magazine / mj03
 |
May/June 2003 issue |
|
|
|
Reverberations
Koo-chee or Kwisha?
I liked the "Editor’s notebook" on Kouchibouguac, "Parkland,
justice and peace" (CG Mar/Apr 2003). My grandparents, John and Edna MacDonald, had their property
expropriated for the national park and hired a lawyer to get fair compensation. I will quibble,
though, with your pronunciation of the village from which the park takes its name. I have
spent many happy days there, both as a child and an adult, and the locals pronounce it Kwisha-ba-quack.
Koo-chee-boog-wack must be a creation of the park bureaucracy.
Anne McIlroy,
Ottawa
Since the late 1960s, I have been battling a similar botched expropriation settlement involving
Kejimkujik National Park. As this park is quite remote, however, only a few felt the full
impact of a change of lifestyle. The problem here was not one of inadequate compensation
but, rather, of the government not following through on an agreed negotiated settlement.
The battle rages on.
Carl Sheffer,
Dartmouth, N.S.
Land grab
Many thanks to Canadian Geographic for sharing the information in "The X files" (CG Mar/Apr 2003) about the scrip system used to defraud the Metis of a land base in Canada.
Most Canadians are not familiar with this history and subsequently do not understand many
of the struggles of the Metis people today. Professor Frank Tough is a remarkable person
and deserves much gratitude for the work he has done in uncovering and giving some important
Canadian history back to Canadian people.
Yvonne Vizina,
Researcher/Coordinator,
Environment and
Natural Resources,
Metis Nation-Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Sask.
You assassinate the scrip process as foul based on one woman named Lucia Janvier and her
three different signatures. Yet you create your own argument that the system was honest:
if it wasn’t, why would the government keep such detailed records of it?
Arthur Setka,
Peterborough, Ont.
There is no doubt that the Metis people were "used" to divert land and money into
the hands of banks or the elite in general. We should, however, view the issue from the context
of the time. One hundred and sixty acres of land was available to homesteaders for nothing.
Later the cost was $10. To receive $240 must have seemed an enormous sum when there seemed
to be no limit to land. Of course, the Metis were not going to move down to the Palliser
Triangle to farm — so when they applied for the scrip, their motivation was obviously
monetary.
Also, we should be aware that the Metis were not singled out by unscrupulous land agents,
civil servants, and the like. Natives, Slavs, Scandinavians, and even Brits fell victim to
these nasty reptiles. The article was right when it commented on our "sanitized" history,
but let us be aware that the period 1890 to 1920 was a hard and treacherous time for all — not
just the Metis.
L. J. McDaid,
Edam, Sask.
I take issue with assertions that the Metis have an aboriginal title to land. The principle
shared by European countries regarding land ownership when they claimed areas of North America
for their own use — usually settlements — was that the first nation to take possession
of an area had the right to claim exclusive title or ultimate dominion. Discovery without
some form of occupation meant nothing. A common practice followed by England was for the
Crown to grant land to individuals or companies for colonization. Often, the amount of land
far exceeded what was required.
The question arose as to the Indian inhabitants who were already in possession of some of
the land the Crown granted. The English policy was to accept that the Indian tribes had a
right of occupation and use of the soil, but they could not sell the land except to the Crown
or the grant holder. The recognition of the right of occupation and use became known as the
Indian title. As time passed, treaties became the policy for ending Indian title.
To claim Indian or aboriginal title today, a group would have to show that at the time England
claimed ultimate dominion over an area of land, its ancestors were an organized society occupying
and using the land to the exclusion of other portions claimed by England.
The Metis claim aboriginal title to land located in present-day Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Land in that area was claimed by England in 1670 and granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company.
That is the date when the Metis must show that their ancestors were an organized society
in occupation of the land. Clearly, they cannot do that. Your writer points out that the
Metis became a distinct people in the early 1800s.
The actions of the government from 1870 show it did not consider that the Metis or other
non-Indians in simple possession of land had Indian title. Between 1871 and 1907, Indian
title was removed from former Hudson’s Bay land through 10 treaties with Indian tribes
and bands. The scrip system was an attempt to assist those individuals who would have been
affected by the end of the Indian title and the influx of settlers. Entering into treaties
with the Indians was a legal obligation. Enacting legislation to assist those in simple possession
of land was a choice.
Whether the Metis of today have a legal claim based on how the legislation was applied,
I do not know. But I do know they have no claim based on aboriginal/Indian title — something
they never had.
Robert W. Miller,
Regina, Sask.
Linda Goyette’s clear and captivating article has raised the profile of the academic
discipline of Native Studies, which seeks to contribute a better understanding of the legitimate
historical and geographical grievances of the Metis. The interest by Canadian Geographic in
a story that has long been ignored reflects a serious commitment to making our geography
accessible and relevant to all Canadians. For all of this, we are sincerely appreciative.
I would be remiss if I did not personally indicate my deep appreciation for the hard work
and dedication of those who have contributed to the project, including: Kevin MacLennan,
Anna Ryding, Clayton (Buster) Leonard, Alexandra Robles, Brandy Mowat, Erin McGregor, Brenda
MacDougall, Chris Andersen, Martin Goldney, Anna Rothney, Alison Magill, Leanna Parker, and
others. Similarly, the research has received encouragement and support from the Metis of
the claim region.
Frank Tough, Director,
School of Native Studies,
University of Alberta
Great-grandpa’s great adventure
About a year ago, I bought a digital camera and, since then, have taken thousands of pictures
with it. But no image has captured my attention like the painting in "Winkworth’s
obsession" (CG Mar/Apr 2003) of the ship Columbus on its launch day in 1824.
Our family history tells of my great-great-grandfather, Charles Edgar, arriving in Canada
from County Down around 1820 with his two sons, James, my great-grandfather, and Robert.
They cut down logs in the forest north of Québec and used the lumber to build a ship,
which they sailed back to Ireland, where they dismantled it, and sold the lumber for homes.
With the proceeds, Charles then emigrated with the rest of the family to settle on a plot
of land in Lancaster, Ont. — the same farm where my father was born in 1906.
When I saw the Columbus picture, I was astounded and thrilled. It confirms what sounded
like a far-fetched story from my family’s past and made it come alive. What an adventure
that would have been. Thanks for bringing our Canadian history and heritage to us all.
James Edgar,
Melville, Sask.
A caption in "Winkworth’s obsession" states that American artist Henry Bowyer
Lane was also the architect of Toronto’s St. Lawrence Market. The buildings that came
to be called St. Lawrence Hall and Market were actually designed by my great-great-great-grandfather
William Thomas, who was a rival of Lane’s.
Peggi Calder,
Dunvegan, Ont.
Mad astronomers
Astronomers may be able to make a telescope for about one-twentieth the cost of an equal-sized
glass-mirrored one ("Liquid mirror," CG Mar/Apr 2003), but remember, you get what
you pay for. The slowly spinning mercury mirror must be aligned with its axis perfectly vertical.
In other words, this telescope can only point directly overhead. Its field, therefore, will
be at most two to three degrees, so it can see only about four percent of the northern sky.
Also, mercury is poisonous, and constant exposure to its ever-present vapour pressure can
result in brain damage. In 20 years, I hope people won’t be using the expression "as
mad as a B.C. astronomer" as they said 200 years ago about hatters who were regularly
subjected to mercury in their business.
Anthony McDonald,
Flin Flon, Man.
Dreams of our own
I enjoyed the varied articles in the special issue "Shelter in Canada" (CG Jan/Feb 2003). However, I believe you misrepresented the necessary costs associated with energy-efficient
homes. Our family of five lives in a 2,000-square-foot, self-built off-grid house that exceeds
R-2000 standards and costs no more than a conventionally built home. Our $18,000 solar and
wind system cost less than hooking up to Ontario Hydro, and our total utility bill, including
system maintenance, has been less than $600 a year. This includes power and water for our
gardens and livestock.
We do use 11ž2 cords of firewood each winter. It comes from our sustainable managed forest
from which we also gather sap to make maple syrup. We found an abandoned farm homestead,
a place of broken dreams set on the shallow soils of the limestone plain east of Orillia,
Ont., and have endeavoured to bring it back to life with dreams of our own.
Regrettably, in spite of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (CMHC) promotion
of energy-efficient housing, it is not necessarily doing all it can to enable energy-efficient
housing to be built. Acknowledging that our lender required a CMHC loan only because our
house was atypical, CMHC declined to challenge the lender’s prejudiced position and
charged an insurance premium.
Paul Reed,
Coboconk, Ont.
My house is "A good house"
The Christensen house shown in "A good house" (CG Jan/Feb
2003) is mine, and except
for a fence, hedge and garden, it looks exactly as it did in 1912, right down to the columns
and leaded glass. I am the sixth owner, and, after all these years, it is not only a good
house but a great home. Thank you for the article; it was wonderful. And I really got a kick
out of seeing the photograph.
Paul Infuso,
Calgary, Alta.
Built to last
As a Canadian based in the United Kingdom for the past 20-plus years, I was somewhat amused
by the "Discovery" article "Wood-frame fame" (CG
Jan/Feb 2003). The suggestion
by Oliver Drerup of the CMHC that the Romans were the last comfortable people in the U.K.
is ridiculous. Does he truly believe that in 2003, we all sit around and shiver during the
winter months?
I live in a masonry house, or bricks and mortar as we say, built late in the 19th century.
With the addition of double-glazed windows, cavity wall insulation and gas-fired central
heating, the house is more than cozy. It is also very cheap to keep warm.
Bricks and mortar also have low maintenance costs. Drerup’s timber-framed houses may
be cheaper and faster to build, but will they still be standing in 120 years’ time?
Mike Brown,
Warwick, U.K.
top
* Letters may be edited for length, accuracy and liability.
|
