Town clears up facts on ‘Point’ dispute

Editor’s note: The Town of Fort Frances submitted this response to Mr. Loney’s “op ed” piece which appeared in last week’s issue of the Times.
Pretty well everybody in Fort Frances, and much of the district, will tell you how important the town (Point) park is to the people of the area.
It has been the place for countless community events and get-togethers by friends and family alike. It is the only place in town that has a beach for swimming, and the subject of use and priceless memories for many.
No surprise, then, that the Town of Fort Frances is working hard to keep the town park for everyone to use and enjoy.
While everyone can agree how important it is for the town to keep its park, not very many people have a good grasp of the history of the park. The article written by Shaun Loney, printed in last week’s edition of the Fort Frances Times, is no different.
The facts are that in 1873, the federal government (Canada) and the First Nations entered into a treaty called Treaty 3. By this treaty, the First Nations gave up their interest in the park and other land in return for, among other things, reserves being set aside for them.
After the treaty, the federal government hired Pither and Dawson to meet with the First Nations who had signed the treaty, see what land the bands wanted for reserves, and make recommendations for approval by the federal government of the reserves pointed out.
Final confirmation of the reserve at the Point was never obtained.
Pither lived at the Point with his family. He claimed the Point was his homestead and the land formed no part of a reserve. Even though local chiefs and councillors of the First Nations supported Pither’s claim, saying that they were aware the land did not form part of their reserve and that they always understood that the land belonged to Mr. Pither, the federal government did not listen and used its power to pressure Pither to give up his claim—even to the point where they threatened to fire him from his job with the government and then forced him to transfer to Kenora.
Later, in 1914, however, Pither’s claim was supported when the Ontario government recognized his claim and compensated him for the land that had been taken away from him.
In the meantime, in the early 1900s, the highest court in the land decided that because all land in Ontario belongs to the province and not the federal government, land for reserves could not be set aside in Ontario without the agreement of the provincial government.
This meant that because Ontario had never agreed to the reserves, the federal government had to get the agreement of Ontario to those reserves, including any reserve that might encompass the town park.
Ontario never agreed that the Point Park lands be set aside as reserve for the First Nations. What Ontario consented to in 1908, by Order in Council, was that the Point Park lands be granted to the town for a park. Canada also agreed to this, and in 1908 Canada obtained a surrender of the Point Park land from the First Nations for that purpose.
For some reason, not very many people seem to know that the First Nations surrendered any interest they might have in the park lands in 1908, and Mr. Loney fails to mention this and other important facts.
The Hon. Frank Cochrane, then-Ontario Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines, made clear, in a letter to Fort Frances Mayor Williams in 1908, what was to happen with the Point Park land. Minister Cochrane said, in his August, 1908 letter, that he would “. . . now have the matter attended to as far as Pither’s Point is concerned. Am putting in a provision that it may be given to the Town of Fort Frances for park purposes only.”
But then, instead of an outright grant of the Point Park to the town, Canada demanded a lease arrangement, opposite to the intention and promise of Minister Cochrane noted above. The town, vulnerable to the power of Canada, should never have been required by Canada to sign a lease.
Now the lease is up, but the 1908 Order in Council remains.
The town had talks with all parties hoping that everyone would agree that the park would remain for all the people—but no agreement could be reached. So the town has no choice but to go to court to bring out the facts and clarify and protect the interest of the public in the Point Park.
On April 27, 2010, Justice McCartney, a judge of the Ontario Superior Court in Thunder Bay, granted the town’s motion that the Point Park continue as before in the possession of the town pending the outcome of the case which finally will decide the matter of who has rights to the park.
The First Nations, Canada, and Ontario did not agree with the decision of Justice McCartney and appealed it, but the appeals were not successful and Justice McCartney’s decision was upheld.
One can only imagine what the lawyers from Thunder Bay and Toronto pursuing those appeals cost the people of Ontario.
Contrary to what Mr. Loney suggests, it has not been established that the Point was a meeting place for the First Nations, or that any mound at the Point was ever a burial ground. To the contrary, local meeting places for the First Nations were at the Hudson Bay fort, which was then built at the base of the falls in Fort Frances, and at the Manitou Rapids.
In terms of the mound, Mr. Loney fails to note that the existence of historical commentary that the mounds originally were disclaimed by members of First Nations and that the mounds were not built by them (and it is not even clear that the mounds were, in fact, for burial purposes).
The town simply wants a park that it is able to continue to maintain and develop for the use and enjoyment of the public. If everyone cannot agree, it will be up to a court to finally decide.
In the meantime, it is important to have the facts straight.