A new report is drawing sharp lines in a long-running dispute over who holds Indigenous rights in the territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), which includes the Bruce Peninsula and surrounding areas of Midwestern Ontario.
The research, conducted by Dr. Heidi Bohaker of the University of Toronto and Dr. Chandra Murdoch of Osgoode Hall Law School, concludes that there is no historical evidence of distinct Métis communities in SON territory that would meet the legal threshold for Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution.
The study challenges assertions made by the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) and the Historic Saugeen Métis (HSM), finding that both groups fail to meet the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in its landmark Powley decision in 2003. That decision requires a Métis group to show a pre-Confederation presence of a distinct and stable community with a collective identity and shared culture, criteria the report says are absent in the area now governed by SON.
Chief Conrad Ritchie of Saugeen First Nation tells CKNXNewsToday.ca that the report affirms what local Anishinaabe leadership has long maintained.
"This report highlights what we have always known: that the Anishinaabe are the only people with rights and responsibilities in our Territory," Ritchie said. "It validated everything we’ve been saying. It’s our opportunity to tell our side of the history instead of allowing another narrative to be told for us."
Ritchie emphasized that the issue is not about personal identity but about legal and territorial integrity.
"I think anybody is free to identify however they choose to identify, nothing wrong with that," he said. "Where it becomes an issue for Saugeen is when it infringes on our inherent rights and treaty rights."
The report comes amid heightened scrutiny of MNO’s claims across Ontario, particularly in the wake of the now-defunct federal Bill C-53. That bill would have recognized the MNO and its newly declared “historic” communities. But Ottawa later admitted it had not verified those claims prior to advancing the legislation.
SON leaders say they are increasingly concerned about how governments are handling overlapping Indigenous rights claims. Chief Greg Nadjiwon of Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation says it’s time for Canada and Ontario to stop legitimizing what he calls unsubstantiated assertions.
"Governments and proponents who give credibility to these false claims cause real harm by diverting resources meant for First Nations," Nadjiwon said in an interview with CKNXNewsToday.ca. "Living in a place is not the same thing as being Indigenous to a place. The evidence is crystal clear. We call on Canada and Ontario to stop enabling these groups and instead start negotiating with SON to protect our long-established rights."
Nadjiwon described the Bohaker-Murdoch report as "well done," and said it reinforces SON’s own internal research. "We gave [MNO and HSM] the opportunity to substantiate their claims,” he said. “What they put forth didn’t meet the legal threshold to qualify under Section 35."
Nadjiwon said there’s an added concern that Métis claims are affecting how federal and provincial resources are distributed. "There’s money set aside. And it’s not a privilege, it’s our right," he said. "We surrendered land in treaties beginning in 1836, 1854, 1857, 1862. These were all treaties made with the people of the SON. They [MNO and HSM] were not part and parcel of any of those agreements."
Chief Ritchie echoed that concern, saying, "It’s a good opportunity to provide education for people, because it’s about protecting what’s already been eroded over time. We have a duty to speak up."
Both leaders maintain that they are open to dialogue, but only if parties bring forward verifiable historical evidence, which, they argue, has never been done.
"They have to prove it to the Crown," Nadjiwon said. "We’ve done our research. They couldn’t substantiate the claim because the communities they reference simply did not exist. These were settlers, not rights-holders."
As debate continues over identity and legitimacy, both chiefs are urging governments and institutions to do more than simply accept self-declared heritage claims at face value, especially when they challenge the legal and treaty rights of established First Nations.
"We’ve always known who we are," Ritchie said. "Now the evidence backs it up."