SETTLE LAND CLAIMS FASTER! Chambers of Commerce
Local chamber wants resolution by 2020
The local chamber of commerce was widely supported in B. C. last week in its resolution calling for the faster settlement of native land claims.
Local Chamber of Commerce Brantford Brant president Barry English presented the resolution to more than 300 delegates at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Speaking of the uncertainty over First Nations land claims, English said once land claims have been validated, there needs to be a faster process to get to a solution.
"The lengthy delay ... is excessive," English said in his presentation.
And that delay in southern Ontario has stalled economic development and threatened public safety, he said.
There are now 1,410 First Nation land claims in Canada with just 319 settled and 337 concluded. Others are still in negotiation or active litigation and almost 500 of them are under review.
Of the 29 land claims launched by Six Nations against Canada and Ontario in 1995, only four were validated by the federal government before the lawsuit was suspended in 2004. Only one claim has resulted in an offer from the federal government.
The local chamber's proposal calls on the federal government, provinces, territories and First Nations' communities to push the claims through to resolution by 2020.
Claims that are determined to be legitimate ones should be expedited and if an offer of compensation doesn't lead to a settlement within a year, the federal government should take the matter to court, where final compensation could be awarded.
Now that the local proposal has been accepted by the national group, the resolution will be included in the Canadian chamber's advocacy plan.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is regarded as the country's largest and most influential business lobby organization.
Copyright © 2009 Brantford Expositor
This is very significant. UNTIL SIX NATIONS STEPPED FORWARD and interfered with development on land under claim, local businesses, Chambers of Commerce and municipal governments have been able to ignore land claims and carry on development as usual. This occurred with the quiet blessing of federal governments, which colluded to sustain local development by stalling and dragging out negotiations for decades, and provincial governments that continued to approve developments on land under claim.
It is no secret that Canada spends more money 'negotiating' and preventing settlement of land claims than it does on paying down these long outstanding debts. Fulfilling the terms of our treaties and other legal obligations to Indigenous Nations is not negotiable: Aboriginal Rights must be respected, according to our own laws.
In the last 3+ years, Six Nations people have stopped several developments in Caledonia and Brantford on land under claim, enduring physical harm (police tasers, batons, 'takedowns', incarceration) and criminal prosecution as a result. Still they persisted, women and youths the driving force, interfering with local economies and with local development plans for land in dispute. This pressure on local economies has finally brought local businesses - the powers that actually run Canada - to speak out via the Brantford and now Canadian Chambers of Commerce.
Chambers of Commerce represent the businesses and industries of Canada, those who employ much of the population and drive the robust economy of Canada, the profits gleaned free of charge from Indigenous land. Federal governments can, and have, placated and ignored the rights of Indigenous Nations, to avoid interfering with local economies and provincial authority. It is only by directly interfering with local economies that Six Nations has caused a disruption of this collusion of all levels of government in evading our laws.
WELL DONE!!
Chambers of Commerce are now lobbying the federal government for action on 'land claims', a powerful lobby indeed. At the same time as they pressure governments, perhaps they will also look to their own localities to ensure that they themselves are doing everything in their power to resolve these issues: IT IS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THAT INFRINGES on the rights of Indigenous communities, and it is local and provincial business and governments that hold the power, and indeed the duty, to consult with First Nations and to accommodate their rights AT THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING STAGE.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
SIX NATIONS NEGOTIATIONS
'Deal' really just a framework for more discussion
Gov't: 'Full co-operation' of Six Nations needed
According to a spokesperson for Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada is waiting on Six Nations to complete its responsibilities before flowing funding to the band to help with land negotiations.
At a news conference held Thursday by the Six Nations Confederacy, the group accused Canada of slowing the process of the three-year negotiations by refusing to settle on a facilitator-mediator and not funding the natives at the table for the last six months.
The federal government weighed in on those accusations Friday, saying it's still trying to settle on someone for the important facilitator-mediator job.
"After careful consideration, a response will be forthcoming," promised Patricia Valladao, the senior communications advisor for the ministry.
Valladao declined to comment on the names of any potential candidates but promised the issue is being discussed.
As far as funding goes, the Confederacy said this week that no one working on the negotiation process has been paid for six months and the group has had to lay off three of its five-member staff.
But Valladao said funding requires "the full co-operation and best efforts of all parties."
She said funds would not be forthcoming until the government gets a First Nations work plan and budget.
"It's the Six Nations' responsibility to complete the work plan and budget before any funding can flow for negotiation purposes."
Canada has already provided negotiation funds to Six Nations through the three-year process.
Almost $2 million in federal money has been paid to the natives for negotiation with an equal amount provided by the Ontario government.
The funds stirred controversy in the native community when people learned of several hefty invoices submitted by those working on the negotiations.
The governments tend to maintain a hands-off attitude, leaving it up to the natives to decided how to spend negotiation funds.
Valladao said the governments are currently in discussion with Six Nations to establish this year's funding.
CORRECTION
A story in Friday's Expositor erroneously reported the Haudenosaunee Development Institute held a news conference Thursday when, in fact, it was the Six Nations Confederacy, of which the HDI is a department, that held the meeting.
Confederacy chief Blake Bomberry also was misidentified in the story. The Expositor regrets the error.
Well, the government caving to appoint a facilitator/mediator is significant.
More ...
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_1_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHZxNtSM5D10XENOjPY0HHsse3m6w&sig2=sF5vqGZhWUwyLsKdHMwerg&cid=0&ei=doHRSui8GJ_oMOKOrIwD&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thespec.com%2FNews%2FLocal%2Farticle%2F649880
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHk6bqdBVmwmPC_dEConCVx27v16g&sig2=5R4pLBzzimL0P5rLSfUQ0Q&cid=1448308232&ei=doHRSui8GJ_oMOKOrIwD&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fcanada%2Fstory%2F2009%2F10%2F09%2Fnatives-caledonia-talks009.html
http://cd989.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17820
'Deal' really just a framework for more discussion
Gov't: 'Full co-operation' of Six Nations needed
According to a spokesperson for Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada is waiting on Six Nations to complete its responsibilities before flowing funding to the band to help with land negotiations.
At a news conference held Thursday by the Six Nations Confederacy, the group accused Canada of slowing the process of the three-year negotiations by refusing to settle on a facilitator-mediator and not funding the natives at the table for the last six months.
The federal government weighed in on those accusations Friday, saying it's still trying to settle on someone for the important facilitator-mediator job.
"After careful consideration, a response will be forthcoming," promised Patricia Valladao, the senior communications advisor for the ministry.
Valladao declined to comment on the names of any potential candidates but promised the issue is being discussed.
As far as funding goes, the Confederacy said this week that no one working on the negotiation process has been paid for six months and the group has had to lay off three of its five-member staff.
But Valladao said funding requires "the full co-operation and best efforts of all parties."
She said funds would not be forthcoming until the government gets a First Nations work plan and budget.
"It's the Six Nations' responsibility to complete the work plan and budget before any funding can flow for negotiation purposes."
Canada has already provided negotiation funds to Six Nations through the three-year process.
Almost $2 million in federal money has been paid to the natives for negotiation with an equal amount provided by the Ontario government.
The funds stirred controversy in the native community when people learned of several hefty invoices submitted by those working on the negotiations.
The governments tend to maintain a hands-off attitude, leaving it up to the natives to decided how to spend negotiation funds.
Valladao said the governments are currently in discussion with Six Nations to establish this year's funding.
CORRECTION
A story in Friday's Expositor erroneously reported the Haudenosaunee Development Institute held a news conference Thursday when, in fact, it was the Six Nations Confederacy, of which the HDI is a department, that held the meeting.
Confederacy chief Blake Bomberry also was misidentified in the story. The Expositor regrets the error.
Well, the government caving to appoint a facilitator/mediator is significant.
More ...
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_1_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHZxNtSM5D10XENOjPY0HHsse3m6w&sig2=sF5vqGZhWUwyLsKdHMwerg&cid=0&ei=doHRSui8GJ_oMOKOrIwD&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thespec.com%2FNews%2FLocal%2Farticle%2F649880
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHk6bqdBVmwmPC_dEConCVx27v16g&sig2=5R4pLBzzimL0P5rLSfUQ0Q&cid=1448308232&ei=doHRSui8GJ_oMOKOrIwD&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fcanada%2Fstory%2F2009%2F10%2F09%2Fnatives-caledonia-talks009.html
http://cd989.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17820
Friday, October 09, 2009
Peru Indigenous vs Amazon OIL selloff
grannynote:
It may not be happening here, but the issues are exactly the same for Indigenous Peoples throughout Canada and the world: Governments seek to maximize corporate profits via FREE extraction of natural resources, violating the rights of the Indigenous Peoples on their traditional lands everywhere, and putting lives in jeopardy via conflict and environmental destruction.
If two thirds of the Amazon jungle, the 'lungs' of the world, is to be denuded, made toxic and destroyed, HOW ARE THE REST OF US GOING TO BREATHE?
Peru Indian tribes join forces to fight off Amazon sale to oil companies
October 9, 2009
Achuar elders in Washintsa, Peru.
The Government plans to auction off 75 per cent of the Amazon to [oil] companies
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867053.ece
Ramita Navai in Washintsa, Peru
They emerged from the thick, green jungle clenching their spears: a long file of barefoot chiefs and elders, their faces painted with their tribal markings and crowns of red, blue and yellow parrot feathers.
They had been summoned by the chief of Washintsa village for a meeting to discuss an oil company’s efforts to buy the rights to their land. Most had travelled for hours, padding silently through the dark undergrowth.
They came from Achuar Indian communities scattered along the Pastaza River, one of the most remote parts of the Peruvian Amazon near the border with Ecuador.
These men are part of a growing resistance movement crystallising deep in the jungles of Peru. For the first time isolated indigenous groups are uniting to fight the Government’s plans to auction off 75 per cent of the Amazon — which accounts for nearly two thirds of the country’s territory — to oil, gas and mining companies.
They oppose 11 decrees issued by President García, under special legislative powers granted to him by the Peruvian Congress, to enact a free trade agreement with the US. These would allow companies to bypass indigenous communities to obtain permits for exploration and extraction of natural resources, logging and the building of hydroelectric dams.
Indigenous leaders say that the laws will affect more than 50 Amazonian nations representing hundreds of thousands of Indians.
One by one the men step forward and deliver angry, defiant messages. “If an oil company tries to come here, we will block its path and block the rivers. We will not let them in and we will take strong action,” Jempe Wasum Kukush, a local leader, said. Another, Tayajin Shuwi Peas, warns: “We are not scared and we will fight to the death over this.”
Some groups have already begun the battle. Protests have turned deadly, with scores of clashes and rallies erupting across the country this year. Oil operations and airports were besieged and shut down, culminating in a mass demonstration of more than 3,000 Indians, mainly from the Awajun tribe, blockading a road in the sweltering jungle town of Bagua in June. More than 30 people were killed, including 20 policemen, after special forces, airlifted to the scene, opened fire on the protesters.
Fearing more violence and faced with public outrage, the Government was forced to revoke two of the most contentious decrees. The Prime Minster resigned and President García also admitted to a series of errors in the handling of the incident.
The Government has also called the protesters extremists and terrorists, and has charged an indigenous leader, who has since fled to Nicaragua, with sedition and rebellion. More than 100 men face criminal charges and many of them live in hiding.
Francisco Shikiu Ukuncham was shot through the back and saw three of his friends killed. He says that the fighting has served to strengthen ties between tribes. “All we want is for our home, the jungle, to be respected. We were demonstrating peacefully and they shot at us like we were dogs,” he said. “But the Government doesn’t listen to us. And if it doesn’t listen, the situation is going to get worse.”
Some of the tribes communicate with each other via a web of radios. The network has enabled disparate indigenous groups — often located hundreds of miles apart — to form alliances, co-ordinate protests and exchange information.
According to Ambrosio Uwak, the president of an indigenous rights organisation and one of the leaders of the movement, his group can mobilise more than 15,000 people through the radio system. “We want every single one of these decrees revoked. But if not, we won’t hesitate to call on our people to rise up again,” he said.
Unreported World, Peru: Blood and Oil. Friday, October 9. 7.30pm. Channel 4
grannynote:
It may not be happening here, but the issues are exactly the same for Indigenous Peoples throughout Canada and the world: Governments seek to maximize corporate profits via FREE extraction of natural resources, violating the rights of the Indigenous Peoples on their traditional lands everywhere, and putting lives in jeopardy via conflict and environmental destruction.
If two thirds of the Amazon jungle, the 'lungs' of the world, is to be denuded, made toxic and destroyed, HOW ARE THE REST OF US GOING TO BREATHE?
Peru Indian tribes join forces to fight off Amazon sale to oil companies
October 9, 2009
Achuar elders in Washintsa, Peru.
The Government plans to auction off 75 per cent of the Amazon to [oil] companies
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867053.ece
Ramita Navai in Washintsa, Peru
They emerged from the thick, green jungle clenching their spears: a long file of barefoot chiefs and elders, their faces painted with their tribal markings and crowns of red, blue and yellow parrot feathers.
They had been summoned by the chief of Washintsa village for a meeting to discuss an oil company’s efforts to buy the rights to their land. Most had travelled for hours, padding silently through the dark undergrowth.
They came from Achuar Indian communities scattered along the Pastaza River, one of the most remote parts of the Peruvian Amazon near the border with Ecuador.
These men are part of a growing resistance movement crystallising deep in the jungles of Peru. For the first time isolated indigenous groups are uniting to fight the Government’s plans to auction off 75 per cent of the Amazon — which accounts for nearly two thirds of the country’s territory — to oil, gas and mining companies.
They oppose 11 decrees issued by President García, under special legislative powers granted to him by the Peruvian Congress, to enact a free trade agreement with the US. These would allow companies to bypass indigenous communities to obtain permits for exploration and extraction of natural resources, logging and the building of hydroelectric dams.
Indigenous leaders say that the laws will affect more than 50 Amazonian nations representing hundreds of thousands of Indians.
One by one the men step forward and deliver angry, defiant messages. “If an oil company tries to come here, we will block its path and block the rivers. We will not let them in and we will take strong action,” Jempe Wasum Kukush, a local leader, said. Another, Tayajin Shuwi Peas, warns: “We are not scared and we will fight to the death over this.”
Some groups have already begun the battle. Protests have turned deadly, with scores of clashes and rallies erupting across the country this year. Oil operations and airports were besieged and shut down, culminating in a mass demonstration of more than 3,000 Indians, mainly from the Awajun tribe, blockading a road in the sweltering jungle town of Bagua in June. More than 30 people were killed, including 20 policemen, after special forces, airlifted to the scene, opened fire on the protesters.
Fearing more violence and faced with public outrage, the Government was forced to revoke two of the most contentious decrees. The Prime Minster resigned and President García also admitted to a series of errors in the handling of the incident.
The Government has also called the protesters extremists and terrorists, and has charged an indigenous leader, who has since fled to Nicaragua, with sedition and rebellion. More than 100 men face criminal charges and many of them live in hiding.
Francisco Shikiu Ukuncham was shot through the back and saw three of his friends killed. He says that the fighting has served to strengthen ties between tribes. “All we want is for our home, the jungle, to be respected. We were demonstrating peacefully and they shot at us like we were dogs,” he said. “But the Government doesn’t listen to us. And if it doesn’t listen, the situation is going to get worse.”
Some of the tribes communicate with each other via a web of radios. The network has enabled disparate indigenous groups — often located hundreds of miles apart — to form alliances, co-ordinate protests and exchange information.
According to Ambrosio Uwak, the president of an indigenous rights organisation and one of the leaders of the movement, his group can mobilise more than 15,000 people through the radio system. “We want every single one of these decrees revoked. But if not, we won’t hesitate to call on our people to rise up again,” he said.
Unreported World, Peru: Blood and Oil. Friday, October 9. 7.30pm. Channel 4
CANADA STALLING on mediation: Six Nations
Natives accuse Ottawa of foot dragging
Won't agree to land-claims mediation: Six Nations
http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/650491
October 09, 2009
Daniel Nolan
CALEDONIA - The Six Nations Confederacy is accusing Canada of stopping progress in talks to settle land claims because it won’t agree to mediation.
The Confederacy, appointed by the elected-band council in 2006 to conduct negotiations with Ottawa and Ontario, also says commitments by Canada to help fund Six Nations in order to create an “equal bargaining field” has not been forthcoming and it has had to lay off staff and rely on “the goodwill of our people to attempt to maintain a presence at the negotiation table.”
The statements were made by Confederacy representatives today at the conclusion of the latest round of land claim talks, which first began in May 2006 to try to resolve a dispute over the occupation by natives of a Caledonia housing project. It blossomed into other land claims, and saw Ottawa make two offers - $125 million and $26 million - to resolve different claims, but no agreements have been reached.
In the meantime, natives have halted development projects in Brantford and Hagersville because they say they’re being built on unsurrendered Six Nations land.
Ontario supports the idea of bringing in a mediator, but Confederacy spokesman Aaron Detlor said Canada has consistently blocked it. Names of judges have been proposed with no response, he said, and lately the name of Dr. Peggy Blair has been suggested. She is a leading lawyer in aboriginal affairs and completed negotiation skills training at Harvard Law in 1993.
“We need the assistance of a mediator-facilitator,” he said. “We have a fundamental disagreement about one party showing up at negotiations and saying ‘Here is the agreement. Take it or leave it.’ That’s not negotiating. They show up and say, ‘Here’s how we’re going to negotiate a settlement. You’re going to take what we’re going to offer and not ask any questions about it.”
Federal officials left before reporters could speak to them and could not be reached for comment later. A spokesperson for federal Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl could not be reached for comment.
On the issue of financing, Detlor said the Six Nations team has been without any funding for the last six months. He said it has had to let go three people, such as a researcher, and plans to cut two more. They have suggested $1.2 million is adequate to help them with the ongoing negotiations.
“It diminishes (our ability to negotiate) significantly,” Detlor said about the cash shortage. “Ontario has seven or eight people and the feds have seven or eight people. We don’t have the same back office support they have of hundreds of people. We have five people.”
“It’s simply not fair to ask people to put their lives on hold in good-faith negotiations without any ability to feed their families.”
Detlor said talks have not broken off and the three sides are set to meet again next month.
“We’re committed to continuing talks and we’re hoping the federal Crown will see the light of day,” he added.
He wouldn’t say frustration by land claims supporters will lead to more demonstrations, but noted: “Significant business interest in this part of Ontario is on hold until we get a mediator-facilitator. People are not going to come here and invest in this area if we cannot get a simple agreement on a mediator-facilitator.”
'We keep getting blocked'
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2096313
The Haudenosaunee Development Institute went public with its complaints against the province and the federal government on Thursday, accusing them of delaying negotiations over land claims.
In a hastily arranged news conference after the latest table talk among the institute, Canada and Ontario, three HDI spokesmen announced the governments are balking at all their suggestions for a mediator-facilitator who could help move the process along and are refusing to assist with funding for natives who are engaged in the process.
"We have been working at getting a mediator-facilitator for four months," said spokesman Aaron Detlor, who is also a lawyer. "We keep getting blocked time and time again."
Detlor said the HDI has suggested various names, including Canadian judges, and has been open to input from the governments about who could be brought in to offer impartial advice on moving forward.
The terms of reference for a mediator-facilitator have already been agreed upon, so it's just a matter of selecting a person.
"We've tried to make a process where everyone can be satisfied and we get forced back by a federal crown with a message that's basically 'Our way or the highway'"
Additionally, no one working on the negotiation process has been paid for the last six months and Detlor said the HDI has had to lay off three of its five-member administrative staff , including a researcher, assistant and co-ordinator.
"It diminishes us."
Detlor said each of the governments shows up at the talks with seven or eight highly paid negotiators.
The lawyer also said the HDI is not halting the talks, but is hopeful people will demand their politicians push for more movement.
HDI's Mike Bomberry read a prepared statement saying the natives have lost good faith in the negotiation because of the approach Canada and Ontario have chosen to take, creating an "unfair bargaining field."
With no administrative funding support from Canada, the natives have relied on volunteer assistance at the negotiation table and have had to lay off staff .
"(We) may now be forced to shut down offices at the Oneida Business Park since it cannot aff ord the rent," said Bomberry.
Aboriginal Affairs Minister Brad Duguid, reached at the legislature in Toronto, said his instructions to negotiators have been to be as flexible as possible.
"We're enthusiastic supporters of bringing in a facilitator to try and trigger more progress in the talks," Duguid said.
"We continue to support the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations people and urge the federal government to show as much flexibility as possible to reach a consensus on who that should be."
The minister said he hasn't seen the names suggested as a facilitator, but he sees no reason why a suitable candidate can't be swiftly found.
Representatives from the federal and provincial government did not remain at the Oneida Business Park after talks today to offer comment.
In related negotiations, Brantford was back in court last week regarding its injunction against native protesters and was rewarded with a clarification from Justice Harrison Arrell that says the native protesters are prohibited from stopping work at the 10 development sites named in the original injunction.
The clarification seems aimed at the protests of Floyd and Ruby Montour who recently stopped work on Erie Avenue, along with a handful of supporters.
Meanwhile, Brantford police are investigating comments made on an Internet discussion board about the protesters.
One poster suggested the native protest could be stopped through a violent act and the Montours were asked to discuss their safety with police.
Copyright © 2009 Brantford Expositor
Natives accuse Ottawa of foot dragging
Won't agree to land-claims mediation: Six Nations
http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/650491
October 09, 2009
Daniel Nolan
CALEDONIA - The Six Nations Confederacy is accusing Canada of stopping progress in talks to settle land claims because it won’t agree to mediation.
The Confederacy, appointed by the elected-band council in 2006 to conduct negotiations with Ottawa and Ontario, also says commitments by Canada to help fund Six Nations in order to create an “equal bargaining field” has not been forthcoming and it has had to lay off staff and rely on “the goodwill of our people to attempt to maintain a presence at the negotiation table.”
The statements were made by Confederacy representatives today at the conclusion of the latest round of land claim talks, which first began in May 2006 to try to resolve a dispute over the occupation by natives of a Caledonia housing project. It blossomed into other land claims, and saw Ottawa make two offers - $125 million and $26 million - to resolve different claims, but no agreements have been reached.
In the meantime, natives have halted development projects in Brantford and Hagersville because they say they’re being built on unsurrendered Six Nations land.
Ontario supports the idea of bringing in a mediator, but Confederacy spokesman Aaron Detlor said Canada has consistently blocked it. Names of judges have been proposed with no response, he said, and lately the name of Dr. Peggy Blair has been suggested. She is a leading lawyer in aboriginal affairs and completed negotiation skills training at Harvard Law in 1993.
“We need the assistance of a mediator-facilitator,” he said. “We have a fundamental disagreement about one party showing up at negotiations and saying ‘Here is the agreement. Take it or leave it.’ That’s not negotiating. They show up and say, ‘Here’s how we’re going to negotiate a settlement. You’re going to take what we’re going to offer and not ask any questions about it.”
Federal officials left before reporters could speak to them and could not be reached for comment later. A spokesperson for federal Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl could not be reached for comment.
On the issue of financing, Detlor said the Six Nations team has been without any funding for the last six months. He said it has had to let go three people, such as a researcher, and plans to cut two more. They have suggested $1.2 million is adequate to help them with the ongoing negotiations.
“It diminishes (our ability to negotiate) significantly,” Detlor said about the cash shortage. “Ontario has seven or eight people and the feds have seven or eight people. We don’t have the same back office support they have of hundreds of people. We have five people.”
“It’s simply not fair to ask people to put their lives on hold in good-faith negotiations without any ability to feed their families.”
Detlor said talks have not broken off and the three sides are set to meet again next month.
“We’re committed to continuing talks and we’re hoping the federal Crown will see the light of day,” he added.
He wouldn’t say frustration by land claims supporters will lead to more demonstrations, but noted: “Significant business interest in this part of Ontario is on hold until we get a mediator-facilitator. People are not going to come here and invest in this area if we cannot get a simple agreement on a mediator-facilitator.”
'We keep getting blocked'
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2096313
The Haudenosaunee Development Institute went public with its complaints against the province and the federal government on Thursday, accusing them of delaying negotiations over land claims.
In a hastily arranged news conference after the latest table talk among the institute, Canada and Ontario, three HDI spokesmen announced the governments are balking at all their suggestions for a mediator-facilitator who could help move the process along and are refusing to assist with funding for natives who are engaged in the process.
"We have been working at getting a mediator-facilitator for four months," said spokesman Aaron Detlor, who is also a lawyer. "We keep getting blocked time and time again."
Detlor said the HDI has suggested various names, including Canadian judges, and has been open to input from the governments about who could be brought in to offer impartial advice on moving forward.
The terms of reference for a mediator-facilitator have already been agreed upon, so it's just a matter of selecting a person.
"We've tried to make a process where everyone can be satisfied and we get forced back by a federal crown with a message that's basically 'Our way or the highway'"
Additionally, no one working on the negotiation process has been paid for the last six months and Detlor said the HDI has had to lay off three of its five-member administrative staff , including a researcher, assistant and co-ordinator.
"It diminishes us."
Detlor said each of the governments shows up at the talks with seven or eight highly paid negotiators.
The lawyer also said the HDI is not halting the talks, but is hopeful people will demand their politicians push for more movement.
HDI's Mike Bomberry read a prepared statement saying the natives have lost good faith in the negotiation because of the approach Canada and Ontario have chosen to take, creating an "unfair bargaining field."
With no administrative funding support from Canada, the natives have relied on volunteer assistance at the negotiation table and have had to lay off staff .
"(We) may now be forced to shut down offices at the Oneida Business Park since it cannot aff ord the rent," said Bomberry.
Aboriginal Affairs Minister Brad Duguid, reached at the legislature in Toronto, said his instructions to negotiators have been to be as flexible as possible.
"We're enthusiastic supporters of bringing in a facilitator to try and trigger more progress in the talks," Duguid said.
"We continue to support the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations people and urge the federal government to show as much flexibility as possible to reach a consensus on who that should be."
The minister said he hasn't seen the names suggested as a facilitator, but he sees no reason why a suitable candidate can't be swiftly found.
Representatives from the federal and provincial government did not remain at the Oneida Business Park after talks today to offer comment.
In related negotiations, Brantford was back in court last week regarding its injunction against native protesters and was rewarded with a clarification from Justice Harrison Arrell that says the native protesters are prohibited from stopping work at the 10 development sites named in the original injunction.
The clarification seems aimed at the protests of Floyd and Ruby Montour who recently stopped work on Erie Avenue, along with a handful of supporters.
Meanwhile, Brantford police are investigating comments made on an Internet discussion board about the protesters.
One poster suggested the native protest could be stopped through a violent act and the Montours were asked to discuss their safety with police.
Copyright © 2009 Brantford Expositor
EDWARDS LANDFILL, Cayuga -
Another Site 41?
Landfill in southern Ontario starts legal battle
October 6, 2009
by Geordie Gwalgen Dent
The Dominion -
2008 blockade at Edwards site. Photo: Jim Windle
TORONTO—After years of blockades and campaigning, another battle to protect wetlands and water in southern Ontario is going to court.
Cayuga is a small community on Six Nations territory south of Hamilton. For five years, protesters, First Nations and Cayuga residents have been trying to stop the development of a landfill by SF Partnership Chartered Accountants and Haldimand Norfolk Sanitary Landfill Inc. On October 2, preliminary hearings to stop the site's development occurred.
“There have been blockades to stop trucks coming in twice,” most recently in late 2008, says Jody Orr, co-chair of Haldimand Against Landfill Transfer (HALT). “What happened in 2007 was an attempt to bring garbage in and some members of the Haudenosaunee and our group stopped it. Since then, there has been little activity on the site. We keep a watch on it.”
Blockades and legal battles around dump sites and development have been numerous this summer in Southern Ontario. Site 41 in Simcoe County was slated to have a dump site built on top of it for garbage from the surrounding area. Unfortunately for residents in the area, it would also be on an aquifer containing the “purest water in the world.” Protesters and members of the Council Of Canadians filed an injunction claiming the site was operating illegally in July of 2009 and on September 22 Simcoe County councilors voted to stop construction and development of the site.
Just a few weeks earlier, development at the Hanlon Creek Business Park (HCBP) in Guelph was halted for 30 days by a court injunction. The site had been occupied beginning in July by Guelph and Six Nations protesters. Recently, the City of Guelph voted to halt construction until July 2010.
Both situations mirror developments at the Edwards landfill site in Cayuga.
The Edwards site is within the Haldimand Tract, land granted to Six Nations in 1784. The site was opened in 1959 as an industrial and commercial landfill and has maintained sporadic activity as a dump site since.
Serious contamination of the site occurred between the late 1960s and late 1980s when the St. Lawrence Resin Products Plant was dumping industrial waste there. Thousands of tons of toxic chemicals have been found in the site including toluene, ethylstyrene, xylene, ehtylbenzene, ethyltoluene, methylstyrene, cymene and divinyl benzene.
When the site was opened again as a landfill in 2004, HALT was formed by Cayuga residents hoping to stop continued contamination from the use of the site. “We had tried different steps and had gone through a legal process, and despite that the trucks were still coming in,” says Ann Vallentin, another co-chair of HALT.
In 2007 blockades against trucks associated with Haldimand Norfolk Sanitary Landfill Inc, the company owning the site, began.
“We didn't see another route to go at that point, says Vallentin. “We were not exited but it was a last-resort effort at that point. The blockade was done by Six Nations members and activists at the road at the time.” Eventually an injunction was put against anyone trying to stop the trucks.
The blockades were successful, at least temporarily. The company, having spent a considerable amount of money on site preparation, was unable to deliver garbage. Shortly before, it had gone into bankruptcy and was put into receivership. Receiver Brahm Rosen, of SF Partnership Chartered Accountants in Toronto, has been trying to “operate the landfill and sell it as is our mandate...as receiver.”
“But we can't do it," said Rosen, speaking in the Hamilton Spectator. Rosen was unable to contact this author by deadline.
Similar to Site 41 and HCBP, a collaboration between First Nations and white activists has been key to the success of stopping the Edwards site from further use.
According to Orr, “In HALT, there are people that do not agree with what is happening with a number of issues (such as land claims). Some will be supportive, but not others. On this issue, everyone sees a reason to come together. I don't want to leave my grandkids this kind of legacy. I think that the involvement of the Haudenosaunee was critical in stopping garbage. If it had not been for their decision, I'm not sure what the outcome would have been.”
In 2007, Six Nations spokesperson Ruby Montour said the Haudenosaunee Development Institute had not been informed about revival of the dumpsite and told the Hamilton Spectator: "This is Haudenosaunee land and it's not for garbage. Why should the people who live around there have to fear that?"
The Hoskanigetah of the Grand River, a group within the Haudenosaunee, have made repeated announcements that they will not allow the “reactivation of the Edwards Landfill” promising to “undertake the supervision of our own Environmental Review of contamination.”
Wilf Ruland, a professional geoscientist, says serious contamination at the site exists. Conducting a “Review of 2006 Monitoring Report for Edwards Landfill,” Ruland found that “the existing hazardous wastes on the Edwards Landfill property pose an ongoing threat to both groundwater and surface water quality for as long as they remain on the property.“
The Hoskanigetah have outlined concerns regarding premature births, miscarriages and deformities, pointing out that “the integrity of the same liner used at Edwards Landfill has been breached at other sites including [in] the US, where it has been used.”
In an email, Jennifer Hall, Regional Communications Advisor for the Ministry of the Environment, stated that “the newly constructed landfill cell meets the stringent requirements of Ontario’s landfill design standards.”
HALT disagrees and is now taking the receiver to court, seeking an injunction to stop the development of the site.
“When the receiver got an injunction against the protesters, the CoA [certificate of approval] from the Ministry of Environment had a number of provisions that had been violated,” says Orr. HALT then filed a counter-injunction which stopped work on the site and mandated that protesters would be notified of subsequent work.
“In 2008, a number of conditions still had not been met. The Ministry of Environment was allowing things to go ahead without proper approval. There’s a lack of detail on the decontaminating plan for a very toxic site.”
Like the Hoskanigetah, Orr and HALT have concerns about the integrity of the liner and charge that there is no monitoring of the quality of water and no annual report on environmental plans, as mandated by the certificate of approval. “We’re seeking in court, for prosecution, that this site is operating illegally,” says Orr.
According to Hall, “There were some minor items of non-compliance regarding preparation of the site to receive waste that have since been resolved. The ministry is satisfied that the receiver is in compliance with their CoA and the court order.
“The CoA requires the site owner to monitor ground and surface water on the site for impacts caused by the landfill site. The ministry is confident that the terms and conditions of the CoA will protect groundwater and surface water.“
Though the legal process to stop the site is in its early stages, neither Orr nor Vallentin are optimistic that the site will be permanently closed any time soon.
“Will [the legal work] be effective? I don't know,” says Vallentin. “We were told by people when we started that it was going to happen so there was no reason to try to stop it. But we felt that if it was bad then we have a duty to try to do what we can do. Typically in situations like this companies will keep trying until they wear out people on the ground. Site 41 took 25 years, I hope it wont be the same thing here.”
_____
Geordie Gwalgen Dent is a contributing member of the Toronto Media Co-op.
A version of this article was originally published by the Toronto Media Co-op.
----------------------------
Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
...........
From: Niki Thorne
Hi friends and allies,
We've gotten word that garbage will be brought to the Edwards Landfill
site in Cayuga on Wednesday. Letters from the Hoskanigetah, the
Confederacy Council and Band Council will be presented to the OPP
today in an attempt to diffuse the situation, however, there is every
likelihood that the Hoskanigetah will have to take direct action to
prevent the reopening of Edwards on Wednesday (tomorrow).
There is evidence of toxic waste having been illegally dumped at
Edwards (as well as other sites around the region) from the now
defunct Saint Lawrence resin plant. Additionally, Edwards is located
in an environmentally sensitive wetlands area. Not only is it
damaging to the land, there have been some very alarming indications
for human health.
Allies are invited to participate in this action, under the leadership
of the Hoskanigetah. It is of utmost importance to respect the
Hoskanigetah's leadership in this action to reduce the likelihood of
arrests or police violence, and in terms of media strategy for public
opinion.
Contact Wes Elliot by text for specifics on the action (519 757 5427).
Allies are especially encouraged to organize among themselves to come
down with cars and video equipment.
In Solidarity,
--------------
~~Niki, for CUPE 3903's First Nations Solidarity Working Group
For more information about Edwards:
http://6nsolidarity.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/concerns-over-possible-reopening-of-toxic-edwards-landfill/
http://6nsolidarity.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/a-message-from-the-hoskanigetah-mens-fire-of-six-nations/
_______________________________________________
six_nations_info mailing list
six_nations_info@masses.tao.ca
Another Site 41?
UPDATE ACTION ALERT
October 7, 2009
Hey folks,
Just to let you know that one dumptruck has made it past the lines at
Edwards, and more are expected to be on their way. There are about 15
non-native supporters at the site, but more folks are needed. For
details about how to get there you can send a text to Niki at 905 921
2893 or Katie at 416 653 2580. From what I just heard from Katie, the
police are threatening arrests if anyone blocks the trucks.
At the same time as all of this is happening, there are Six Nations folks at
the Erie Ave site trying to stop construction there as well...
mailing list six_nations_info@masses.tao.ca
Landfill in southern Ontario starts legal battle
October 6, 2009
by Geordie Gwalgen Dent
The Dominion -
2008 blockade at Edwards site. Photo: Jim Windle
TORONTO—After years of blockades and campaigning, another battle to protect wetlands and water in southern Ontario is going to court.
Cayuga is a small community on Six Nations territory south of Hamilton. For five years, protesters, First Nations and Cayuga residents have been trying to stop the development of a landfill by SF Partnership Chartered Accountants and Haldimand Norfolk Sanitary Landfill Inc. On October 2, preliminary hearings to stop the site's development occurred.
“There have been blockades to stop trucks coming in twice,” most recently in late 2008, says Jody Orr, co-chair of Haldimand Against Landfill Transfer (HALT). “What happened in 2007 was an attempt to bring garbage in and some members of the Haudenosaunee and our group stopped it. Since then, there has been little activity on the site. We keep a watch on it.”
Blockades and legal battles around dump sites and development have been numerous this summer in Southern Ontario. Site 41 in Simcoe County was slated to have a dump site built on top of it for garbage from the surrounding area. Unfortunately for residents in the area, it would also be on an aquifer containing the “purest water in the world.” Protesters and members of the Council Of Canadians filed an injunction claiming the site was operating illegally in July of 2009 and on September 22 Simcoe County councilors voted to stop construction and development of the site.
Just a few weeks earlier, development at the Hanlon Creek Business Park (HCBP) in Guelph was halted for 30 days by a court injunction. The site had been occupied beginning in July by Guelph and Six Nations protesters. Recently, the City of Guelph voted to halt construction until July 2010.
Both situations mirror developments at the Edwards landfill site in Cayuga.
The Edwards site is within the Haldimand Tract, land granted to Six Nations in 1784. The site was opened in 1959 as an industrial and commercial landfill and has maintained sporadic activity as a dump site since.
Serious contamination of the site occurred between the late 1960s and late 1980s when the St. Lawrence Resin Products Plant was dumping industrial waste there. Thousands of tons of toxic chemicals have been found in the site including toluene, ethylstyrene, xylene, ehtylbenzene, ethyltoluene, methylstyrene, cymene and divinyl benzene.
When the site was opened again as a landfill in 2004, HALT was formed by Cayuga residents hoping to stop continued contamination from the use of the site. “We had tried different steps and had gone through a legal process, and despite that the trucks were still coming in,” says Ann Vallentin, another co-chair of HALT.
In 2007 blockades against trucks associated with Haldimand Norfolk Sanitary Landfill Inc, the company owning the site, began.
“We didn't see another route to go at that point, says Vallentin. “We were not exited but it was a last-resort effort at that point. The blockade was done by Six Nations members and activists at the road at the time.” Eventually an injunction was put against anyone trying to stop the trucks.
The blockades were successful, at least temporarily. The company, having spent a considerable amount of money on site preparation, was unable to deliver garbage. Shortly before, it had gone into bankruptcy and was put into receivership. Receiver Brahm Rosen, of SF Partnership Chartered Accountants in Toronto, has been trying to “operate the landfill and sell it as is our mandate...as receiver.”
“But we can't do it," said Rosen, speaking in the Hamilton Spectator. Rosen was unable to contact this author by deadline.
Similar to Site 41 and HCBP, a collaboration between First Nations and white activists has been key to the success of stopping the Edwards site from further use.
According to Orr, “In HALT, there are people that do not agree with what is happening with a number of issues (such as land claims). Some will be supportive, but not others. On this issue, everyone sees a reason to come together. I don't want to leave my grandkids this kind of legacy. I think that the involvement of the Haudenosaunee was critical in stopping garbage. If it had not been for their decision, I'm not sure what the outcome would have been.”
In 2007, Six Nations spokesperson Ruby Montour said the Haudenosaunee Development Institute had not been informed about revival of the dumpsite and told the Hamilton Spectator: "This is Haudenosaunee land and it's not for garbage. Why should the people who live around there have to fear that?"
The Hoskanigetah of the Grand River, a group within the Haudenosaunee, have made repeated announcements that they will not allow the “reactivation of the Edwards Landfill” promising to “undertake the supervision of our own Environmental Review of contamination.”
Wilf Ruland, a professional geoscientist, says serious contamination at the site exists. Conducting a “Review of 2006 Monitoring Report for Edwards Landfill,” Ruland found that “the existing hazardous wastes on the Edwards Landfill property pose an ongoing threat to both groundwater and surface water quality for as long as they remain on the property.“
The Hoskanigetah have outlined concerns regarding premature births, miscarriages and deformities, pointing out that “the integrity of the same liner used at Edwards Landfill has been breached at other sites including [in] the US, where it has been used.”
In an email, Jennifer Hall, Regional Communications Advisor for the Ministry of the Environment, stated that “the newly constructed landfill cell meets the stringent requirements of Ontario’s landfill design standards.”
HALT disagrees and is now taking the receiver to court, seeking an injunction to stop the development of the site.
“When the receiver got an injunction against the protesters, the CoA [certificate of approval] from the Ministry of Environment had a number of provisions that had been violated,” says Orr. HALT then filed a counter-injunction which stopped work on the site and mandated that protesters would be notified of subsequent work.
“In 2008, a number of conditions still had not been met. The Ministry of Environment was allowing things to go ahead without proper approval. There’s a lack of detail on the decontaminating plan for a very toxic site.”
Like the Hoskanigetah, Orr and HALT have concerns about the integrity of the liner and charge that there is no monitoring of the quality of water and no annual report on environmental plans, as mandated by the certificate of approval. “We’re seeking in court, for prosecution, that this site is operating illegally,” says Orr.
According to Hall, “There were some minor items of non-compliance regarding preparation of the site to receive waste that have since been resolved. The ministry is satisfied that the receiver is in compliance with their CoA and the court order.
“The CoA requires the site owner to monitor ground and surface water on the site for impacts caused by the landfill site. The ministry is confident that the terms and conditions of the CoA will protect groundwater and surface water.“
Though the legal process to stop the site is in its early stages, neither Orr nor Vallentin are optimistic that the site will be permanently closed any time soon.
“Will [the legal work] be effective? I don't know,” says Vallentin. “We were told by people when we started that it was going to happen so there was no reason to try to stop it. But we felt that if it was bad then we have a duty to try to do what we can do. Typically in situations like this companies will keep trying until they wear out people on the ground. Site 41 took 25 years, I hope it wont be the same thing here.”
_____
Geordie Gwalgen Dent is a contributing member of the Toronto Media Co-op.
A version of this article was originally published by the Toronto Media Co-op.
----------------------------
Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
...........
From: Niki Thorne
Hi friends and allies,
We've gotten word that garbage will be brought to the Edwards Landfill
site in Cayuga on Wednesday. Letters from the Hoskanigetah, the
Confederacy Council and Band Council will be presented to the OPP
today in an attempt to diffuse the situation, however, there is every
likelihood that the Hoskanigetah will have to take direct action to
prevent the reopening of Edwards on Wednesday (tomorrow).
There is evidence of toxic waste having been illegally dumped at
Edwards (as well as other sites around the region) from the now
defunct Saint Lawrence resin plant. Additionally, Edwards is located
in an environmentally sensitive wetlands area. Not only is it
damaging to the land, there have been some very alarming indications
for human health.
Allies are invited to participate in this action, under the leadership
of the Hoskanigetah. It is of utmost importance to respect the
Hoskanigetah's leadership in this action to reduce the likelihood of
arrests or police violence, and in terms of media strategy for public
opinion.
Contact Wes Elliot by text for specifics on the action (519 757 5427).
Allies are especially encouraged to organize among themselves to come
down with cars and video equipment.
In Solidarity,
--------------
~~Niki, for CUPE 3903's First Nations Solidarity Working Group
For more information about Edwards:
http://6nsolidarity.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/concerns-over-possible-reopening-of-toxic-edwards-landfill/
http://6nsolidarity.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/a-message-from-the-hoskanigetah-mens-fire-of-six-nations/
_______________________________________________
six_nations_info mailing list
six_nations_info@masses.tao.ca
Thursday, October 08, 2009
/
/
imagineNATIVE: SIX MILES DEEP
Related News:
SIX NATIONS TO UPDATE LAND TALKS
More than three years since Caledonia occupation
October 08, 2009
Meredith MacLeod
Six Nations traditional chiefs will give an update today on the state of the land rights negotiations going on with the federal and provincial governments.
The Haudenosaunee Chiefs will speak to the media at 2 p.m. at the Oneida Business Park in Six Nations.
The parties have been at the table since 2006, when the occupation of a Caledonia subdivision under construction sparked a standoff.
Now, a number of developments in the disputed Haldimand Tract, a 10-kilometre ribbon on either side of the Grand River, have been put on hold.
/
imagineNATIVE: SIX MILES DEEP
_______________________________________________
The remarkable evolution of Indigenous cinema will be celebrated at the 10th imagineNATIVE Film + Media Arts Festival, which runs in Toronto from Oct. 14 until Oct. 18.
The annual festival which showcases global aboriginal filmmakers and media artists this year features more than 125 works of Indigenous innovation in film, video, radio and new media.
Many of imagineNATIVE's premieres went on to win awards at festivals, such as Sundance and Berlin, and have even garnered Oscar nominations.
The celebration of imagineNATIVE's 10th anniversary offers an important occasion to reflect on the accomplishments of the last 10 years and the exciting opportunities ahead of us, says executive director Kerry Swanson. The films programmed this year, adds director of programming Michelle Latimer, speak to the contemporary experience and reflect the fact that today's Indigenous filmmakers are reclaiming the medium of film and transforming the world-view of Indigenous people by voicing our contemporary stories from the inside out.
...
In a world premiere, emerging filmmaker/writer/activist
Sarah Roque's SIX MILES DEEP offers an
uncompromising look at the brave women who stood
behind the lines during the 2006
Caledonia/Six Nationsland claim dispute.
This intimate portrayal celebrates clan mothers
from past to present, while giving voice to the hopes
and dreams of an entire community.
Related News:
SIX NATIONS TO UPDATE LAND TALKS
More than three years since Caledonia occupation
October 08, 2009
Meredith MacLeod
Six Nations traditional chiefs will give an update today on the state of the land rights negotiations going on with the federal and provincial governments.
The Haudenosaunee Chiefs will speak to the media at 2 p.m. at the Oneida Business Park in Six Nations.
The parties have been at the table since 2006, when the occupation of a Caledonia subdivision under construction sparked a standoff.
Now, a number of developments in the disputed Haldimand Tract, a 10-kilometre ribbon on either side of the Grand River, have been put on hold.
Friday, October 02, 2009
UN Indigenous Human Rights
UN Indigenous Human Rights, Sept 30, 2009 HRC Discusses rights of Indigenous peoples and HR Bodies and Mechanisms http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2009/09/un-indigenous-human-rights-sept-30-2009.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First Peoples Human Rights Coalition Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM Reply-To: info@firstpeoplesrights.org To: info@firstpeoplesrights.org From the UN Press Release below: KENNETH DEER, of Indigenous World Association, said that they were dismayed that indigenous representatives who had travelled here over the weekend had not been able to get on the list of the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur because non-governmental organizations with a permanent presence had taken much of the speaking time available. Whenever possible, indigenous delegates had to be given the opportunity to represent themselves. ... MANON BOISCLAIR (Canada) said that Canada would like to reiterate its support for the important role of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. Canada further noted with appreciation Mr. Anaya's resolve to focus his work on the core issues in specific countries and specific situations of allegations of human rights violations. The Special Rapporteur also rightfully highlighted the importance of the coordination with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and asked whether the Special Rapporteur continued to pursue his efforts in this area? Canada indicated that it would be interested to know if the Special Rapporteur also envisioned coordination with other bodies which dealt with individual complaints. Canada appreciated the Special Rapporteur's efforts to take a balanced approach on the delicate issue of the duty of States to consult with indigenous peoples on matters affecting their particular interests, and would be grateful for any views or guidance the Special Rapporteur may have to offer for situations where, despite efforts, consultations had reached an impasse.(ie, where Indigenous communities in Canada have protested and blockaded and said "NO!" to planned developments like a uranium mine, sprawl development, etc) Phht!! Maybe CorporationCanada just needs to stop destroying the earth and its peoples for profit! There is no business to be done on a dead planet -David Brower
Dump opponents insist battle not over yet
Author: Nicole Million
Date: Sep 29, 2009
Steve Ogden fought for more than 20 years against the County of Simcoe’s proposed landfill at Site 41 in Tiny Township. Though council has voted to abandon the plan, Ogden said he won’t be celebrating until the certificate of approval allowing a dump on the site is revoked by the province.
Opponents of landfill Site 41 may have breathed a small sigh of relief, but they’re refusing to let their guard down just yet.
Longtime dump critic Steve Ogden said news of the 25-3 vote on Sept. 22 to abandon plans for the controversial dump is definitely good news, but he won’t celebrate until Simcoe County council votes to revoke the certificate of approval (C of A) issued by the province.
“I don’t believe it’s over and done with,” Ogden said, adding he’s concerned county council may come back in a different configuration after the fall 2010 municipal election and vote to revive the landfill.
“The C of A is still alive and well for that site, which means there could still be a dump in the future. Until such time that it’s revoked, I think we should be quite afraid.”
Ogden said he was confident leading up to the meeting that council would dump the dump for good, but he wasn’t surprised when they opted not to revoke the C of A.
“There’s more going on here than meets the eye,” he said.
Among Ogden’s concerns is the possibility the county will sell the property to a private company that will go ahead and build a landfill.
“If we put our guard down, we’re going to see something happen. I think we should be very cautious.”
Anne Ritchie-Nahuis echoed Ogden’s disappointment that council chose not to seek removal of the C of A.
“It’s with very cautious optimism that we move forward,” she said. “We know we need to remove the C of A, and we feel (that) is the only adequate means of stopping Site 41.”
Vicki Monague, a Christian Island resident and a leader of the Anishinabe Kweag protest, was less circumspect, telling The Mirror she was ecstatic with the vote.
“It was something that our group had been working towards ever since we started the protest camp. A lot of us feel that our objectives … have been met now,” she said. “We’re really happy and thankful county council passed that resolution.”
Both Ogden and Ritchie-Nahuis credited the overwhelming public pressure – including the First Nations camp near the site, daily protests and the support of big names like former U.S. presidential candidate Ralph Nader, environmentalist David Suzuki and Council of Canadian chairperson Maude Barlow – as the driving force behind putting a stop to the more than 20-year fight to stop the landfill.
“The fact that people mobilized and stood up, I think there was quite a great fear amongst the elected officials that they must do something or they would never be re-elected or be seen as credible,” said Ogden.
The concerns have always been there, added Ritchie-Nahuis, but the strong, science-based opposition to the site was bolstered this time by widespread public support.
“There’s always been strong opposition, (but) the protesters brought it to a new level and First Nations people have made a great commitment to protecting Mother Earth,” she said. “People all over the world do not appreciate wasteful use of water resources. We have a strong commitment to move forward and ensure our community’s water supply is protected.”
Penetanguishene Mayor Anita Dubeau, who initially voted to support the controversial landfill before changing her mind, said she is confident the landfill plan will not be revived.
“I believe Site 41 is dead, which I believe is a good thing,” she said. “Now it’s very prudent of the 32 members that sit on county council to consider options and where we go from here. North Simcoe’s garbage has been filling up other people’s landfills, and we appreciate the fact we’re allowed to do that, but we do have to look at solutions.”
Dubeau said she hopes those who were against the development of Site 41 will come forward with new ideas, but noted she believes withdrawing the C of A at this time is premature.
“Do I think that county council is ever going to sell that property and let a private developer put in a landfill? I would say that would be an absolute silly move on our part after what’s gone on,” she said. “Maybe there’s something else we can do with that property that’s not landfill, but may be related to waste management.”
Ray Millar, former chair of the community monitoring committee tasked with advising the landfill plan and representing citizens’ interests to the county, told The Mirror it was inevitable the landfill would never come to fruition. He said he was “very pleased” with the decision overall, but surprised with the numbers.
“I expected there to be more (votes against) the plan to discontinue it permanently,” he said. “The big challenge lies just ahead of us now, and that’s moving Simcoe County to a zero-waste approach. Rather than constantly looking for ways to manage our waste, it’s time we moved our efforts to reducing waste and eliminating it from our lexicon.”
Site 41 Chronology
1979: North Simcoe municipalities begin the search for a new landfill site.
1986: A 20.7-hectare (50-acre) parcel in Tiny Township is selected as the preferred site, based on 20 technical criteria. It is Site 41.
1989: Ministry of the Environment concurs with the local environmental assessment process that recommends Site 41.
1990: Provincial cabinet intervenes on site selection process.
1990: Issue referred to a joint board – a combination of the Ontario Municipal Board and the Environmental Review Tribunal. Board notes guidelines have changed and recommends further review.
1990-93: Additional sites are reviewed, but Site 41 remains the preferred choice.
May 1993: Joint Board hearing resumes, and lasts until November 1994.
1995: The Joint Board grants approval for the landfill site.
1995: The North Simcoe Waste Management Association disbands; Simcoe County takes over the development process.
1998: Ministry of the Environment issues a provisional certificate of approval; county begins to buy land.
1998-2003: Technical studies conducted as stipulated by the provisional C of A.
2003: Tiny Township and the community monitoring committee hire independent engineering and environmental consultants to review the county’s work.
Oct. 20, 2006: Ministry of the Environment issues final approval for Site 41 landfill.
June 26, 2007: County council approves initial site development.
Dec. 8, 2008: Ministry of the Environment issues permit to take water, allowing construction to start.
2009: Cell construction begins.
Aug. 25, 2009: County council votes in favour of a one-year moratorium.
Sept. 22, 2009: Council votes 25-3 to abandon its plans for the dump.
Steve Ogden fought for more than 20 years against the County of Simcoe’s proposed landfill at Site 41 in Tiny Township. Though council has voted to abandon the plan, Ogden said he won’t be celebrating until the certificate of approval allowing a dump on the site is revoked by the province.
Opponents of landfill Site 41 may have breathed a small sigh of relief, but they’re refusing to let their guard down just yet.
Longtime dump critic Steve Ogden said news of the 25-3 vote on Sept. 22 to abandon plans for the controversial dump is definitely good news, but he won’t celebrate until Simcoe County council votes to revoke the certificate of approval (C of A) issued by the province.
“I don’t believe it’s over and done with,” Ogden said, adding he’s concerned county council may come back in a different configuration after the fall 2010 municipal election and vote to revive the landfill.
“The C of A is still alive and well for that site, which means there could still be a dump in the future. Until such time that it’s revoked, I think we should be quite afraid.”
Ogden said he was confident leading up to the meeting that council would dump the dump for good, but he wasn’t surprised when they opted not to revoke the C of A.
“There’s more going on here than meets the eye,” he said.
Among Ogden’s concerns is the possibility the county will sell the property to a private company that will go ahead and build a landfill.
“If we put our guard down, we’re going to see something happen. I think we should be very cautious.”
Anne Ritchie-Nahuis echoed Ogden’s disappointment that council chose not to seek removal of the C of A.
“It’s with very cautious optimism that we move forward,” she said. “We know we need to remove the C of A, and we feel (that) is the only adequate means of stopping Site 41.”
Vicki Monague, a Christian Island resident and a leader of the Anishinabe Kweag protest, was less circumspect, telling The Mirror she was ecstatic with the vote.
“It was something that our group had been working towards ever since we started the protest camp. A lot of us feel that our objectives … have been met now,” she said. “We’re really happy and thankful county council passed that resolution.”
Both Ogden and Ritchie-Nahuis credited the overwhelming public pressure – including the First Nations camp near the site, daily protests and the support of big names like former U.S. presidential candidate Ralph Nader, environmentalist David Suzuki and Council of Canadian chairperson Maude Barlow – as the driving force behind putting a stop to the more than 20-year fight to stop the landfill.
“The fact that people mobilized and stood up, I think there was quite a great fear amongst the elected officials that they must do something or they would never be re-elected or be seen as credible,” said Ogden.
The concerns have always been there, added Ritchie-Nahuis, but the strong, science-based opposition to the site was bolstered this time by widespread public support.
“There’s always been strong opposition, (but) the protesters brought it to a new level and First Nations people have made a great commitment to protecting Mother Earth,” she said. “People all over the world do not appreciate wasteful use of water resources. We have a strong commitment to move forward and ensure our community’s water supply is protected.”
Penetanguishene Mayor Anita Dubeau, who initially voted to support the controversial landfill before changing her mind, said she is confident the landfill plan will not be revived.
“I believe Site 41 is dead, which I believe is a good thing,” she said. “Now it’s very prudent of the 32 members that sit on county council to consider options and where we go from here. North Simcoe’s garbage has been filling up other people’s landfills, and we appreciate the fact we’re allowed to do that, but we do have to look at solutions.”
Dubeau said she hopes those who were against the development of Site 41 will come forward with new ideas, but noted she believes withdrawing the C of A at this time is premature.
“Do I think that county council is ever going to sell that property and let a private developer put in a landfill? I would say that would be an absolute silly move on our part after what’s gone on,” she said. “Maybe there’s something else we can do with that property that’s not landfill, but may be related to waste management.”
Ray Millar, former chair of the community monitoring committee tasked with advising the landfill plan and representing citizens’ interests to the county, told The Mirror it was inevitable the landfill would never come to fruition. He said he was “very pleased” with the decision overall, but surprised with the numbers.
“I expected there to be more (votes against) the plan to discontinue it permanently,” he said. “The big challenge lies just ahead of us now, and that’s moving Simcoe County to a zero-waste approach. Rather than constantly looking for ways to manage our waste, it’s time we moved our efforts to reducing waste and eliminating it from our lexicon.”
Site 41 Chronology
1979: North Simcoe municipalities begin the search for a new landfill site.
1986: A 20.7-hectare (50-acre) parcel in Tiny Township is selected as the preferred site, based on 20 technical criteria. It is Site 41.
1989: Ministry of the Environment concurs with the local environmental assessment process that recommends Site 41.
1990: Provincial cabinet intervenes on site selection process.
1990: Issue referred to a joint board – a combination of the Ontario Municipal Board and the Environmental Review Tribunal. Board notes guidelines have changed and recommends further review.
1990-93: Additional sites are reviewed, but Site 41 remains the preferred choice.
May 1993: Joint Board hearing resumes, and lasts until November 1994.
1995: The Joint Board grants approval for the landfill site.
1995: The North Simcoe Waste Management Association disbands; Simcoe County takes over the development process.
1998: Ministry of the Environment issues a provisional certificate of approval; county begins to buy land.
1998-2003: Technical studies conducted as stipulated by the provisional C of A.
2003: Tiny Township and the community monitoring committee hire independent engineering and environmental consultants to review the county’s work.
Oct. 20, 2006: Ministry of the Environment issues final approval for Site 41 landfill.
June 26, 2007: County council approves initial site development.
Dec. 8, 2008: Ministry of the Environment issues permit to take water, allowing construction to start.
2009: Cell construction begins.
Aug. 25, 2009: County council votes in favour of a one-year moratorium.
Sept. 22, 2009: Council votes 25-3 to abandon its plans for the dump.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Kapyong transfer invalid, court rules
First Nations see decision as a victory in fight for urban reserve
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 30, 2009
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/09/30/300909-kapyong-decision-invalid.html
The Kapyong Barracks were built on a 90-hectare parcel of land that is now nestled between Tuxedo and River Heights, two affluent Winnipeg neighbourhoods.The Kapyong Barracks were built on a 90-hectare parcel of land that is now nestled between Tuxedo and River Heights, two affluent Winnipeg neighbourhoods.
The transfer of a former military base in suburban Winnipeg to a Crown corporation for redevelopment and sale has been declared invalid, a Federal Court judge ruled Wednesday.
The 90-hectare parcel of land along Kenaston Boulevard, known as Kapyong Barracks, has been vacant since 2004 when the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, relocated to CFB Shilo near Brandon, Man.
In a ruling made public Wednesday, Justice Douglas Campbell said the federal government didn't do enough consultation with First Nations groups over the future use of the land before transferring it to the Canada Lands Corp., which would redevelop and sell the land.
In his ruling, Campbell called Kapyong "prime land for commercial development."
The land in question is the site of the former barracks — south of Grant Avenue, west of Kenaston Boulevard, and north of Wilkes Avenue. It does not include the swath of homes in the area that used to be residences for soldiers and their families.
Lawyers for the government argued they had no duty to consult with the First Nations groups when decisions about the future of Kapyong were made. The court disagreed.
Federal court Justice Douglas Campbell's order: "Canada acted contrary to law by failing to meet the mandatory legal requirement of consultation with the Brokenhead and Peguis First Nations before the making of the November 2007 decision to transfer the surplus lands at Kapyong Barracks to the Canada Lands Company pursuant to the Treasury Board Directive on the Sale or Transfer of Surplus Real Property; and, as a result, the November 2007 decision is invalid.""While the record discloses that some dialogue took place about the disposition of the Kapyong Barracks ... it also establishes that from the beginning to the end of the decision making with respect to the lands, it is clear that Canada had no intention to grant any meaningful consultation," Campbell said. Major win for First Nations: lawyer The decision marks a legal victory for a group of Manitoba First Nations communities that have been embroiled in a legal battle over the land. Seven First Nations groups had argued the federal government should have used the property to settle outstanding land claims. They want the land to develop housing and native-owned enterprises. Norman Boudreau, lawyer for the communities, said the ruling paves the way for the potential acquisition of some or all of the Kapyong land. "What this says that Canada has to sit down with the First Nations, and consult with the First Nations as to what is it that they want to do with the property," Boudreau said. Chief Glenn Hudson of the Peguis First Nation, one of seven bands that took the federal government to court, said the ruling proves First Nations land treaties are living documents the Crown must fulfill. He also said that having land within Winnipeg is a tremendous opportunity for First Nations. "We look at the business development side but also there's the residential component. We're going to explore all options and certainly, we want to do not only what's in our First Nations interest but also in the interest of the society around us," Hudson said. Boudreau said the First Nations would be meeting internally to discuss their legal victory and then would likely instruct their lawyers to meet with federal lawyers to work out a plan for future steps. Wednesday's court order also orders the government to pay the aboriginal groups' legal costs. Officials with the federal Department of National Defence said they are studying the court ruling and its implications before making any comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Two Row Wampum Treaty
"It is said that, each nation shall stay in their own vessels, and travel the river side by side. Further, it is said, that neither nation will try to steer the vessel of the other." This is a treaty among Indigenous Nations, and with Canada. This is the true nature of our relationships with Indigenous Nations of 'Kanata'.
