Article content continued

Lastly, the SON seek a declaration that their harvesting rights within their traditional territory were not extinguished by Treaty 72, the government’s agreement with the SON signed in 1854 that surrendered the Bruce Peninsula, except for several small parcels of land as reserves. Harvesting rights include fishing and hunting.

What is not under claim by SON, court heard, is privately owned property in the area, or, in the language of the claim, land “in the hands of bona fide purchasers.”

Ontario remains committed to reconciliation

Nor, said Roger Townshend, SON’s lead counsel in his opening address to court, are they seeking to invalidate Treaty 72 or rewrite it, rather to have the court accept SON’s version of what the terms of the treaty were understood to be at the time.

“Fishing is essential for their way of life and economic activity. Water is very important to them. Some say it’s even more important than the dry land part,” said Townshend.

To abandon their land and water rights, he said an elder in the community told him, would “be like death.”

Court heard about an earlier treaty the Crown signed with the SON, in 1836, that promised to build houses “to enable you to become civilized” and made promises that the Crown, named as “your Great Father,” would “forever protect you from the encroachment of the whites.”

That promise, said Cathy Guirguis, another SON lawyer, was not kept.

“This claim is not about judging the Crown on today’s standards or in hindsight,” Guirguis told court. “This is about looking at the evidence of what they said and what they did at the time.”