On Thursday the findings of the Government of Ontario‘s official Inquiry into the events of the native occupation at Ipperwash Provincial Park during 1995 were released.
With all these conflicting points of view from journalists and editorialists of two Toronto dailies, who is right?
The real answer lies with which source do you believe is correct. Personally, the Ipperwash Incident unravelled in a chronological sequence of events:
1. The federal government, who under the Canadian Constitution, looks after native issues failed in pecefully negotiating a land claim swap with the Stoney Point natives for this area of the province since the early 1900s. Lands seem to change hands between both public and private interests quite a bit in this area without input from the natives of the area
2. The federal government failed to close the Ipperwash Military base and return to the land to the Stoney Point natives following the Second World War. The natives were quite patient for over fifty years. However, near the end of the fifty years the native grew restless and saw no end in sight to the military occupying the military base.
3. The natives moved into occupy the military base. The Canadian military, hearing rumours of a possible confrontation over the military base, smartly moved out of the military base weeks before the occupation.
4. A group of the natives occupying the military base started eying the adjacent Ipperwash Provincial Park as another piece of land ripe for a native occupation. After all the Ipperwash Provincial Park had always been considered a site of a former native burial ground. With the occupation of the military base next door, the natives could occupy both the military base and provincial park all at once.
5. The OPP wanted to ensure the situation was quickly brought under control. When the natives had moved into the military base it was one thing. But now the natives had moved into Ipperwash Provincial Park, the optics of the situation showed that the provincial police had lost control of the situation. So the OPP wanted to swiftly move into and at least remove the natives from the provincial park portion of the occupation and leave the federal government to deal with the occupation of the military base.
6. There was some pressure felt from the provincial Conservative government. However, this pressure only came in the form of, as the Toronto Sun Editorial quoted from the Inquiry’s report,”…it was legitimate for the Premier to take the position that the First Nations people were illegally occupying the park, and that he wanted them out of Ipperwash as soon as possible.” Thus, the OPP knew the provincial government was moving towards having the occupation declared illegal anyway and action would need to be taken sooner rather than later. Was the pressure coming from the Premier’s Office ordering the OPP to move in right away? No, the Premier, as the inquiry and Sun columnist Christina Blizzard point out, no direct order was given. But there appears to be some indirect pressure from the provincial government for the OPP to solve the situation.
7. The OPP moved in quickly to quell the situation at the Ipperwash Provincial Park. Rumours of the native occupiers with guns meant that heavily armed OPP officers were used. As the OPP moved into Ipperwash Provincial Park one night, a firearm was thought to be observed. This led to the killing of Stoney Point native Dudley George.
8. The Conservative government denied any responsibility in the killing of Dudley George.
9. The Liberal government is elected in 2003 and starts an official public inquiry into the shooting of Dudley George and the occupation at Ipperwash Provincial Park.
This chain of events seems to meet both the Toronto Star‘s editorial beliefs of more than one factor leading to the situation blowing up at Ipperwash Provincial Park, Ian Urquhart’s belief that then Premier Mike Harris had some involvement, the Toronto Sun’s Editorial of little involvement of Mike Harris and Christina Blizzard’s belief that the OPP were the main bunglers of the whole situation. I have used the two Toronto dailies’ analysis of the situation to inform my own opinion on what happenned in the fiasco at Ipperwash Provincial Park that ultimately lead to the death of Dudley George.
If one were to only read one publication and not the other, the reader would not see the conflicting analysis of the other publication as to what might have happenned. So, sometimes, it pays to read the analysis of one major daily. This is especially the case on major political issues like the Ipperwash Inquiry where partisan sides tend to come out.
The governments of the future need to learn as much from the situation that erupted at Ipperwash, that future land claim disputes aren’t handled this way. Then possibly the if a situations like the ones that presented themselves at the Ipperwash are not repeated. This would also prevent another report having to be issued that is very similar to the one issued on Thursday.
Footnote: For a complete chronology of the Ipperwash Provincial Park affair visit this Canoe.ca’s coverage here.
Almost twelve years? What was so complex and convoluted that it took well over 11 years to check into?
I can’t imagine what Yanks would have done in the meantime if it had taken the Warren Commission that long to turn in their report.
Since that rant is now out of my system, I suppose it is fair to acknowledge it seems good for the body politic and public weal to have the whole matter wrapped up.
Cheers
Our media is inevitably Biased because it targets a specific readership. Media Marketing is the criminal in this case.
I think in order to determine the merits or dis-merits of the case we need to look at the results of the inquiry directly.
Did the inquiry publish the source naterial behind the native claim? Did the inquiry publish the commands given to the officers, the memos from the ministers office and to the ministers office etc….
“Did the inquiry publish the source naterial behind the native claim? Did the inquiry publish the commands given to the officers, the memos from the ministers office and to the ministers office etc…. “
Um…check out the website here:
http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca/
Seems to me there is a whack of evidence on there.
That was an interesting analysis of the media’s coverage of the inquiry’s findings.
Ipperwash certainly wasn’t the finest moment for either the provincial government or the provincial police. But I would like to set the land claim dispute in historical context. (Offering no excuse whatsoever for the shooting of Dudley George.)
The first modern land claim in Canada was concluded (with regrettable haste) in 1975, with the James Bay Cree. In 1982, Canada’s aboriginal peoples (Indian, Inuit, and Métis) were given constitutional recognition. In 1992, the failed Charlottetown Accord would have recognized an “inherent right” of self-government for aboriginals.
Although the Accord failed for other reasons, it constituted a real breakthrough, since it was agreed between the federal and provincial levels of government.
In the early 1990s, the Mulroney (Progressive Conservative) government concluded “community-based” self-government agreements with several First Nations in BC and the Yukon territory. Then came the Chrétien (Liberal) government’s “inherent right” policy in 1995. It was followed by the creation of the Nunavut Territory in 1999 and the landmark Nisga’a land claim / self-government agreement in BC, which took effect in 2000.
The point is, Canada finally (belatedly) began addressing the issue of outstanding land claims in the 1990s. (I regard the James Bay Treaty as an early anomaly.). The Ipperwash incident happened right in the middle of that flurry of activity, when some folks hadn’t adjusted their sails to catch the winds of change.
Some still haven’t adjusted. In particular, while some provincial governments actively support the inherent right of self-government, others do not. Ontario, even with a Liberal premier, still isn’t very progressive in this respect. Federally, the Conservatives are supportive of land claims where there is a potential for all parties to benefit economically — at least, that’s my perception of their position, though nobody says that in so many words. In other respects, First Nations have found the Conservatives wanting — hence they have planned a national day of protests later this summer.
I remember the build up to the Nisga’a land claim / self-government agreement in BC, as I was working at The Department of Indian Affairs and North Develeopment, Litigation Management Branch.
Although the government is slow to address Native land claims, as Stephen points out great steps forward have been made. I think action arrising from commitment has been the major problem. In other words too much talk not enough action.
p.s. to 49er:
Canada is characterized by its enthusiasm for public inquiries, almost as much as our love of hockey. Seemingly no expense or delay is too great!