from the little port of Inverhuron valued at $972,000.
Historians and archaeologists later identified many shipwrecks and the cemetery at Inverhuron indicates that many sailors had washed up along the shorelines. Newspaper articles have indicated the many shipwrecks found along the shores of Inverhuron in the 19th century. Inverhuron had flourished and became an area of great prosperity for Bruce County from its first settlement in 1852 up until its ultimate demise as a town in 1887.
Two disastrous fires occurred which had cut short the town's growth. The first in 1882 destroyed the grain warehouse and the pier. The pier was never rebuilt and the cause of the fire was suspected to be arson but never proven. The loss of the grain and the warehouse devastated the once bustling shipping and transportation economy of Inverhuron. The second fire occurred in 1887 and reduced the town to rubble. Thereafter, only a few farmers remained in the area and the town was subsequently never restored to its past. The town is now commonly referred by historians to be an Ontario ghost town.
By 1901, Bruce County valuators declared the land as virtually worthless and reduced to sand dunes. The only remaining settlers were some farmers and cottagers along the beaches. However, the history of the first settlers at Inverhuron and its past of prosperity in shipping and transportation is acknowledged and remembered to those settlers in a publication titled the County of Bruce Directory of 1867:
A post village on the Lake shore, in the Township of Bruce, 9 miles from Kincardine, about 26 from Walkerton, was surveyed by Government in 1851. It has excellent harbour accommodation. The post office was established in 1854; Mr. William Gunn, first postmaster. It contains one store, one tavern, one grist and three saw mills, two coopers' shops. The following is a list of names of the people who inhabited and worked in the town of Inverhuron before its demise in 1887:
Cook Martin, Mill proprietor
Dayton, George, carpenter
Downie, William, carpenter
Green B., shoemaker
Lothian James, mill proprietor
Leherill T.C., carpenter
Fletcher Kenneth, cooper
Matheson, Hugh, carpenter
McRae, Peter. P.M. and merchant
McRae, Donald. labourer
McKinnon, Charles. labourer
McLennan, Kenneth, labourer
McEwan, John, labourer
McKay, Donald, labourer
McLean, Kenneth, labourer
McLeod, John, fisherman
Newman T, miller
Sinclair, Donald, miller
Watson, James, cooper
Webb, Joseph G., labourer
Some of these names were likely, considering the Metis families in the area, and their occupations, Metis.

I. TOURISM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INVERHURON PROVINCIAL PARK IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY

In the early 20th century Inverhuron remained a ghost town. However, it was not forgotten. It became an unofficial historic site and a centre for recreation and tourism. Many of the historical facts pertaining to Inverhuron came from the archaeological discoveries at Inverhuron dating back to the 1930's. Fritz Knechtel, Peter G. Ramsden and Walter Kenyon, who have done extensive work relating to archaeology at Inverhuron, have shown evidence of its historic legacy. The Indigenous ancient periods can be proven through the artifacts that were found during excavations. The more recent European history is well documented through maps and sketches of Inverhuron from 1857 to 1881. As well, as the settlers tools and implements and the photos of shipwrecks from Lake Huron.
The National Museum of Canada researched and developed some interesting findings on behalf of archaeologist J.W. Wright. On behalf of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Wright found evidence of the distribution of fish from Ontario Indian Sites 700 to 2500 years old. These remains were from fish caught by Indigenous people for food. The fish are considered under the site at which they were found. Here are the general comments from the official report on the location of the Donaldson site:
The site is on the north bank of the Saugeen River, three miles from its mouth on Lake Huron, Bruce County. The bones were obtained in May to June 1960 from undistributed midden deposits or pits of the early Middle Woodland Period. The find of a net sinker and a socketed bone harpoon suggests some of the fishing methods employed. The river at the site is presently 60 to 100 feet wide. Fish may have been caught here or perhaps in the lake. All the species are known to inhabit rivers. They may have been caught in traps during spring spawning runs, as most are spring spawners. The species are all found in this area at present. A carbon dating by the University of Saskatchewan places the site at 2480 years plus or minus 60 years. The fish are catalogued under NMC62-144-S of the fish collection of the National Museum of Canada.
The classification of the types of fish found at the site can be found in the documents attached to this report. The report reinforces the belief that this site had seen centuries of occupation in prehistoric times as well as 6,000 years of human occupation by the Indians of the Saugeen territory.
While there has been much archaeological work done on the Inverhuron site in the past century, Walter Kenyon, provided an archaeological report on the Inverhuron site as well as University of Toronto professor and archaeologist Peter G. Ramsden who provided his own report in October of 1970. Ramsden, had published his research report in 1970 undertaken at the request of the Parks Branch of the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. The purpose was to determine the extent of the historic archaeological sites within the Inverhuron Provincial Park. The work undertaken by Ramsden was in September in 1970 and lasted for a total of ten days. The surveying of the site was to determine the extent of these deposits. The results of this survey can be found in its entirety in Ramsden's report. The following are the results and excerpts outlined in the report as indicated and numbered by the archaeological periods, beginning with the earliest from the Inverhuron Archaic:
1) Archaic: sites are very widely distributed in the park, and are for the most part, associated with a well-defined series of raised sand and gravel beaches (see Fig. 2). Most of the area covered by Archaic materials is at least partly exposed by wind erosion, and the sites are characterized by a dense surface scatter of fire-cracked rock, stone chipping debris, and artifacts. In some places, partly eroded remains of hearths are visible. A few archaic sites, discussed below, seem to be partly undisturbed, and warrant excavation. Besides these, many of the exposed archaic localities could be profitably used for park visitor education.
1. Sites: The following sites have been singled out because of their archaeological and educational value.
This site is located on the northern boundary of the park, where the highest beach ridge, at this point orientated roughly north-south, crosses the boundary. The site has been almost totally exposed by wind erosion, and is represented by a surface concentration of fire-cracked rock and artifacts. It is of interest primarily because it contains several quite distinct, localized concentrations of material, representing discrete occupation areas about thirty feet in diameter. This is probably the best place in the park where a prehistoric occupation 'site' can be so clearly seen on the surface as a discrete entity, since most other Archaic deposits visible on the surface consist of fairly continuous scatterings of material over a wide area. One of the concentrations at the southern edge of this site appears to be partly uneroded, and may be worthy of test excavation.
2. is located on a beach ridge slightly lower than that associated with site number 1. Its importance lies in the fact that, although part of the site has been exposed by bulldozing, much of it may be as yet undisturbed. This, combined with the fact that surface-collected artifacts suggest that the site may be a key one in establishing a local archaic chronology, make it highly probable that test excavation here could be very profitable.
3. and 4. Sites three and four are unexposed archaic deposits. Site number three appears to be a shallow deposit stop an uneroded and beach, while number four is a stratified site below a prominent gravel beach. Site number three would be an ideal location for an ongoing excavation which could be viewed by visitors. The site appears to be fairly straightforward, and should not present any problems as far as excavation techniques or analysis are concerned. On the other hand, park visitors could see here the actual excavation of artifacts and aboriginal features such as hearths. Furthermore, very, useful information could be gained by excavation in this locality. Site number 4 has been subjected to intensive excavation for the past two summers, and valuable information has been recovered. Since parts of the site remain undisturbed, it is recommended that this area be preserved for future problem-oriented excavation.
2) Middle Woodland: Middle Woodland deposits are distributed over a series of low, raised sand beaches, just back from the present beach, in the vicinity of the mouth of the Little Sauble River. For the most part, the sites consist of surface material exposed by wind erosion. In scattered localities, however, erosional remnants harbour some undisturbed Middle Woodland material. A few very small localities of this kind occur near the north end of the beach parking lot, and another, described below, is situated near the north bank of the river just east of the parking lot.
Sites:
Site number 5 is a very interesting one from the point of view of park visitors. It is located on a partly eroded sand dune just east of the north end of the parking lot. The sand dune contains a buried sand line, under about two feet of wind blown sand. This sod line produces historic artifacts which are described below. However, Middle Woodland ceramics and other materials are also eroding out of this sod zone, or from immediately below it. It appears that a fairly large area of this site is still excavable, and here, again, it would probably be of interest for park visitors to be able to witness excavation going on where the stratification of two distinct cultures, as well as evidence of wind deposition of sand, can be seen.
Iroquoian: Iroquoian materials presently occur in a very restricted area near the north end of the parking lot, on a few beaches near the present lake shore. Their distribution probably overlaps that of the Middle Woodland material, and, owing to the fact that artifacts are scarce and the potsherds, being exposed on the surface, are very small and quite eroded, positive identification of materials in this area is often difficult.
All of the presently extent Iroquoian material is found on the surface, and no excavable localities are known. Iroquois sites were reportedly more extensive before the construction of the parking lot.
3) Historic (Euro Canadian)
Two concentrations of probably early historic artifacts, as well as isolated features, were noted. Artifacts surface collected from historic sites include square iron nails, coloured bottle glass, painted glazed china fragments, and ironstone were fragments.
Sites:
Site number five has been mentioned above in connection with its Middle Woodland component. In addition, a large amount of historic material was found to have eroded out of the buried sod line. Besides the kinds of artifacts mentioned above, some mortar-like material was recovered from this stratum in a small test pit, suggesting the possible presence of remains of historic structures.
The historic component here would seem to be one of the more interesting sites noted during the survey. It is recommended that someone conversant with historic artifacts evaluate this site since, if it is an early historic (pioneer) site, it would be worthy of excavation.
Lime Kilnes: Two lime Kilnes of the pioneer period can be seen in the park, and they are shown in Fig. 1. The one on the south side of Gunn Point is quite clearly visible, and has not been extensively disturbed. The other, on the north side of Gunn Point, was disturbed during the construction of camp sites and parking areas.
Dock: The remains of the Inverhuron dock can still be seen in the water at the mouth of the Little Sauble River.
Cemetery: The pioneer cemetery is presently being cared for and presented as a visitor attraction by the park.
The conclusions made by Peter Ramsden and his team of archaeologists reflected upon preserving both the historical and archaeological aspects of Inverhuron Provincial Park.
Ramsden had strongly recommended that the Ontario Provincial Parks Branch undertake a program to preserve the material found in the park. He suggested that the interpretation of the archaeological material should be used as a presentation for all of the visitors to Inverhuron. Two distinct stories of Inverhuron can be presented to visitors: the first would be the nature and the role of archaeology and secondly the history of the human occupation at Inverhuron. These findings provided evidence that enabled Ramsden and other historians to present a chronological history of the human occupation and settlement of Inverhuron. They were able to provide a basic outline of historical explanations in the changing nature of Inverhuron through the course of time. This basic information led, at least in part, to the development of Inverhuron as a provincial park by the Ontario government.
Inverhuron has had a unique history in Bruce County for many centuries. Following the destruction of the town in 1887, it soon became a popular tourist destination for many visitors across Ontario. Its beaches and sand dune formation had provided a popular destination for visitors in the spring and summer months. Its beautiful landscape and nature became undeniable.
In 1957, Inverhuron officially became a Provincial Park. The Ontario Department of Lands and Forests had purchased the land in the surrounding area for a park. However, at about the same time, the federal government preceded to gather other lands just north of Inverhuron at Douglas Point. These lands were purchased from absentee landholders. The federal government proceeded with a plan to build a nuclear generating station at Douglas Point.
For over a decade both the park and the nuclear generating station co-existed and were accepted by local residents and visitors as economic development opportunities through job creation. They had very different objectives in terms of the environment of Inverhuron. The nuclear generating station became a visible aspect in Bruce County. According to Professor Joy Parr, one of the leading experts on the history of the Great Lakes environment, both the park and its residents co-existed initially with the nuclear generating station:
The small reactor was a showpiece of leading edge Canadian technology, presently to be joined by two commercial-scale generating stations as the Bruce Nuclear Power Development (BHWP), a happy source of well-waged work. Inverhuron Provincial Park shared the shoreline, and became a holiday favorite for families from all over southwestern Ontario, appreciated for its fine long sand beach, its camping places and well-documented archaeological sites.
In the late 1960s, however, this situation began to change ominously.
Initiated in 1968, in 1969, a new installation at the BNPD was announced. A new plant was to be built to produce the heavy water that served as coolant and moderator in Canadian nuclear reactors. However, the main issue was the environmental considerations. According to Parr, it "was the odor of hydrogen sulphide, which was an airborne by-product of the process by which ordinary water was made heavy". In this process, "ordinary water" was not "made heavy". In fact, heavy water was distilled from ordinary water. This change posed an eminent danger to both the inhabitants in the nearby area and the visitors to the park itself.
Many of the local residents became alarmed over this development and many had wondered about the possible dangers that would exist to the nearby residents. However, it was not until November of 1969, that the Provincial Parks Branch, Chief Peter Addison became alarmed when reading newspaper reports about the possible environmental and health risks to local residents and to the general public.
Addison's main concern became the danger to human life posed by the possible escape of hydrogen sulphide gas into the air. The safety of the nearby residents and the two thousand visitors who crowded the park daily during summer peak season were at stake. Addison even had discussions with the Radiation Protection Section of the Ontario Department of Health which deepened his concern much further. Evidently, Addison wrote that he firmly believed that a "real danger did exist". He had learned of a recent accident at the Glace Bay heavy-water plant in Nova Scotia in which thirty tons of hydrogen sulphide gas had been released into the atmosphere. Fortunately, the wind had blown the gas out to sea.
Addison further commented on this issue (as reported in Gerald Killan's study of provincial parks system, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Park System): "It is somewhat disturbing, that this whole project was undertaken without notifying this department...of the risks involved to patrons of our park, it is conceivable that our park will have to be completely abandoned". These circumstances seemed to be a rather difficult scenario for both local residents and seasonal visitors. They appreciated Inverhuron for its outstanding natural beauty as a park and for its recreational, archaeological and historical features.

J. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE BRUCE NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY AND THE CLOSING OF CAMPING AT INVERHURON PROVINCIAL PARK, 1976-2006

The future of Inverhuron Provincial Park became the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, which controlled the Bruce Nuclear Water Plant and its safety advisory committee. Ontario Hydro owned and operated this heavy water plant. They confirmed that the plant was a threat but only to campers at Inverhuron. They did not mention the threat that would have been posed to the local residents in the nearby area or to the daily visitors of the Park They had ruled that the campgrounds had lain between the safety setback (Ontario Hydro used the euphemism "greenbelt") required under the Atomic Energy Board's sitting guidelines for its heavy-water facilities. The danger was through the plant's operation on the water and the air, which had an environmental impact on the surrounding land as well.
It became abundantly clear from Ontario government records that Inverhuron Provincial Park was becoming endangered by the operations of the newly established heavy-water plant. As a result, an agreement had been negotiated between the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Ontario Hydro and was signed in 1973. Among other considerations, the title to the property of Inverhuron Provincial Park was turned over to Ontario Hydro. The land was then leased back to the OMNR for 999 years and was to be maintained and operated as a day use park only.
According to government records, now available and accessed through the Provincial Archives of Ontario, the agreement to purchase Inverhuron Provincial Park was between the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Hydro. This agreement was signed on August 22nd, 1973. It was, as follows, along with a timeline and the sequence of events, which led to this agreement:
1. 1968 - The decision to build the Bruce Heavy Water Plant A (BHWP-A) was made by the original owner Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and the operator and current owner, Ontario Hydro (OH).
2. In 1969 the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) assumed jurisdiction for licensing the operation of all Canadian heavy water plants. For the BHWP-A the AECB acts following recommendations of the Bruce Heavy Water Plant Safety Advisory Committee (SAC), which includes members from several Ontario government ministries.
3. March 1972 - The SAC concluded that startup of the BHWP-A would create an unacceptable hazard, due to the use of large amounts of toxic hydrogen sulphide gas (H.S.[H2S]), to the relatively unprotected campers in the adjacent Inverhuron Park. The SAC recommend to the AECB that Inverhuron Park be closed to overnight camping for at least the first year of operation of BHWP-A. This was an "eleventh hour" conclusion with little indication during the previous 3 years of review by the SAC that concurrent camping and HWP operation would not be sanctioned. However, the AECB has jurisdiction over the BHWP-A, but not over the operation of a provincial park.
4. April 1972 - AECL, as owners of the BHWP-A, offered to defer startup (and hence use of H.S.[H2S]) until after Labour Day, ie until after the main camping season. In actual fact, because of the 4 month July to October Hydro employee strike, startup and H.S. use were delayed until November 1972.
5. Summer 1972 - Plans were formulated to provide emergency shelters and a warning system for the following summer (1973). This plan was accepted in principle for concurrent camping and plant operation, by the AECB, but contingent on good operating experience during the winter of 1972-73.
6. July 1972 - An interim operating License, expiring May 15, 1973 was granted by the AECB. The license required that Inverhuron Park be officially closed for the season before H2S use was permitted. Renewal to permit operation during following camping seasons would be contingent on the safety provisions (shelters) and satisfactory operating experience.
7. August 1972 - Ontario Hydro staff recommend to the Ontario Hydro Commission (now Board of Directors) that OH acquire ownership of Inverhuron Park. The Commission authorized purchase negotiations with the Ministry of Natural Resources.
8. November 8, 1972 - The Ontario Cabinet ratified purchase of Inverhuron Park by Ontario Hydro, and creation of a replacement park at MacGregor Point by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
9. January 1973 - OH proposed to AECB on behalf of OH and the Ministry of Natural Resources that concurrent camping at Inverhuron Park and operation of BHWP be permitted for an additional 2 camping sessions, i.e., until the end of the 1974 season. The AECB accepted this proposal.
10. June 7, 1973 - Announcement in the Ontario Legislature by Mr. Bernier…"Expansion of Park Facilities in the Bruce Area"…copy attached.
11. June 28, 1973 - The OH Commission approved of Inverhuron Park by Ontario Hydro.
12. August 22, 1973 - An Inverhuron Park Agreement between Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Government was executed.
The main terms were:
(a) Price: 1.146 million dollars plus actual land acquisition costs to complete MacGregor Point.
(b) Lease back to Ministry of Natural Resources by Ontario Hydro for 999 years. The lease assures Ontario Hydro will not build in or use Inverhuron Park for any OH purpose not alter its wilderness characteristics.
(c) Camping would cease October 31, 1974 or when MacGregor Point Park became available, whichever occurred last. This is subject to Clause 6 of the agreement; see appended text 2, #6, Line 5. The Agreement noted that "Time in all respects shall be of the essence".
13. 1973-74 - An excellent production and safety record was established by the BHWP-A. During the summers of 1973 and 1974, Inverhuron Park remained in full operation (overnight camping) concurrently with normal operation of BHWP-A. On no occasion during operation of BHWP-A has there been an event which threatened camper safety.
14. September 20, 1974 - By the summer of 1974 it had become apparent that there was little chance of MacGregor Point Park being ready for 1975 use, although some hope was held out by the Ministry of Natural Resources that limited camping would be available part way through the 1975 season. Accordingly, on September 20, 1974, Ontario Hydro advised the AECB, and requested a revision of the Operating License to allow continued concurrent camping and BHWP-A operating for 1975. On September 27, 1974 Dr. D.G. Hurst, then President of the AECB, replied, expressing considerable concern at the MacGregor Point delay and seeking further information regarding the delay before considering the renewal application.
Agreement made on the 22nd of August, 1973.
Whereas Hydro and Atomic of Canada Limited have co-operated in the successful development of nuclear-electric generating stations employing heavy water and natural uranium; And whereas within the Bruce Nuclear Power Development in the county of Bruce. Hydro is constructing the Bruce Generating Station and has acquired the Bruce Heavy Water Plant; And Whereas Hydro intends to construct a second generating station and provide additional essential heavy water production facilities; And whereas in order to comply with the rules, regulations, restrictions and other constraints imposed by the Atomic Energy Control Board on the construction and operation of nuclear power facilities, heavy water plants and on the use of lands in proximity thereto it is necessary for Hydro to acquire from Ontario adjacent lands known as "Inverhuron Provincial Park"; And whereas Ontario and Hydro desire to continue the operation of "Inverhuron Provincial Park". And whereas it is Ontario's intention to establish a new and larger park in the area to be known for the purpose of this agreement as "MacGregor Point Provincial Park".

There was no public consultation or environmental hearing of any kind before the agreement was negotiated or signed, or thereafter.
According to Stuart Ogg, the issue over the lack of health and safety standards and the threats of possible hazards in the form of hydrogen sulphide remained the focal point in the potential take over by Ontario Hydro of the Inverhuron Provincial Park:
The Committee's anxiety was caused by the possibility of interpreting the directive as an intention on the part of Hydro to take over the park. In fact, in a letter sent by the Atomic Energy Control Board to Mr. Whicher in answer to the question originally posed by the Committee of Inverhuron and apparently passed on to Hydro by Mr. Whicher, D.G. Hurst admitted:
"Ontario Hydro is well aware that the licensing of new facilities at the Bruce Nuclear Development site may be difficult so long as the present Inverhuron Park is open, and the exclusion zone around the site of a new power reactor might well overlap the mark."
He further added, "The Ontario Hydro proposal to take over the Inverhuron Park and open a new park some distance away has much to command it from the point of view of health and safety."
In a subsequent letter from Bill MacKenzie to Ross Whicher, he expressed anger at the lack of foresight shown by Hydro. He noted:
"Despite the fact that there has been a heavy water plant in operation in the United States for over 20 years from which one would expect that rather definitive data could be drawn, no directives of any kind, whether guidelines or regulations, were laid down prior to development of such plants in Canada. Instead, the approach taken seems to have been a developmental one; to put it more crudely, the approach has been fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants."
The Committee, representing the Inverhuron people, realized with indignation that they had been placed in the position of possibly "losing a magnificent park", as well as their cottages. However, only one year previous, the people of Inverhuron had been assured that Hydro had no need of the park. (Letter received from Mr. Murray Gaunt, M.P.P. for Huron and Bruce: "I have been given assurance that Ontario Hydro does not want to take over the park." He later, then, concluded: "Hydro's credibility in this community has been reduced to nil."
As the 1973 agreement between the OMNR and Ontario Hydro to purchase the Inverhuron Provincial Park became official, both the residents and visitors to Inverhuron became outraged and skeptical. The motives of the Ontario government were brought into considerable scrutiny. One of Ontario's historic parks would be sacrificed to industry and to Ontario Hydro with the construction of a heavy water plant. Many of the residents and visitors began to appeal to the then new Ontario Minister of Natural Resources (formerly the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests), Leo Bernier. Bernier, from northern Ontario (Kenora), formerly Ontario Minister of Mines and Northern Affairs (1971-2) had no real political interest in an environmental issue in southern Ontario. He simply confirmed the inevitable that Inverhuron Provincial Park would no longer remain open to overnight camping. It would be only a day use facility for swimming, picnics and recreation. The local residents began a petition and many of the visitors started to voice their displeasure by writing letters of petition to Bernier.
There were many ways in which the public displayed their displeasure over Ontario Hydro's purchase of Inverhuron Provincial Park after it was announced. This letter was addressed to Mr. Bernier is from one of the many visitors to Inverhuron Park addressed in July of 1974:
My family and I have just returned from our third, and apparently out last camping holiday at Inverhuron Provincial Park. This park, with its natural beauty in the wooded areas, beaches and of course Lake Huron has provided for us escape from the noise and bustle of the city environment in which we are obliged to spend the greater part of our time.
If you have taken the time to visit this area you will realize what a place of beauty and of peace it has become. If during your visit you availed yourself of the educational programme provided by the excellent young people employed by your ministry and accompanied them on the many nature and historical walks they have organized for the visitors to the area, you too would have learned that man has been visiting Inverhuron for about 2,900 years. Ever since the early Indians set up summer camps to fish and to hunt before traveling South for the winter, man has been privileged to enjoy the natural resources of this part of our province. Now it seems, since the arrival of Ontario Hydro on the scene, this privilege is to be withdrawn. Without any consultation with, or I suggest, very much regard to the people who have been accustomed to using this park, a decision has been reached whereby for the first time in nearly three thousand years man is to be denied the pleasure of visiting Inverhuron to camp in peace and relax in its beauty.
I realize that a new park is to be built, no doubt at considerable expense, in the long run my expense, in an attempt to replace Inverhuron and to pacify those irate citizens who have taken the time to complain. I appreciate that the world cannot still and that there is a need in our country for plentiful and inexpensive electrical power but I suggest that your ministry, by its very name, should be more interested in preserving, our natural resources than in aiding and abetting an organization apparently devoted to destroying them. I do not pretend to be an expert in Nuclear Power, or in the type of terrain required to build them but I do feel that there are other sites available which would have sufficed as well as Douglas Point had anyone with the power to do so had the courage to stand up and say so, thus saving Inverhuron and preserving its natural resources.
To say that I am disappointed in the performance of your ministry, sir is to put it mildly. I had hoped that you would have found it a part of your duty to the people you serve to act more in their behalf.
There were hundreds of letters addressed to Bernier regarding the closure of overnight camping.
Many of these letters were skeptical and were very concerned over the closure of Inverhuron Provincial Park and the expansion of Ontario Hydro onto the Park. None of them raised Indigenous issues since the area was seen to be not an "Indian Reserve" or a Metis community. Besides the provincial government had, at least at this time, no official or unofficial policy on Indigenous issues. Provincial officials and politicians argued that Indigenous people were a federal government "problem" by the Indian Act and by section 91(24) of Canada's Constitution. For the first time, it was confronting litigation on the Bear Island claim. It was truly an intellectual wilderness.
This provincial action threatened the historical significance of the park land which had seen thousands of years of Indigenous occupation. However, Bernier attempted ineffectually to address these many serious concerns in the many letters addressed to the concerned public and the many newspaper publications which remained skeptical of the OMNR and their intentions with regard to Inverhuron Provincial Park. Bernier wrote that In response to your letter of July 21, 1974 regarding Inverhuron Provincial Park, it must be emphasized that after camping is phased out Inverhuron will continue to be operated by my Ministry as a day use provincial available to the public. Thus, you will not be totally denied the pleasure of visiting Inverhuron. While I can appreciate your disappointment, I hope by building a new park at MacGregor Point and retaining the opportunity to visit Inverhuron during the day, that you still be able to enjoy the beauty of Lake Huron and the Inverhuron area.
However, the purchase of Inverhuron by Ontario Hydro was not just the concern of the local residents and its visitors, many government departments/ministries such as Environment Canada, Environment Ontario and Health Canada, all expressed their concern and displeasure over the possible health hazards to the public and the possible environmental effects. Inverhuron Provincial Park had been designated as a historic park with a recognized Indigenous history and natural beauty.
While the sale of Inverhuron Provincial Park was ratified by the then Premier of Ontario, William G. Davis and the government of Ontario on September 20th 1973, opposition to sale had been growing from the New Democratic Party of Ontario and from many conservation groups in Ontario. One of which, was the Algonquin Wildlands League (AWL). It viewed the sale of Inverhuron as an "assault on the integrity of the provincial park system" as further stated by the AWL: "This is not just a local issue. It is a dangerous precedent that concerns all Ontario citizens, for parkland should be inviolate and never sold to industry, government-controlled or not".
Much of the concern of these conservation groups related to the lack of "community consent" as to the location of the heavy-water plant and the overall lack of public discussion on the environmental and safety considerations that went into the agreement between the OMNR and Ontario Hydro. In fact, there remained considerable opposition to the actions of Ontario Hydro. It did not consult or obtain the consent of the community surrounding Inverhuron Provincial Park, much less conduct an environmental assessment. In fact, Ontario Hydro, in its "Generation Development Program of Ontario Hydro", on page 12, says "community consent must be obtained." This action it failed to do under its own policy guidelines.
One of the conditions of the agreement made between the OMNR and Ontario Hydro was the phasing out of overnight camping prior to the 1975 camping season. While the agreement had already been consummated to phase out overnight camping at Inverhuron Provincial Park, the park remained open as a day use facility only. This agreement had been contingent upon the construction of the MacGregor Point Park, which had yet to be completed. As a result, overnight camping resumed at Inverhuron Provincial Park and the OMNR became concerned about the possible risks posed to the campers from the odor and possible leak of "hydrogen sulphide".
The OMNR stated that the closure of overnight camping was due to the close proximity (within a one km radius) of the park to the BHWP. In particular, overnight camping became of serious environmental and health concern because there would be no guarantee for the safety of the visitors or the local residents in the event of a major release of H2S (hydrogen sulphide)
The OMNR always maintained publicly that a risk of a disaster remained low, many residents and visitors to the park became concerned about the prospects of such an event. At a similar heavy-water plant in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, an accident saw thirty tons of hydrogen sulphide gas released into the atmosphere and out to sea because of the prevailing winds. (The Glace Bay plant was later closed in 1969 due to safety concerns) Fortunately, the wind had blown all of the gas out to sea and there were no reported casualties or injuries.
However, in the spring of 1975, the MacGregor Point Park had yet to be completed although it had been determined by OMNR that it had stated that it would be completed in time for 1975 camping season. As a result, the OMNR would be faced with a dilemma in allowing the extension of overnight camping at Inverhuron Provincial Park in the spring and summer of 1975. However, by doing so, the Safety Advisory Committee would be violating Section 4.1 of the "Guidelines for Siting of Heavy Water Plants" by the AECB which stated the following: "Population concentrations such as villages and overnight camping facilities should be avoided. Furthermore, concurrence with an additional year of overnight camping at Inverhuron Park would leave the Safety Advisory Committee in a much less defensible position for objecting to any requests for further extension or even permanent retention of overnight camping in the park".
By the end of 1974, it became clear that the McGregor Point Park would not be ready for overnight camping in time for the spring of 1975 camping season. As a result, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) had filed a report on December 9th, 1974 to the OMNR regarding the decision. Although there had not been any incidents in 1973 or 1974, the OMOE had not agreed to the proposed one year extension of the use of overnight camping for the 1975 camping season, while still waiting for the opening of the MacGregor Point facility to be completed.
However, according to documents obtained through the Provincial Archives of Ontario, on February, 12th, 1975, a cabinet meeting had been held regarding Inverhuron Provincial Park. The Ontario Cabinet made the following determination:

1. Inverhuron Park should remain open for overnight camping for the 1975 season as long as the Atomic Energy Control Board does not rule against such concurrent with operation of the Bruce Heavy Water Plant.
2. Natural Resources should proceed with expropriation of the outstanding parcels for MacGregor Point.
3. We should increase significantly our development program of MacGregor Point Park to have park in full operation by spring of 1976 or if Inverhuron is closed, to have MacGregor Point in partial operation in the summer of 1975.
However, the main problem with the closure of overnight camping at Inverhuron and the opening of MacGregor Point Park became the failure of the Provincial government to purchase the land around the MacGregor Point area. As a result overnight camping resumed at Inverhuron even though the Ministry of Environment (as well as Health Canada and Environment Canada) had ruled against the one year extension, it had ruled that overnight camping was unsafe due to the lack of a solid structure (housing) for the campers (who used mainly tents) during night time and that there would not be sufficient in warming them in case of a possible release of hydrogen sulphide. The agreement between O.H. and the M.N.R., assured that the MacGregor Point facility would open in time for the May 15th, overnight camping season as a result, many promises would be broken and man people would be put at risk, as a result of the Bruce Plant and the inability to purchase the lands around MacGregor Point.
As part of the agreement between the OMNR and Ontario Hydro, MacGregor Point Provincial Park, effectively replacing Inverhuron Provincial Park from the OMNR's perspective, for overnight camping was supposed to be ready for the summer 1975 camping season.
As of February 4th, 1975, however, the OMNR had yet to purchase the land required to build and complete the provincial park at MacGregor Point. They had acquired only 1,800 acres of the 2,400 acres required to construct the park. According to provincial documents, in a letter addressed to Bernier, the major stumbling block appeared to be the United Auto Workers (UAW) property and their land holding in the area. As a result, both parties had been unable to come to an agreement concerning the lands as the UAW had proposed to develop a recreational complex for their members on their land and had been reluctant to sell. These negotiations had caused a delay in the development of MacGregor Point Provincial Park as the land owned by the UAW on which OMNR planned to build approximately a hundred and seventy-five campsites.
The President of AECB, D.G. Hurst, expressed his concern regarding the delay and the failure to require the land owned by the UAW and the opening of MacGregor Point Park:
The "alternatives" as we see them, are: a) An extraordinary effort be made to provide a sufficient amount of replacement camping at MacGregor Point by the spring of 1975 and thus enable the cessation of overnight camping in Inverhuron Park without public criticism. We would appreciate your advice on the feasibility of this alternative: that is, can a sufficient amount of replacement camping be provided at MacGregor Point by the spring of 1975?
(b) Cessation of overnight camping at Inverhuron Park before replacement camping is available at MacGregor Point. In our view, and I am sure you will agree, this alternative is unacceptable, but we need a strong statement to that effect from your Ministry to firm up on our reply to AECB.
(c) Acceptance of a possible refusal of an extension of our operating license for the Bruce HWP. We believe the shutdown of BWHP is an unacceptable alternative.
(d) The other course of action is the one which we have requested of AECB; namely, overnight camping at Inverhuron Park will continue into 1975 with on-going camper safety precautions against hydrogen sulphide.
Bernier had received the letter from Hurst and agreed to (d) extending overnight camping at Inverhuron for the 1976 season. The full operation of MacGregor Point Provincial Park was to begin in the spring of 1976 and camping would be phased out at Inverhuron Provincial Park. It had been acknowledged by all parties that the closure of overnight camping at Inverhuron could not happen before MacGregor Point Provincial Park was operational, due to the public promises and statements of the provincial government that had been made in the past.
The environmental impact of the heavy water plant on the Inverhuron area was mainly the odor of hydrogen sulphide. Many of the nearby residents of Inverhuron experienced this odor on a daily basis, more often than the typical day visitors to the park itself. According to Professor Joy Parr, the effects of, and impact on, the sensory environment was olfactory:
The odor of hydrogen sulphide, an airborne by-product of the process by which ordinary water was made heavy. The human neighbours, campers and a pastoral family raising sheep and producing yarn adjacent to the site, and cottagers immediately south of the provincial park, came to know the heavy water plant by the presence of this olfactory sensation - the rotten egg smell of hydrogen sulphide released from the plant the air of their living space.
However, the AECB did not consider the odor to be an important issue and had ruled that its operation of the heavy water plant was indeed safe. The odor released by the plant and into the air was ruled to be nothing more than nuisance and that its main priority was to insure safety, in terms of a large catastrophic release of toxic waste and not the long term effects and exposures to hydrogen sulphide. The risk of the long term exposure to hydrogen sulphide, and the odor that came with it, was not the only risk to Inverhuron and the surrounding area. One of the main problems in dealing with the particular environmental history of the Inverhuron area is the lack of the overall studies pertaining to the long term environmental effects of exposure to hydrogen sulphide. The smell of hydrogen sulphide became the main environmental hazard that had been determined to be of main consequence for the AECB by the time the heavy water plant had opened. The odor was determined to be a routine consequence of the plant itself and that its effects were not serious enough at the time to close the park entirely and the surrounding area. However, the park was closed in 1976 for overnight camping only and remained opened to day visitors only until August of 2006. Many of the residents and visitors in the Inverhuron area routinely smelled the "odor of rotten eggs", since hydrogen sulphide a strong and distinguishing odor. According to Parr, the long term effects of this odor had created much discussion to this day. One of the results has been on the residents of Inverhuron:
Delayed and chronic effects, particularly of long term exposure to low levels of H2S, have been difficult to demonstrate definitively and remain contested, particularly for open air exposures, because ambient levels of the gas are more difficult to monitor than in contained work places. Because it is heavier than air, when released into the environment at ground level H2S settles into low areas, persisting invisibly after the release seems to have been borne away by the wind. Survivors of acute exposures have presented with an array of neurological and psychiatric symptoms including memory loss and depression. The more common intermittent exposures of residents near gas emitting sites to low and intermediate concentrations (50-100 ppm) yield reports of lingering fatigue, headaches, coughs, hoarseness and irritability. Perhaps most insidiously, a hydrogen sulphide event is invisible to the eye, perceptible by smell only at low concentrations when its bodily effects are minimal or moot. At high concentrations an H2S plume can be either deadly or enigmatically disabling.
Many of the inhabitants of the area who had been in close proximity to the Bruce Heavy Water Plant were faced with the constant 'odor' on a daily basis. However, the issue of smell was one that dated back to the opening of the plant in 1972. Many of the residents and visitors in the Inverhuron area could smell the 'odor'. As a result, in 1973, Ontario Hydro and the AECL made restrictions for anyone to keep away from an area within five miles of the plant and declared it a controlled area, therefore restricting any residential development in that area. The risk posed by hydrogen sulphide and the bad 'odor' had plagued many of the residents of Inverhuron and visitors to Bruce County for many years, up until the heavy water plant's closure in 1997. Many residents of Bruce County have lived with these consequences for many years. Many politicians, past or present, have maintained that the risks had been minimal and that the 'odor' in the area was nothing more than a minor inconvenience. A former federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Donald S. McDonald, downplayed the significance of any risk posed by the heavy water plant. He stated as such, in a letter to the AECB Safety Advisory Committee, that it had been "greatly overstated and can be expected and further suggested that it was an "extreme unlikelihood that such an event could occur". The public, and more specifically the residents of Inverhuron, who have resided in the area have always been suspicious of the motives of the federal or provincial governments and of Ontario Hydro (now Bruce Power) to the present day.

L. THE METIS OF ONTARIO AND THE POWLEY CASE

On September 19th, 2003, a landmark decision had been made in favour of the Metis Nation of Ontario in the harvesting rights case R. v. Powley. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the aboriginal right to hunt of the Metis community at Sault Ste Marie. The case involved both Steve and Roddy Powley who had been hunting just outside of Sault Ste Marie, in northern Ontario, in 1993. They had killed a bull moose, and carded the moose with a Metis card, that read "harvesting my meat for winter". Both of them were reported perversely for cutting up the moose meat by neighbours under the Crime Stoppers program and were arrested for hunting moose without a license and unlawful possession of a moose.

The Powley case lasted from 1993 to 1998 and a trial judge had ruled in favour of the Powleys and their right to hunt as Metis under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Crown appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal but the trial decision was upheld. The Crown argued that "there were no Metis "peoples" and that there were only individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage". The Supreme Court of Canada in a unanimous decision, ruled in favour of the Powleys. The inclusion of the Metis people under s. 35 of the Constitution Act was to recognize and reaffirm their status. Also the protection of Metis rights (hunting) is historically important to many aspects of the traditionally way of Metis culture and life. The Metis community must be recognized and protected similarly to other aboriginal communities such as other First Nations and the Inuit. The Metis were a separate group of distinct Indigenous peoples, separate from the Inuit and or the Indian.
The decision in September of 2003 was declared to be a victory for all Metis across Canada. The Interim President and Spokesperson for the Metis National Council, Audrey Poitras stated that "The highest court of this land has finally done what Parliament and the provincial governments have refused to do and have delivered justice to the Metis people. This decision is a great victory for the Metis Nation. The government of Canada can no longer refuse to negotiate with the Metis Nation and treat us as though we don't have any Aboriginal rights. Those days are over". The Metis had come a long way in their journey to be recognized as distinctive people since the time of Red River resistance movements and the hanging of Louis Riel. Yet it was still a struggle against the federal government towards self-government in the early 21st century.
The landmark decision of the Powley case in 2003 reaffirmed Metis rights under Canada's Constitution. However, while Metis people registered with the Metis Nation of Ontario have the right to hunt or catch fish for social, ceremonial and personal use, there had been a disagreement on when that law actually came into effect. There had also been many unresolved issues pertaining to the Metis and their right to hunt and fish across the entire Province of Ontario and not just in specific northern regions. (Specifically traditional territories north of the French River)
An issue emerged in October of 2005, when a Southampton and Metis fisherman named Jim McLay had his gill nets seized for more than two years by conservation officers. McLay was not arrested neither was he charged with any official crime for commercial fishing. It took over two years for the Ministry of Natural Resources to return the nets to McLay, who had demanded an apology from the Natural Resources enforcement officer who refused. The disagreement between McLay and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources pertains to when exactly the law allowing Metis people to hunt and fish came into effect. While the official agreement between the Metis of Ontario and the Ministry came into effect in July of 2004, the law did not apply to all of Ontario as a judge had ruled that it would come into law in all of Ontario in June of 2007.
As a result of the decision in June of 2007, McLay believes that he deserves an apology from the Ministry according to an article from the Owen Sound Times: "McLay said that recent ruling proves he was doing nothing wrong when conservation officers seized his fishing equipment. He said he was fishing for his own consumption and for ceremonial food, which was to be served to about 30 people at the Saguingue Metis Nations annual fall banquet. I feel that I deserve an apology, he said. Those fish weren't just for myself, they were for our citizens, children and elders." While McLay had still not be given a formal apology from the Ministry he also has not fished for over two years as the Ministry staff had also threatened to seize his boat.
McLay believes that the Ministry had almost immediately reneged on the 2004 agreement with the Metis Nation of Ontario and that he had done nothing wrong. According to the Ministry McLay equipment for fishing was not considered to be for his own personal use, judging by the size of the fishing equipment they had seized. As stated by Robert Gibson, Ministry of Natural Resources enforcement supervisor with the Upper Great Lakes Management Area: "The ministry acted correctly in this situation. We were acting on the laws that were in place at that point in time," he said. If you've got a net set that is a quarter of a mile long, usually a guy is setting for commercial purposes. Are you going to be using 1,000 pounds of fish for personal use? These were some of the questions that were going through some of our heads. That's why the nets were seized at that point in time." However, now that the law has been clarified by a judge, McLay believes that he will be allowed to resume his traditional fishing as president of the Sauguinge Metis Council and that the bullying tactics used by the ministry officers will subside allowing Metis to practice their ceremonial hunting and fishing practices in all regions of Ontario, including the Saugeen (Inverhuron) Territory.

M. HISTORICAL SUMMARY

1. The rich Indigenous history of the Saugeen Territory (including the Inverhuron area) dates back to time immemorial when these places had been occupied by Indigenous people. Their Territory, although never surveyed during the 19th century Treaty period or thereafter, was in very general terms from Point Clark to Tobermory as well as all the waters and islands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay.
2. The Indigenous Treaties, under the Covenant Chain of Silver, have a long history that was recorded in wampum belts, oral tradition as well as in the written record of Europeans. It was an innovation of the Indigenous Nations (Haudenosaunee and the Anishinabe, also identified as the Council of Three Fires and the Lakes or Western Confederacy) first among themselves and later since the 17th century with Europeans. The Saugeen people (who included the Anishinabe and the Metis who had been adopted by the former) were part of the Council of Three Fires. One of these Treaties, the Two Row Wampum, epitomized the Covenant Chain of Silver and what it represented to the relationship between the French and then English imperial governments and the Aboriginal Nations: namely, Peace, Respect and Trust.
3. Indigenous citizens (including Metis citizens since the 17th century) have continued to reside in Inverhuron. They included the Haudenosaunee (people of the Longhouse, also known as Iroquoian people, also identified as the Six Nations, the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora and Seneca). Anishinabe (the original people, also identified as Ojibway or Chippewa) were also residents of this Territory. They shared these lands and waters with the Haudenosaunee based on the Indigenous political concept of the Dish with One Spoon. The descendants of all of these peoples still live in this Territory in what is today part of southwestern Ontario along the Lake Huron shoreline. Throughout the first half of the eighteenth century the Anishinabe Nation and the Metis Nation in the Saugeen Territory inhabited a large portion of the current Bruce County. The area known as "Saugeen" begins by Point Clark on Lake Huron extending north to lands end at Tobermory and east and south into Georgian Bay as far as Owen Sound. The term "Saugeen", in English derived from a corruption of the Ojibway term meaning "mouth of a river." They became allies of the French and they gathered, fished, trapped and hunted along the many rivers and lakes around the Saugeen Peninsula.
4. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was promulgated by King George III after the Seven Years War, partly in response to the Anishinabe and Seneca resistance movements earlier that year. The Royal Proclamation was an English imperial document, among other things, that established the administrative framework for the new English colonies in Quebec, and in the rest of North America. It also recognized and reaffirmed the "Indian territory." It established English imperial rules regarding the treaty-making process under the Covenant Chain as well as for Aboriginal trade with non-Aboriginal people. This Proclamation also recognized the significance of Indigenous trade and trading. For the Metis, such trade was their economic mainstay. The Proclamation reaffirmed that the "Indian Territory" as well as the uses of that Territory by the First Nations and their citizens was to be their "absolute property." They retained sovereignty and the control of their trading networks and their trade. These diplomatic initiatives came from the Indigenous Nations under the Covenant Chain of Silver - the Two Row Wampum. It would be reaffirmed one year later in a grand council of Nations at Niagara in 1764 including presents as well as provisions to the Western Confederacy of Nations (including the Three Fires Confederacy) as well as citizens of the Metis Nation.
5. The terms of the Treaties of 1836 and 1854 were concluded on the basis of manipulation, economic and false promises by the Indian Department and the imperial and the local colonial governments. The spirit and intent of these Treaties, which was to share the lands and natural resources, was not honoured by the Crown. Metis people were not recognized or included in the 1836 or in the 1854 Treaty. All of that would remain of the Saugeen Indigenous people by the early 20th century would be small Indian villages and farms that would eventually become fewer and smaller reserves. The official policy of the colonial and then the Canadian government became the policy of amalgamation which in turn gradually became one of assimilation after 1885. Both the Saugeen and Newash reserves were subsequently established in Bruce County. Many of the children of these reserves were forced after 1885 (by changes to the Indian Act) to attend residential schools off reserve, where many experienced almost a century of assimilation into Canadian society and others were faced with verbal, physical and sexual abuse in the residential school system. Only recently has the current federal government apologized for that system. The government had also intended that the land would be closed off to traditional activities and would turn it into enclosed areas as private property intended for cultivation and farming for the new European settlers who outnumbered their Indigenous counterparts by the late 19th century. The Metis who resided in Bruce County were deeply affected by these actions of the federal government.
6. There have been many explorers, fur traders, Metis voyagers and "Indian" and non-Indian missionaries who came to the Saugeen Territory. However, no Europeans had attempted to settle in Bruce County until the mid-19th century. As these settlers began to arrive, they started working to build up the area by opening up roads and clearing forests, establishing trading posts and building schools. All that remained of the Metis trade and traders by the late 19th century were the small trading posts and forts erected by them at Cape Croker, Stokes Bay, Red Bay, Southampton and Inverhuron. Local amateur historians, such as Norman Robertson, erroneously believed that these places had been erected by "French fur traders" as there had also been evidence of small relics of French origin found at the sites of these old ruins. However, there were also indigenous markers which indicated Metis use and settlements at these places.
7. The Metis have a rich history that has been significant and has played a vital role in the Saugeen Territory. Their identities and family histories have been obscured until recently in the historiography of Bruce County. A list of these historic and current Metis family names is cited below:
Beausoleil
Bosley
Borland
Bourgeois
Belhumeur (Joseph & Louis)
Cazelet
Cosley
Cadotte
Cameron, (John)
De Lamorandiere
Desjardins
Gooding
Granville
Gunn
Higgins
Johnston
Kennedy
Lange
Lavallee
Longe
Loranger
Leduc
McGregor
McLean (John)
Mitchell
Normandin, (Joseph)
Payette, (Pierre)
Piche, (Pierre)
Reid, (Robert)
Rollette
Sayer
Spence, (John)
Thibeau.
And there were other families in addition to these names. Others were usually hiding in plain sight.
8. Two of the more well-known persons to have resided at Inverhuron on a permanent basis were William Gunn and Louis Leduc. Gunn, a young Scotsman, has been given credit for developing a general store and the first post office at Inverhuron. Leduc, a Metis, had occupied a small shanty near the shorelines. Many squatters began to arrive at Inverhuron at this time and before long many of the best lands had been claimed. Gunn, first arrived in Kincardine in 1852 where he established a general store, shortly before leaving for Inverhuron. Besides Gunn, the first Metis were named Leduc, who were fishermen. Other early settlers at Inverhuron included the Hodgins, Stantons and the McManemy brothers. The first Sauble plot was laid out in 1851 and officially became Inverhuron when Gunn established a post office along the shoreline. By 1856, the village had grown to some 200 people. As well, the first public library had been established in the county boasting a collection of thirty-nine volumes. There also was a wharf at the mouth of the little Sauble, the southern part of which is a grist mill, which is still visible at low water level as a grist mill. While the small town of Inverhuron began to flourish in the 1860s, fishing and farming became the main attraction for many of the residents. While Inverhuron became prosperous many of its residents, likely Metis, worked in logging or fishing. The area surrounding Inverhuron was also ideal for farming and supported a number of farms and improved land, which was then valued at approximately $30.00 an acre. However, two fires destroyed the town by the l880s and it became a ghost town.
9. By 1901, Bruce County valuators declared the land as virtually worthless and reduced to sand dunes. The only remaining settlers were some farmers and cottagers along the beaches. However, the history of the first settlers at Inverhuron and its past of prosperity in shipping and transportation is acknowledged and remembered to those settlers in a publication titled the County of Bruce Directory of 1867:
A post village on the Lake shore, in the Township of Bruce, 9 miles from Kincardine, about 26 from Walkerton, was surveyed by Government in 1851. It has excellent harbour accommodation. The post office was established in 1854; Mr. William Gunn, [who was the] first postmaster. It contains one store, one tavern, one grist and three saw mills, two coopers' shops. The following is a list of names of the people who inhabited and worked in the town of Inverhuron before its demise in 1887:
Cook Martin, Mill proprietor
Dayton, George, carpenter
Downie, William, carpenter
Green B., shoemaker
Lothian James, mill proprietor
Leherill T.C., carpenter
Fletcher Kenneth, cooper
Matheson, Hugh, carpenter
McRae, Peter. P.M. and merchant
McRae, Donald. labourer
McKinnon, Charles. labourer
McLennan, Kenneth, labourer
McEwan, John, labourer
McKay, Donald, labourer
McLean, Kenneth, labourer
McLeod, John, fisherman
Newman T, miller
Sinclair, Donald, miller
Watson, James, cooper
Webb, Joseph G., labourer.
Some of these names were likely, considering the Metis families in the area, and their occupations, Metis.
10. Since the 1930s, amateur and professional archeologists have recognized the Indigenous presence and enormous value of Inverhuron. In the 1970s, Peter Ramsden and his team of archaeologists reflected upon preserving both the historical and archaeological aspect of Inverhuron Park. Ramsden had strongly recommended that the Ontario Provincial Parks Branch undertake a program to preserve the material found in the park. He suggested that the interpretation of the archaeological material should be used as a presentation for all of the visitors to Inverhuron. Two distinct stories of Inverhuron can be presented to visitors: the first would be the nature and the role of archaeology, and secondly the history of the human occupation at Inverhuron. The archaeological findings provided evidence that enabled Ramsden and other historians to present a chronological history of the human occupation and settlement of Inverhuron. They were able to provide a basic outline of historical explanations in the changing nature of Inverhuron through the course of time. This basic information led, at least in part, to the continued historical development of Inverhuron as a provincial park by the Ontario government.
11. By the mid-20th century Bruce County's population had been expanding and the provincial government began to purchase the lands in close proximity to Inverhuron, while the federal government had proceeded to build a nuclear generating station at Douglas Point. However, by 1969 a new installation of the BHWP was announced and a plan to build a heavy water treatment plant had been undertaken by both OH and the AECB. By 1975, overnight camping at Inverhuron would cease and the construction of a new park at MacGregor Point would be established. Many of the frequent visitors and most importantly the residents of the Inverhuron area became concerned and believed that the Ontario government had sacrificed a Provincial Park and its natural beauty that had centuries of history to both OH and the AECB. It had been a rather unprecedented move by the government. Many users, both permanent and seasonal, became skeptical of the motives and decision behind the deal. There had been many complaints and frustrations shared by all who had lived or vacationed in Bruce County of the possible risks of hydrogen sulphide and the "rotten egg odor" that many of the residents have had to cope with on a daily basis.
12. Many of the inhabitants of the Inverhuron area that have been in close proximity to the Bruce Heavy Water Plant were faced with the constant 'odor' on a daily basis. However, the issue of smell was one that dated back to the opening of the plant in 1972. Many of the residents and visitors in the Inverhuron area could smell the 'odor' as a result in 1973, Ontario Hydro and the AECL made restrictions for anyone to keep away from an area within five miles of the plant and declared it a controlled area, therefore restricting any residential development in that area. The risk posed by hydrogen sulphide and the bad 'odor' had plagued many of the residents of Inverhuron and visitors to Bruce County for many years, up until the heavy water plant's closure in 1997. Many of the residents of Bruce County have lived with these consequences for many years. Many politicians past or present have maintained that the risks had been minimal and that the 'odor' in the area was nothing more than a minor inconvenience. The former federal minister of Energy Mines and Resources, Donald S. McDonald, downplayed the significance of any risk posed by the heavy water plant and he stated as such in a letter to the AECB Safety Advisory Committee that it had been "greatly overstated and can be expected and further suggested that it was an "extreme unlikelihood that such an event could occur". The public, and more specifically the residents of Inverhuron, who resided in the area had always been suspicious of the motives of the federal or provincial governments and to Ontario Hydro (now Bruce Power) to the present day.
13. In 1998 a trial judge ruled in favour of the Powleys and their right to hunt as Metis at Sault Ste. Marie under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Crown appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal but the trial decision was upheld. The Crown argued that "there were no Metis "peoples" and that there were only individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage". The Supreme Court of Canada in a unanimous decision, ruled in favour of the Powleys. The inclusion of the Metis people under s. 35 of the Constitution Act was to recognize and reaffirm their status. Also the protection of Metis rights (hunting) is historically important to many aspects of the traditionally way of Metis culture and life. The Metis community must be recognized and protected similarly to other aboriginal communities such as other First Nations and the Inuit. The Metis were a separate group of distinct Indigenous peoples, separate from the Inuit and the Indian. The decision in September of 2003 was declared to be a victory for all Metis across Canada. The Interim President and Spokesperson for the Metis National Council, Audrey Poitras stated that "The highest court of this land has finally done what Parliament and the provincial governments have refused to do and have delivered justice to the Metis people. This decision is a great victory for the Metis Nation. The governments of Canada can no longer refuse to negotiate with the Metis Nation and treat us as though we don't have any Aboriginal rights. Those days are over". The Metis had come a long way in their journey to be recognized as distinctive people since the time of Red River resistance movements and the hanging of Louis Riel. Yet it was still a struggle against the federal government towards self-government in the early 21st century. The landmark decision of the Powley case in 2003 reaffirmed Metis rights under Canada's Constitution. However, while Metis people registered with the Metis Nation of Ontario have the right to hunt or catch fish for social, ceremonial and personal use, there had been a disagreement on when that law actually came into effect. There had also been many unresolved issues pertaining to the Metis and their right to hunt and fish across the entire Province of Ontario and not just in specific northern regions (specifically traditional territories north of the French River). One of these cases has involved (2005-8) the Metis of Sauguinge and their right to fish for food in Lake Huron after an agreement had been reached between the Metis Nation of Ontario and the Ontario government in 2004. The provincial government reneged on that 2004 agreement.

NOTES

Anne Acco (Carriere), "Traditional Knowledge and the Land: The Cumberland House Metis and Cree People", Lawrence Barkwell, et.al., (ed) Metis Legacy, A Metis Historiography and Annotated Bibliography, Winnipeg: Pemmican Publications Inc., 2001, 127. See also Olive Patricia Dickason and David T. McNab, Canada's First Nations, A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times, Fourth Edition, Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2009, xiv; Ute Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo: WLU Press, 2007.
McNab, "HBC (Here Before the Company): The Saguingue Metis Community, Family History and Metis Trade and Trading", Historic Saugeen and Its Metis People, Southampton: Sauguinge Metis Council, 2005, 11-16.
McNab, (with Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen), "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 237-92
Provincial Archives of Ontario (PAO), Inverhuron 1972-73. File is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron 1958-1964. Item is located in RG 1-381, (Crown Lands), container b264008.
Parr, Joy. "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 283-312.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 223-24.
See the INAC website (accessed on July 22nd, 2008) at: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/indiantreaties/historicaltreaties.
PAO, Inverhuron 1969-1973. File is located in RG-47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron 1969-1973. File is located in RG-47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron 1969-1973. File is located in RG-47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron 1969-1973. File is located in RG-47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
See Robert A. Williams, Jr., Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600-1800, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, 4.
. Paul Williams, "The Covenant Chain", Unpublished L.L.M. thesis, Osgoode Hall Law School, 1982. See also the TVO documentary film, "Legend and Memory: Ontario's First Nations", David Hawkins (dir), 2002.
. Robert A. Williams, Jr., Linking Arms Together, American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600-1800, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, 4.
. National Archives of Canada (NAC), Record Group 10 (Indian Affairs), Volume 1822, 35.
. Sir William Johnson Papers, Volume XL, 395-6.
See McNab, "HBC (Here Before the Company): The Saguingue Metis Community, Family History and Metis Trade and Trading", Patsy Lou Wilson McArthur (ed), Historic Saugeen and Its Metis People, Southampton: Sauguinge Metis Council, 2005, 11-16.
PAO, Inverhuron 1969-1973. File is located in RG-47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
George Sioui Interview in TV Ontario documentary on "Legend and Memory: Ontario First Nations", David Hawkins (dir), aired March 29, 2002
Gateman, Laura M, Echoes of Bruce County, St. Jacobs, St. Jacobs Printery, 1983, 6.
Schmalz, Peter S, The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 5.
Gateman, Laura M., Echoes of Bruce County, St. Jacobs, St. Jacobs Printery, 1983, 6.
McNab, with Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 237-92.
McNab, "Sovereignty, Treaties and Trade in the Bkejwanong Territory", Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development, Volume 3, Issue 2, Fall 2003, 52-66.
The following endnotes #35-44, (and the text) have been published by Jim McLay "Lake Huron in the Seventeenth Century" in Patsy Lou Wilson McArthur (ed), Historic Saugeen and Its Metis People, Southampton: Sauguinge Metis Council, 2005. See also The Works of Samuel de Champlain, Vol. III, Champlain, Samuel de, 1567-1635, Toronto: Champlain Society, 1922-1936, 99
Coyne, James H., The country of the Neutrals: (as far as comprised in the County of Elgin), from Champlain to Talbot, St. Thomas: Times Print., 1895, 4
See Beausoliel First Nation website accessed on August 27th, 2008: http://www.chimnissing.ca/
Champlain. Dionne, N.-E. (Narcisse-Eutrope), 1848-1917, Toronto: Morang, 1905, 233.
Tuttle's popular history of the Dominion of Canada: with art illustrations from the earliest settlement of the British-American colonies to the present time, together with portrait engravings and biographical sketches of the most distinguished men of the nation, Tuttle, Charles R. (Charles Richard), b. 1848, Montreal and Boston: Downie; Tuttle & Downie, 1877, 155.
Report of the Pioneer Society, Vol.5, 1904 reprint, "Early history of St. Clair County Michigan", Mrs. B.C. Farrand, Port Huron, read for the Detroit Pioneer Society, June 12, 1872. Petit had described the ruins of an ancient house with a stone chimney. The fireplace had sunk beneath the surface and an oak tree 3 feet in diameter and 60 feet to the first branch grew inside the walls of the house.
Lahontan, Louis Armand de Lom d'Arce, baron de, 1666-1715, New voyages to North America: containing an account of the several nations of that continent, their customs, commerce, and way of navigation upon the lakes and rivers, the several attempts of the English and French to dispossess one another ... to which is added a dictionary of the Algonkine language which is generally spoke in North-America, London: Printed for H. Bonwicke ... [4 others], 1703, 94.
The History of Cape Croker, Chippewas of Nawash Education Department, 1980, 12
Marshall, Orsamus H. (Orsamus Holmes, 1813-1884), "The first visit of De La Salle to the Senecas, made in 1669: read before the Buffalo Historical Society, March 16, 1874", Buffalo: s.n., 1874, 15, The Jacobstaff was a rude graduated instrument with moveable indexes used before the invention of the quadrant by Hadley. A.C. Osborne, "The Migration of Voyageurs from Drummond Island to Penetanguishene in 1828", Ontario Historical Society, Papers and Records, Volume 3, Toronto, 1901, 123-166. See also Karen J. Travers "The Drummond Island Voyageurs and the Search for Great Lakes Metis Identity", Ute Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007, 219-46.
Jim McLay, "Lake Huron in the 17th Century, Historic Saugeen and Its Metis People, Patsy Lou Wilson McArthur (ed), Southampton: Sauguinge Metis Council, 2005, 47-53.
Schmalz, Peter S, The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 3.
Folkes, Patrick, Shipwrecks of the Saugeen - 1828-1938: A History of Marine Disasters of Bruce County, Owen Sound: 1970, 1.
Schmalz, Peter S, The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 9.
Schmalz, Peter S, The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 9.
Lambert, Richard S. and Pross, Paul, Renewing Nature's Wealth: A Centennial History of the Public Management of Lands, Forests & Wildlife in Ontario 1763-1967, 18.
Schmalz, Peter S, The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 23.
. McNab, Circles of Time: Aboriginal Land Rights and Resistance in Ontario, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1999; and generally see Bruce W. Hodgins, Ute Lischke and McNab (ed), Blockades and Resistance: Studies in Actions of Peace and the Temagami Blockades of 1988-89, Waterloo: WLU Press, 2003.
. "October 7, 1763, Royal Proclamation of 1763", As Long as the Sun Shines and the Water Flows, A Reader in Canadian Native Studies, Ian A.L. Getty and Antoine S. Lussier (ed), Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1983, 29-37.
21. October 7, 1763, Royal Proclamation of 1763, As Long as the Sun Shines and the Water Flows, A Reader in Canadian Native Studies, Ian A.L. Getty and Antoine S. Lussier (ed), Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1983, 29-37.
."Plan for the Future Management of Indian Affairs, referred to in the Thirty-Second Article of the Foregoing Instructions", Constitutional Documents, Sessional Papers, No. 18,614-619. See also McNab, "Sovereignty, Treaties and Trade in the Bkejwanong Territory", Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development, Volume 3, Issue 2, Fall 2003, 52-66.
D. Bruce Sealey and Antoine S. Lussier, The Metis, The History of a Forgotten People, Winnipeg: Manitoba Metis Federation, 1970.
McNab, "'Hearty Co-operation and Efficient Aid', The Metis and Treaty #3", The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, III, 1, 1983, 131-149; See also Jennifer S. H. Brown and Jacqueline Peterson, (ed), The New Peoples: Being and Becoming Metis in North America, Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1985.
James A. Clifton, Being and Becoming Indian, Biographical Studies of North American Frontiers, Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1989. See also Brown and Peterson, (ed), The New Peoples.
Dickason and McNab, Fourth Edition, Canada's First Nations, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2009, 113; see also McNab, with Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 237-92.
Herman Merivale, Lectures on Colonization and Colonies, Second Edition, New York: Kelley Reprint, 1967, originally given at the University of Oxford, 1841. For a comparative British Imperial view of race see McNab, "Herman Merivale and the Native Question, 1837 61", Albion, 9, 4, Winter 1977, 359-384.
Dickason and McNab, Fourth Edition, Canada's First Nations, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2009, 439-40; I am also relying here on my recollection of events in 1988 and 1990 in the discussions on the Metis between the Ontario Metis Association (OMA) and the federal and provincial governments. See my private "Date Books" and "Diaries", 1988-1990. Also see McNab, "'Hearty Co operation and Efficient Aid'", CJNS, 131 49. See also the other articles in this Special Issue on the Metis published in The Canadian Journal of Native Studies in 1983.
On the definitions of "Metis" see, in particular, John E. Foster, "The Metis: The People and the Term", Prairie Forum, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring, 1978, 79 91 as well as his article in Brown and Peterson (ed), The New Peoples, noted above. See also Ute Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo: WLU Press, 2007, 1-9.
McNab, "Metis Participation in the Treaty-Making Process in Ontario: A Reconnaissance", Native Studies Review, 1, 2, 1985, 57-79.
McNab, "Metis Participation", 57-79. For the historical background to some of those families and individuals see Sylvia Van Kirk, Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur Trade Society, Winnipeg: Watson and Dwyer, 1980 and Jennifer S. H. Brown, Strangers in Blood, Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country, Vancouver, UBC Press, 1980. The biographies on Metis individuals are in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, especially on Louis Riel: Lewis H. Thomas, "Louis Riel", Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Volume XI, 1881-1890, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982, 736-752. See also McNab, "Nicolas Chatelain", 187-188.
Samuel W. Corrigan and Lawrence J. Barkwell (ed), The Struggle, iii-viii.
Brown and Peterson, (ed), The New Peoples.
Irene M. Spry, "The Tragedy of the Loss of the Commons", Ian A.L. Getty and A.S. Lussier (ed), As long as the Sun Shines and the Water Flows, Vancouver: UBC Press, 1983, 203-28.
Ruth Phillips, Patterns of Power; Williams, "The Chain".
Douglas Leighton and Robert J. Burns, "Samuel Peters Jarvis", Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Volume VIII, 1851-1860, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985, 430-433.
National Archives of Canada (NAC) RG 10, Volume 72, 67087 67111.
Julia Jarvis, "William Benjamin Robinson", Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Volume X, 1871-1880, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972, pps. 622-624. For the role of George Ironside, Jr., a Metis in the making of this Treaty see McNab, "No Place for Fairness: Stories and Reflections of Bear Island", Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, forthcoming, 2009.
Morris, The Treaties of Canada, Toronto, 1880.
T. R. Millman, "Thomas Gummersal Anderson", Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Volume X, 1871-1880, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972, 11-13. W.L. Morton, "James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin", Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Volume IX, 1861-1870, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976, 89-93.
Rhonda M. Telford, "The Sound of the Rustling of the Gold is under my Feet where I stand: We have a Rich Country: A History of Aboriginal Mineral Resources in Ontario", Ph.D Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1996, see especially Chapter 2.
Morris, The Treaties of Canada. See also PAO, J.B. Robinson Papers, 1850 "Diary (or Journal of Wm. [William] B. Robinson on a visit to the Indians to make a treaty 1850".
Schmalz, Peter S., The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 23.
See INAC, ainc-inac.gc.ca/chrcap/sg/sg14_e.html/accessed /04/21/08.
Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders, Volume I, Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1891, 112-3.
Gateman, Laura M., Echoes of Bruce County. St. Jacobs: St. Jacobs Printery, 1983, 8.
Gateman, Laura M., Echoes of Bruce County, St. Jacobs: St. Jacobs Printery, 1983, 8
Gateman, Laura M., Echoes of Bruce County, St. Jacobs: St. Jacobs Printery, 1983, 11.
Schmalz, Peter S., The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 81.
Schmalz, Peter S., The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 80.
Schmalz, Peter S., The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 80-81.
Schmalz, Peter S., The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 96.
Schmalz, Peter S., The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991, 131.
See McNab, "in all cases where the term miles occurs the Indians intended leagues the only mode of measurement known to the Indians": LEAGUES AND MILES AND THE SHAWANAGA AND NAISCOUTAING RESERVES", Shawanaga First Nation, (revised) March 25th, 2006, 136 pps. Robinson's Diary of September 15th and 16th, 1850 (which is cited above and is in the PAO) is, as follows:
Sunday [September] - Went to Church & then walked to Fort. Saw the Indians who are waiting for their payment & tell them I wd [would] pay them at 9 tomorrow. Returned at 9 & saw Capt. Anderson & appointed time & place to pay the Indians.
Monday [September] 16 Up at six & went to Fort to pay Indians. Paid them all by 12 - $702 - then saw Yellowhead, Snake & Aisance on their business. They claim some right to a small tract of land near Severn River, which they said is not included in any former treaty. Could only promise then to inquire at the Land & Indian Offices in Toronto into it & write them. Gave them (7 of them) $4 ea. To pay their expenses. Finished everything by 1 2 P.M. Retd [Returned] to Penetanguishene to sleep. Saw Indians again there & gave them some provs [provisions] to take them home. Capt. Anderson & his interpreter Solomon assisted me materially at the payts [payments] & other business. Explained the treaty to the Indians & got the description of their reservations. Slept at Penetange [Penetanguishene][.]
In addition to Captain T.G. Anderson and Solomon, three citizens of Penetanguishene also were present-Wemyss Simpson, Alfred A. Thompson, and William Hamilton, all merchants so it seems. However, none of these individuals left any other account of this meeting. Robinson, in his Diary, only states that he explained the Treaty to them and got the description of their reservations from the Treaty area and then paid them. He did not say whether his interpreter, William Solomon, translated the written Treaty document, to them. Robinson, in his Report on the Treaty to Colonel Robert Bruce, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, on September 24, 1850 does not refer at all to the Penetanguishene Adhesion of September 16, 1850, merely referring to his meeting thereafter with Chiefs Yellowhead, Snake and Aisance. He may have also met with Metis at Penetanguishene at that time.
Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders, Volume I, Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1891, 195-7.
Schmalz, Peter S., The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 96
See McNab, "'A Lurid Dash of Colour': Powassan's Drum and Canada's Mission, the Reverend William and Duncan Campbell Scott", Jill Oakes and Rick Riewe (eds.), Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes, Winnipeg: Aboriginal Issues Press, 2004, 258-71.
Schmalz, Peter S., The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991, 182.
See McNab, "'We are sorry", Chapter 29 in (with Olive Patricia Dickason), Fourth Edition, Canada's First Nations, Oxford University Press, 2009, 427-57.
Schmalz, Peter S., The History of the Saugeen Indians, Ottawa: Ontario Historical Society, 1977, 96.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 17.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 17-8.
Dilse, Paul, "Fur Trading at Saugeen", Patsy Lou Wilson McArthur (ed), Historic Saugeen & Its Metis People, Saguingue Metis Council, Epic Press, 2005, 5.
Wilson McArthur, Patsy, Lou, "The Saguingue and the Fur Trade at Southampton", Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007, 332-33.
Trigger, Bruce G., Natives and Newcomers: Canada's "Heroic Age" Reconsidered, Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1985, 195.
Wilson McArthur, Patsy, Lou, "The Saguingue and the Fur Trade at Southampton", Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007, 137.
Trigger, Bruce G., Natives and Newcomers: Canada's "Heroic Age" Reconsidered, Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1985, 195.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 18.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 18-9.
Wilson McArthur, Patsy, Lou, "The Saguingue and the Fur Trade at Southampton", Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007, 341.
See McNab, with Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 237-92.
Wilson McArthur, Patsy, Lou, "The Saguingue and the Fur Trade at Southampton", Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007, 339.
Dilse, Paul, "Fur Trading at Saugeen", Patsy Lou Wilson McArthur (ed), Historic Saugeen & Its Metis People, Saguingue Metis Council, Epic Press, 2005, 5.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 1.
See McNab, "'Superior Energy and High Organization': The Ubiquitous Metis Career of William Kennedy (1814-1890)" Chantry Island Institute, August 11th, 2005.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 23.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 27.
Wilson McArthur, Patsy, Lou, "The Saguingue and the Fur Trade at Southampton", Lischke and McNab (ed), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007, 55.
Weichel, John, Skeely Skipper: Southampton's master mariner Captain John Spence, Southampton: Bruce County Museum & Archives, 1998, 16.
Weichel, John Skeely Skipper: Southampton's master mariner Captain John Spence, Southampton: Bruce County Museum & Archives, 1998, 22.
Robertson, Norman, The History of the County of Bruce, Wiarton: Echo Graphics & Printing, 1988, 28.
McNab, Circles of Time: Aboriginal Land Rights and Resistance in Ontario, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1999, 21
McNab, Circles of Time: Aboriginal Land Rights and Resistance in Ontario, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1999, 21.
On the Powley case see the Metis Nation of Ontario website at http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/Powley_Case/news01.html/accessed/5/27/08.
Lischke and McNab (ed), "Introduction", The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo: WLU Press, 2007.
Wilson McArthur, Patsy, Lou, "The Saguingue and the Fur Trade at Southampton", Lischke and McNab (ed), (co-editor, with Ute Lischke), The Long Journey of Canada's Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, Waterloo: WLU Press, 2007, 87-134.
See also McNab, "Hiding in Plane View: Aboriginal Identities and a Fur Trade Company Family through Seven Generations", Hidden in Plain Sight, Contributions of Aboriginal Peoples to Canadian Identity and Culture, David R. Newhouse, Cora J. Voyageur and Dan Beavon (eds.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005, 295-308
David T. McNab, Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 240.
Folkes, Patrick, Shipwrecks of the Saugeen - 1828-1938: A History of Marine Disasters of Bruce County, Owen Sound, 1970, 1.
McNab, Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 254.
McNab, Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 267.
McNab, Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 243.
McNab, Bruce Hodgins and S. Dale Standen, "'Black with Canoes': Aboriginal Resistance and the Canoe: Diplomacy, Trade and Warfare in the Meeting Grounds of Northeastern North America, 1600-1820", George Raudzens (ed.), Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories, Amsterdam: Brill International, 2001, 290.
http://www.ghosttownpix.com/ontario/towns/inver.html.
Ogg, Stuart, "Inverhuron History: History of Inverhuron School 1854-1953", unpublished and undated.
Ogg, Stuart, "Inverhuron History".
http://www.ghosttownpix.com/ontario/towns/inver.html.
PAO, Inverhuron 1957-71. File is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
http://www.ghosttownpix.com/ontario/towns/inver.html.
http://www.ghosttownpix.com/ontario/towns/inver.html.
http://www.ghosttownpix.com/ontario/towns/inver.html.
University of Toronto, Robarts Library, Media Commons, "Inverhuron Petition for Harbour of Refuge 1869", Located in CIHM/ICMH, Microfiche series no. 01275.
http://www.ghosttownpix.com/ontario/towns/inver.html.
http://www.ghosttownpix.com/ontario/towns/inver.html.
PAO, Inverhuron 1957-71. File is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
Rooklidge, J.W., Directory of the County of Bruce 1867, Owen Sound: Richardson, Bond & Wright, 1972, 99.
Rooklidge, J.W., Directory of the County of Bruce 1867, Owen Sound: Richardson, Bond & Wright, 1972, 99.
PAO, Inverhuron 1972-73. File is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
McAllister, Don E., Fish remains from Ontario Indian Sites 700 to 2500 years old, Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1962, 1.
McAllister, Don E., Fish remains from Ontario Indian Sites 700 to 2500 years old, Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1962, 1.
McAllister, Don E. ., Fish remains from Ontario Indian Sites 700 to 2500 years old, Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1962, 1-2.
PAO, Inverhuron 1970. Item is located in RG 47-47(Ontario Provincial Parks), container b356542.
PAO, Inverhuron 1970. Item is located in RG 47-47(Ontario Provincial Parks), container b356542.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 283.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 283.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 284.
E-Mail Communication from Mr. Eugene Bourgeois to David T. McNab, dated August 12th, 2008.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 223.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 223.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 223.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 224.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 224.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 224.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 224.
PAO, Inverhuron 1972-73. File is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks). transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
Ogg, Stuart, "Inverhuron History", "Threat to Summer Resort".
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park 1974. Item is located in RG 1-8 (Crown Lands), container b237683.
McNab, Circles of Time: Aboriginal Land Rights and Resistance in Ontario, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1999, 1-10.
See McNab, "Remembering an Intellectual Wilderness: A Captivity Narrative at Queen's Park in 1988-89", Blockades and Resistance: Studies in Actions of Peace and the Temagami Blockades of 1988-89, (co-editor with Bruce W. Hodgins and Ute Lischke), Waterloo: WLU Press, 2003, 31-53; "No Place for Fairness: Stories and Reflections of Bear Island", Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, forthcoming, 2009.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park 1974. Item is located in RG 1-8 (Crown Lands), container b237683.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 224.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park 1973. Item is located in RG 1-8 (Crown Lands), container b237683.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park. 1972-73. Item is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), container box 6.
Killan, Gerald, Protected Places: A History of Ontario's Provincial Parks System, Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1995, 224.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park. 1972-73. Item is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), container box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park. 1972-73. Item is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), container box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park. Item is located in RG 1-8 (Crown Lands), container b237683.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park. Item is located in RG 1-8 (Crown Lands), container b237683.
PAO, Inverhuron Provincial Park. 1972-73. Item is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), container box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron 1972-73. File is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
PAO, Inverhuron 1972-73. File is located in RG 47-64 (Ontario Provincial Parks), transfer no. 77-455, box 6.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 284.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes" Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 284.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 284.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 288.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History, 11, April 2006, 297.
Parr, Joy, "Smell Like: sources of uncertainty in the history of the Great Lakes", Environmental History 11, April 2006, 298.
Jean Teillet, "The Winds of Change: Metis Rights after Powley, Taku and Haida", Lischke and McNab, (ed), The Long Journey of a Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories, 55-78.
http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/Powley_Case/legal01.html.
http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/Powley_Case/legal01.html.
http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/Powley_Case/legal01.html.
http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/Powley_Case/legal01.html.
http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/Powley_Case/legal01.html.
http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/Powley_Case/news01.html.
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=843676&auth=BILL+HENRY.
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=843676&auth=BILL+HENRY.
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=843676&auth=BILL+HENRY.
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=843676&auth=BILL+HENRY.
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=843676&auth=BILL+HENRY.




APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A:
Stuart Ogg's "History of Inverhuron". (unpublished and undated)
APPENDIX B:

Treaty 45 and 45 ½ (1836):


history-histpic112


history-histpic113




Treaty 72 (1854):


history-histpic195


history-histpic196


history-histpic197


home     top


revised 2009 Feb 11