Canada's 'Duty to consult' Indigenous Nations cont'd ...

http://www.elliotlakestandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2798304

Open letter to Elliot Lake mayoral candidates from SRFN chief

Letters To The Editor

On behalf of Serpent River First Nation council and citizens, I send you greetings and trust that you are working diligently to win the confidence of the citizens of Elliott Lake so they will put their support behind your respective visions for Elliot Lake. We wish you both luck and commend you for your efforts to make Elliott Lake a good place to flourish and prosper.

As elected chief of the Serpent River First Nation, I know the experiences that you aspire to cultivate in leadership are those only public service brings. Regardless of our political stripes, we all serve for a similar reason – to ensure that our citizens are provided with effective representation and the highest quality of life possible.

As you know, the Serpent River First Nation is not just a neighbouring community to Elliot Lake. The region where the city is located is integral to our traditional territory and we have strong historical, geographical, harvesting, cultural and spiritual ties to Elliot Lake. Since time immemorial prior to contact, we walked these lands - the land owned our people. Today, our existing Aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of Canada's constitution.

When we set our fishing nets in Elliot and Dunlop lakes on Oct. 1, 2009, we were not protesting. We wanted to show our neighbours of our rightful access and jurisdiction to Crown lands. We also know that the issue of colliding interests must be reconciled. Serpent River First Nation is now asking the question - where does the Elliot Lake leadership stand on the need for First Nation dialogue on plans to assert further access for First Nation benefit and gain?

The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently reaffirmed that both, federal and provincial governments have a legal duty to consult with us and provide accommodation regarding our Aboriginal and treaty rights. Since Elliot Lake is a creation of the province of Ontario, Elliot Lake must recognize, respect that First Nation rights and interests must be accommodated before new developments can proceed. Ontario is currently at the table - Elliot Lake leadership should now start asking questions.

Given the importance of the outcome of this election for all of us, I want to invite you both to a public town hall discussion about how you, as mayor, would like Elliot Lake to work with us - essentially to meet issues head-on with the goal of collaborative policy questions and proposed outcomes.
For example, where can a successful joint relations committee take our communities? What is your intent to ensure that Crown resources serve the economic interests of both Serpent River First Nation and the City of Elliot Lake? What might be the best options for the First Peoples of the Serpent River headlands and the City of Elliot Lake in proceeding with a broad heritage study that seeks to establish protection status of sites and routes of the original people in and around Elliot Lake? I want to discuss the City of Elliot Lake's plans regarding the cottage lot program and the potential legal challenges to the Elliot Lake Act.

In closing, I believe that it is in the best interests of both of our communities and citizens that we have a public dialogue about how we intend to move forward as friends and neighbours in a mutually beneficial, peaceful and prosperous co-existence – in the true spirit and intent of our Robinson Huron Treaty, 1850. I look forward to your timely response.

Isadore Day,
Wiindawtegowinini,

Chief of the Serpent River First Nation

Article ID# 2798304

And see ... 
http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

Supreme Court upholds provinces' duty to consult Indigenous communities

From the Press Release below: "Frontenac [the mining company, Frontenac Ventures Corporation] argued that the Canadian mining industry could collapse if the Supreme Court did not overturn the Ontario Court of Appeal's "lenient" approach to Aboriginal blockades and injunctions.

The Supreme Court has now dismissed Frontenac's appeal, with costs."

_______________________

ARDOCH ALGONQUIN FIRST NATION (AAFNA) ARDOCH, ONTARIO CANADA K0H 1C0 613-479-5534 Honorary Chief: Harold Perry December 9, 2008 - For Immediate Release Supreme Court Upholds Decision Releasing Native Protesters Big Victory for Civil Rights In February, 2008 Justice Cunningham of the Ontario Superior Court sentenced Robert Lovelace, former Chief of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, to 6 months in jail because he refused to end his peaceful protest against uranium exploration on Algonquin land. The government of Ontario had refused to consult with the Algonquins before approving the aggressive exploration program in eastern Ontario. In addition to jail, Lovelace was fined $25,000; his community was fined $10,000 and Chief Paula Sherman, $15,000. A few weeks after Lovelace was jailed, six leaders of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwg (KI) were sentenced on contempt charges for their peaceful opposition to drilling for platinum on their traditional lands in northern Ontario. Judge Cunningham ignored all of the arguments made by the Algonquins' lawyer on the need for the Court to enforce the government's obligation to consult. Cunningham said the only thing he was interested in was enforcing the rights of the mining company to blast and drill, and that he would jail any protesters who opposed the illegal exploration. On May 28, 2008 a three member panel, the Ontario Court of Appeal, overturned the sentences and freed Lovelace and the KI 6. In their decision the Court blamed Ontario's "sweeping" Mining Act, which allows mining companies to conduct aggressive exploration, including removing trees, blasting, drilling, trenching and the construction of roads on First Nations' land, without any consultations or environmental assessment. The Court also criticized the McGuinty government for ignoring repeated requests by the Algonquins for consultations and instead supporting the jailing of Mr. Lovelace and the punitive fines imposed on the community and its leaders. The Court of Appeal also expressed serious concern that Justice Cunningham ignored numerous Supreme Court decisions which require governments to consult with affected First Nation communities before approving industrial activities which could affect their rights. The Court said that Cunningham should have ensured that Ontario had consulted with the Algonquins before ordering them to end their protest and then jailing them when they continued to demand consultations in defiance of his injunction. The mining company, Frontenac Ventures Corporation, applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave (permission) to appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeal's decision amounts to a "license to blockade". Frontenac argued that the Canadian mining industry could collapse if the Supreme Court did not overturn the Ontario Court of Appeal's "lenient" approach to Aboriginal blockades and injunctions. The Supreme Court has now dismissed Frontenac's appeal, with costs.

"This is an important victory for civil rights and the rule of law" said Robert Lovelace.

"The government will no longer be able to ignore its legal responsibilities while we are jailed for trying to uphold the law. We will continue to resist uranium mining and exploration and we call on the government to finally begin consultations with us so that further conflict and litigation can be avoided. We do not understand why they continue to refuse to consult with us in spite of several court orders." Court of Appeal decision:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/search/en/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=D%3A%5CUsers%5COntario%20Courts%5Cwww%5Cdecisions%5C2008%5Cjuly%5C2008ONCA0534%2Ehtm

For more information, call: Robert Lovelace: (613) 532-2166 or Chris Reid (lawyer): (416) 629-3117.

----------------------- *If you re-print, copy, archive or re-post this message, please retain this credit. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= UBCIC's Protecting Knowledge Conference site: http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/Resources/conferences/PK.htm

From: First Peoples Human Rights Coalition <info@firstpeoplesrights.org>

*****

Once again, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of Indigenous Peoples to be consulted about any proposed uses of their traditional lands, and to have their land rights accommodated, and it is also their right to say "No" to development.

In Ontario, this legal battle played out between Frontenac Ventures (uranium prospecting company) and the Ardoch Algonquins in eastern Ontario, in the context of mining, the most powerful industry in Canada with the most invasive rights. The Mining Act gives prospectors (speculators) the right to option and stake rural land ... any land, private or 'public', Indigenous or not, yours or mine ... damaging and destroying natural habitat, backyards, contaminating entire watersheds, etc. Homeowners and Indigenous Peoples alike had no recourse to stop this.

Now Indigenous Peoples can legally stop the destruction of their traditional lands. They can block exploration, construction, etc. that is occurring without their agreement. An injunction against them cannot be granted, as in the past, (notably, Caledonia) if the Crown has not fulfilled its duty to consult with them about the land use.

A ruling of the Supreme Court is law in Canada, and applies to other similar situations where either Aboriginal title ('land claims') or Aboriginal rights (traditional Indigenous lands) may apply. RECAP: What does this court decision mean for Six Nations and Brantford? Today's news release, the Supreme Court dismissing Frontenac Venture's appeal, has direct application to Six Nations and Brantford. In my understanding, Six Nations Confederacy people have prevented several housing/industrial developments in Brantford, on land that is currently either under claim with title to be negotiated with the federal government, or is traditional Six Nations land where they hold Aboriginal rights. Federal negotiations are currently in progress on 28 Six Nations claims, with an offer for one (Welland Canal lands) currently on the table. Negotiation of the Brantford claims will not occur any time soon: The average time for the federal government to settle one simple specific claim (like the Welland Canal) is 10 years; complex, comprehensive claims, like Six Nations overriding claim to the Haldimand Tract, typically take at least 30 years. Thus, federal negotiations provide no solution for the current development issues in between Brantford and Six Nations. The provincial government issues approvals for development at the request of municipalities. The Ontario provincial government and bureaucracy studiously ignore both existing land claims for Aboriginal title, and Aboriginal rights on traditional Indigenous lands, thus evading the clear and repeated rulings of the Supreme Court that the province must consult with Indigenous Nations prior to issuing any land use approvals:

2005

http://www.lawsonlundell.com/resources/TheCrownsDuty.pdf

Recent case law from the Supreme Court of Canada (Haida and Taku) has confirmed that the Crown has a duty to consult, and if necessary, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

Ontario has not consulted, but blunders ahead with development in violation of Canadian law. Many Canadians I have spoken to about this situation are in disbelief at this blatant flaunting of the law by our provincial governments. Canadians have blind faith that our governments obey the law, as we are all expected to do. It is almost unbelievable to us that the Ontario government would risk dissension, confrontation and violence this way, but in fact, this is exactly what our provincial government is doing: 'Caledonia' could have been prevented if Ontario had consulted before issuing development approval for Douglas Creek Estates. Because of this undeserved 'blind faith' of Canadians, our governments are running rampant over the rights of Indigenous Peoples, while convincing the public that it is the Indigenous Peoples blockading developments who are disobeying the law. Not so: Indigenous Peoples preventing development are in fact upholding Canadian law, demanding that the province "consult, and accommodate" their rights, as the Supreme Court has ordered. In May 2008, the City of Brantford requested an injunction from the court to stop Six Nations from blocking construction. The judge in Ontario Superior Court in Brantford adjourned the injunction hearing (to a later date), but imposed terms amounting to an injunction:

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?language=en&searchTitle=Ontario+-+Superior+Court+of+Justice&path=/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii30282/2008canlii30282.html

Pending the return of the motion for an interlocutory injunction pending trial, the defendants are ordered to cease and desist from blocking, interfering or in any way obstructing development/construction related activities on the lands set out in Schedule A to the Notice of Motion including blocking access to development sites, standing in front of machinery/equipment or otherwise interfering with such machinery's/equipment's operation or in any way threatening or intimidating workers at the development sites.

While waiting for the permanent injunction hearing to be held, Six Nations people continued to block the developments, on one occasion confronted by cement trucks trying to push past them. Police made arrests, based on the 'temporary' injunction. Confederacy Chiefs and Council toured the lands in question to make their intentions clear. Police have continued to arrest Six Nations people on and near these sites, though developers have pulled out and development appears to be at a standstill. In July 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) ruled on the similar case regarding the legality of Frontenac Ventures injunction against of the Ardoch Algonquins:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/july/2008ONCA0534.pdf

[48] Where a requested injunction is intended to create "a protest-free zone" for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, "The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases" (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532.

To emphasize, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that before granting an injunction against Aboriginal people ...

"the court must ... ensure that ... the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult". Frontenac Ventures appealed this OCA ruling to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has now upheld the above ruling. The Crown in Ontario has not consulted with Six Nations about any of the developments that it already approved in Brantford. In fact, Dalton McGuinty specifically told developers in the Haldimand Tract not to consult with Six Nations, although many were quite willing to negotiate agreements with the Confederacy, and some already did. The implication of this most recent Supreme Court ruling for Six Nations and Brantford is this: When the injunction hearing resumes in Brantford (Dec 22-23) it is clear that the court must dismiss the City's injunction request. No doubt the court will also 'remind' Ontario that they must consult with Six Nations before issuing any development approvals in the Haldimand Tract. The police will no longer have any responsibility, any ability to detain, stop, arrest Six Nations people who are blocking development. In other words, the implications for development in the Haldimand Tract may be monumental. The implications for Six Nations are pure victory, total vindication of what they have been saying all along: Development within six miles of the Grand River cannot proceed unless the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy agrees. The court hearing for the City of Brantford's request for injunction against Six Nations is scheduled for Dec 22-23 (to be confirmed) in Brantford Superior Court. In other news about "duty to consult" ... http://www.theenergynews.com/news/cp_article.php?storyid=4051 EDMONTON _ An aboriginal band has threatened the very basis of Alberta's oilsands industry by filing a court challenge to the province's system of granting land tenure. ... "It is deeply troubling to our First Nation that Alberta has granted these tenures within our traditional lands and set the stage for exploration and potentially massive oilsands production without any consultation with our First Nation before the grants of tenure." --- Canada's economy is entirely dependent on resources taken from traditional Indigenous land, without consultation, without accommodation, without compensation, without consent, and without any 'good faith' on Canada's part. The Supreme Court of Canada no longer allows this. Canada's police cannot stop Indigenous Peoples from blocking development, mining, logging ... I've thought for a long time that Canada has to face the truth. I can't see how our governments can ignore it now. Economics dictates that agreement must be sought, rights must be respected, and peace and rule of law must be restored. Throughout our history Canada has always used force ... violence ... incarceration ... to squash Indigenous demands for justice, justice now far too long dismissed, denigrated, denied. The Supreme Court has just closed the door on Canada's use of force against Indigenous Peoples upholding their land rights, because they are breaking no laws. granny

Six Nations, Brantford, Quattrociocchi Brantford Expositor, Sept 30/08: Builder’s project sparks opposition

“Nothing’s changed from the original dispute,” said (Quattrociocchi) the former city councillor. “They say it’s native land and want me to consult. I’m tired of consulting. It means we talk and they say, “It’s native land and we want money.”

Mike Quattrociocchi just wants to build ... NOW ... so if there is anything wrong with his 'titles', he can pass the problem on to the new home owners while he's "laughing all the way to the bank", as Floyd Montour says. Nice plan Mike has. Not exactly 'best practice' in business, imo, but it's good enough for Mike Q and Mike H and Brantford City Council! Of course, some citizens differ and say the town houses they're building on the bank of the Grand River are not exactly examples of 'best practice' in building either. The neighbours and others are upset too as they hoped for a public riverfront instead of one blocked by multi-housing. Let's call it what it is: Mayor Mike Hancock and the Brantford City wrecking crew, in a feeding frenzy to pave as much land as possible, with the blessings of Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, aka 'the Crown'. Of course, just where the 'honour of the Crown' comes in to all this is not yet clear. In fact, 'the Crown in Right of Ontario' appears to have abdicated, leaving communities victims of greed and dangerously bad planning, destroying greenspace and habitat for both wildlife and people. The willy-nilly distribution of provincial and local development approvals allows bad building practices to flourish. It is incomprehensible that Mike Q thinks 'talking' is enough when he has no agreement: It has become increasingly common for industrial proponents of development projects to rely on direct communications and consultations with Aboriginal groups, and agreements resulting from those consultations, as a means to manage project risks associated with governments’ failure to consult, or consult adequately, with Aboriginal groups about the proposed project or development. The increased clarity resulting from the Haida and Taku decisions may reduce, but not eliminate, risks associated with the adequacy of Crown consultations. While the Supreme Court has clarified that third parties cannot be liable to Aboriginal groups for the Crown’s breach of duty, the permits, licences and other authorizations granted by the Crown remain subject to legal challenge, which can have an equally significant impact upon the recipients of such Crown authorizations. Thus, third parties will still have an interest in seeing that the government properly discharges its duty (and in the least time possible). In addition, industrial proponents are likely to continue to rely on direct negotiations / consultations with Aboriginal groups to reduce the risk of challenges to its Crown authorizations (as well as to comply with any statutory or contractual consultation obligations). So there you go. You take the risks, you take the consequences. And given the information available the risks are looking more foolish all the time. I mean, it isn't as if 'the Crown' in flowing robes and magic wand is going to swoop in and save Mike Q's title from dishonour. The 'duty to consult' is in effect regardless of particular 'land claims' resolution, due to Six Nations valid title via the Haldimand Proclamation (the basis of the offer for the Welland Canal lands). Six Nations title to the Haldimand Tract is valid. It's up to the federal government negotiators now to provide proof of ownership of any of it. The difficulty the government has is that it has documents aplenty ... surrenders, leases, sales ... but the government cannot provide an accounting for the money due to Six Nations for those transactions. If you don't get paid, transactions are null and void, so the land reverted to Six Nations when the terms of the agreements were in default, and it is their land. I think Mike Q needs to look to the courts and suing the governments, as others are doing, for resolution of his own 'land claim' against the government. His 'Crown title' just isn't up to the 'challenge' and now it appears the Crown has pretty much abdicated both duty and honour in Ontario anyway.

DUTY TO CONSULT: Time for Ontario to face the consequences? So says "Send In the clown" blogger ... Premier McGuinty is making plans for a (Pan Am) party, and he doesn’t even know if he owns any of the land that he wants to hold this party on. Not only is this irresponsible, it is an insult to the residents and businesses of Caledonia and Brantford. But, if there’s one thing we’ve learned about Dalton McGuinty, he can ignore a problem like no other politician we’ve ever met. Our goal is to make sure that there is not a successful Pan Am games bid coming out of Ontario until all land claims in Ontario have been resolved, and we know who actually owns land in Ontario – the Crown, or Six Nations. More here ... http://landclaimsnotcircuses.blogspot.com/2008/09/send-in-clown.html

Ontario runs from the law!! Caledonia, Brantford, Waterloo follow!!

Native dispute requires clarity

September 02, 2008

THE RECORD

Some Six Nations members near Brantford have demanded that property owners and governments submit development fees and applications to them. They claim jurisdiction over much of Waterloo Region, based on a 1784 land grant. They contend it's their right as a First Nation to regulate growth.

Their claim is unresolved. Until it's resolved, it's a bad idea to recognize a controversial aboriginal planning agency. Giving in to Six Nations demands at this point undermines Canadian law and property rights. This can't be allowed to happen.

The intentional ignorance of the news media is appalling. They encourage the governments to ignore the law and do the bidding of their political and corporate masters. The Government of Ontario issued approvals for development without fulfilling their legal obligations to "reasonably consult and adequately compensate" Six Nations Constitutional Aboriginal Rights. The media is encouraging the government and corporate lawbreakers.

Now, the director of a Six Nations planning agency is crying foul, saying the watershed agency is acting illegally by not seeking approval from her agency. Approval is not needed, and it's time to get on with these projects. Planners aren't doing their job if they allow good works to falter unnecessarily.

Still, the situation is unsettling. There's no clarity around what it means to consult with Six Nations. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that governments have a duty to consult with First Nations on activities affecting land claims. But the process has not been formalized, leaving it open to interpretation.

Interpret this: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/july/2008ONCA0534.pdf [48] Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: NO ONE - not Brantford, not the private Corporations, not the GRCA, not Ontario, not Waterloo, not Caledonia, Haldimand ... NO ONE has consulted and accommodated Six Nations legal rights. Until the duty to consult is fully discharged, no building, no development is legal. All are open to legitimate protest and being shut down by Six Nations. No injunction to stop protests can be sought until a consultation agreement is in place. When the Brantford court finally hears the injunction sought by Brantford, Brantford and Ontario will be forced to consult with Six Nations, by Canadian law, Canadian courts. Ontario, Brantford, Waterloo, GRCA, Haldimand ... are all running from the law. All are fully aware that they are defying the law. The media are also aware of the law and are trying to manipulate the public into agreeing with lawbreaking. It seems the governments, media and corporate entities are quite willing to continue to break the law, so long as the puppet media are willing to do their bidding and mislead the public. Canada is a joke. Canada is all in favour of human rights ... in someone else's country. Canada's record for human rights in its own country is a tale of Canada's governments running from the laws of Canada, hiding the truth in propaganda and misinformation fed to the Canadian public. Canada's governments - federal, provincial, municipal - and the corporations for which they stand - are in violation of International and Canadian law, and they continue to violate the human rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada.

???

Can we talk openly about native issues?

Certainly. What do you know for a fact? Anything?

Studied ignorance is not rationale for anything. ...g

Aug 17, 2008 04:30 AM

"That's dynamite, don't touch it!" a politician once told me when I expressed the desire to write about Caledonia and the natives. I agree, it was and still is dynamite, but is this a valid reason not to talk about it?

I don't think so. There are pre-Confederation treaties signed but never respected, and $12 billion a year from Ottawa to assist the aboriginals. But still Canada's natives are dying in their reserves. Can we talk about it?

With the proliferation of media outlets competing for readers and viewers, the attention goes almost exclusively to those who scream the loudest.

The daily headline hunters use their shrill voices to throw heavy, loaded words like "racist" at whoever dares to challenge their views. People who want to have a civilized debate but who aren't willing to participate in a verbal riot are forced to leave the stage to the professional screamers and join the frustrated "silent majority" of Canadians.

This exclusion of the silent majority means that many problems may never be solved, and one such issue is the embarrassing treatment of natives living on reserves.

There are 1.2 million aboriginals in Canada. Some 700,000 of them live on reserves in conditions similar to those of Third World countries despite massive federal government spending. Alcoholism is widespread and the suicide rate among young natives is three times higher than in the rest of the population.

Unfortunately, instead of debating how our governments and aboriginal leaders spend taxpayers' money, the discussion turns to the choice of words used by OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino in trying to keep one of the busiest Canadian highways open and remove an illegal blockade.

Can we do better? Of course we can, if we focus on two main issues: a settlement to replace the pre-Confederation treaties signed but never respected, and a better accountability system to see how the $12 billion from Ottawa is spent.

Somebody was wondering if the OPP had forgotten the lessons of Ipperwash. I don't think so. Last year in Deseronto we may have had harsh words, but nobody got hurt. I'm wondering if the lessons of Ipperwash were ever learned by politicians and native leaders.

Aboriginals are still frustrated with their leadership because their quality of life is deteriorating. And Canadian taxpayers are frustrated with their governments because they are exposed to criticism from the international community despite being very generous.

Instead of debating how we have created a black hole into which billions are funnelled with minimal accountability and why human rights and legal processes are suspended, we talk about a frustrated Mohawk, Shawn Brant, who is taking the law into his hands, and OPP Commissioner Fantino, who has the almost impossible mandate to enforce a rule of law that, regarding native issues, has taken a leave of absence.

Focusing only on Ipperwash, Caledonia and the highway blockage at Deseronto is misleading if we don't recognize that they aren't the problem, merely the symptoms.

The problems were there long before Fantino and are going to be there after he leaves. In fact, they're going to be worse because the natives are increasingly disappointed by the work done by the governments and by their leaders.

In the meantime, while the lawyers are trying to find out if Fantino's language was appropriate, does anybody out there have any idea how to handle the historical native claim? Can anybody tell us how our leaders spend $12 billion a year while natives live in poverty? Where is the money? Or are these racist questions?

Angelo Persichilli is the political editor of Corriere Canadese. His column appears Sunday.

For rebuttal, see ...

http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2008/08/six-nations-and-rule-of-law-in-ontario.html

Six Nations, Brantford: T.R.U.E. Perspectives

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1133751

Jim, Marilyn, Tom, Al, Donna, Sandra and Erin claimed to represent themselves, and they were very clear that none of them were from Six Nations. They spoke about their own experiences and some provided narrated video evidence. The information was particularly enlightening for people who were not there for Caledonia events.

TRUE isn't responsible for what the EXPOSITOR "seemed to indicate". The EXPOSITOR spent some time on the hot seat at the meeting, and with people afterward too. It showed in the editorial as they also tried to discredit the presenters. However, the important thing was the information presented that was not seen in the mainstream media More perspectives here... http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1133748&auth=

John Tory babbles again ... Tory has harsh words for aboriginal protesters

MATHEW McCARTHY, RECORD STAFF

July 25, 2008

Kevin Swayze RECORD STAFF

CAMBRIDGE

Stories of face-to-face confrontations, threats, and rumours of expanding First Nations land claims are spreading anxiety throughout the local construction industry.

"There's a sense of fear," said Martha George, president of the Grand Valley Construction Association.

"It's kind of a bit of hearsay. We're all getting worried that what's going to happen here is what's happened in Caledonia."

New native development fees, claimed for land along the length of the Grand River, add to the worries for construction companies, fearful projects will be stalled by protests if they don't abide by demands for First Nations' approval of projects.

Construction firms want the land claims issues settled by negotiation as soon as possible.

Construction firms need to get legal advice because it is apparent that they don't know the laws they operate under: First Nations approval IS REQUIRED. Developers MUST CONSULT. It isn't just about resolving 'land claims' (Aboriginal Title). It is about the 'Aboriginal Rights' that developers and governments must respect. And that includes their right to say "no" to development.

"We don't want to see anyone injured," George said. "We don't want another Ipperwash."

Provincial Conservative Leader John Tory, who met with the association's board, blamed the Liberal government for emboldening what he calls native law breakers.

"I think when you let the rule of law break down, lots of things happen," Tory said. Along with encouraging civil disobedience in native communities, Liberal inaction also opens the door for organized crime to move into lawless areas, Tory charged.

Blah, blah, blah! John Tory, see above. You don't have a friggen clue what the law is!

Premier Dalton McGuinty needs to take control, use the "prestige of his office" and show Ontario won't negotiate with bullies.

The premier should call native leaders into his office and tell them negotiations to solve land claims won't happen while people break the law by occupying land.

hahahahahahahahahahahaahaaaaahhhhahahahahaha.

That Tory is such a comedian, eh? Dalton has no moral authority to call them on the carpet! Dalton is the one BREAKING THE LAW!!!

He applauded Brantford for taking a tough stand against native occupations by getting court injunctions against protesters. What's needed is for the courts to strongly enforce existing laws against threats and violence, Tory says.

Negotiated settlements to native land claims need to be sorted out as quickly as possible but not when on one side are flagrantly breaking the law, Tory said.

Tory has no sympathy for aboriginal people who say they're following their laws. If they are counting on Canada's charter of rights to protect them, they must follow Canadian laws, too, he said. "If you've got a beef . . . you go to court."

Liberal inaction on the native issue is only going to worsen the downturn in the provincial economy, Tory said.

"Nobody is going to invest in a province where there's a complete breakdown in the rule of law."

It's true. Why would anybody want to do business in a province where the provincial and municipal governments break the law. They 'approve' development without proper agreements in place, and then leave the developers hanging out to dry when confrontations occur. Ontario is shooting itself in the foot.

There's 590 companies in the Grand Valley construction association, across central Ontario from Owen Sound through Kitchener and Cambridge to Brantford. The employ at least 20,000, George said.

Then the bosses better get consulting with Six Nations. Silly of them to just go ahead without proper legal agreements in place, risking all those people's livelihoods. After all, THE LAW IS THE LAW!

kswayze@therecord.com

Canada's new residential schools: PRISONS

This is something I’ve been saying quite a lot lately with the recent Harper apology for residential schools. Sure, government regulated residential schools might have closed, but they’ve been replaced with the systematic apprehension of our people forced to become prisoners yet again for reacting to centuries of abuse.

As part of their eight-part series on Crime and Punishment, this Sunday’s Toronto Star had a full front-page spread on Prisons Poisoning Natives.

Just to review the statistics:

3.8% of the Canadian population is Aboriginal

We make up almost 20% of the prison population

33% of our youth are currently incarcerated

I recently took part in a county jail and state prison panel in the United States where, for some reason, when we were discussing “minority” representation, no one knew that Native American youth are incarcerated 2.5 times more than White youth* (some studies show as many as 40% of our youth are ending up in jail).

How much more can we handle? We’re still reeling from 500 years of colonization, and people expect that we should have bucked up and solved it all ourselves in the last 50 (not to mention the fact that colonization is still ongoing, you can look at the abhorrent resource extraction going on in Inuit territory for that).

http://www.shamelessmag.com/blog/2008/07/prisons-are-the-new-residential-schools/

For starters, I titled it "Prisons are the new residential schools" because each of their goal is very similar: punish people and anilhilate culture for being Native. To even begin to fathom or know why people (and so many Aboriginal people in this case) end up in prison, is to understand the realities a lot of us are coming from. Over 90% of Aboriginal people today are affected by residential schools on some level, so many of us are descendants of survivors, or have family members, or simply face modern-day colonization to the extreme day in and day out. This includes poverty, sexual abuse, racism, and the list goes on. Only if you look at the stats on a per capita basis, it's even more frightening since there aren't that many of us in comparison to the rest of the Canadian population to begin with. It is still incredibly painful.

The same things happened in residential school, mind you.

We've had money thrown at us to supposedly form some sort of healing process for all of this, but what it has turned into is this re-hurting and re-victimization process, only this time it's against each other.

So is the answer really to throw us in jail continuously after all is said and done? Myself personally having worked in youth detention centres this very year and trying to answer back to these youth who wonder how they even ended up here, I just don't believe that harsher punishment is the answer. Are we also not forgetting the innate racism and prejudice that permeates the law enforcement system and judicial systems? In Minneapolis for example, Native Americans are pulled over 9 times more than any other race. For what?! Driving while "Indian"?

And let's also remember the number of political and activist prisoners there are in jail, who rightfully stood up to protect the land that is being threatened away from us every day (Shawn Brant, Bob Lovelace anyone?)

__________

* Aboriginals are 7 times as likely to die in custody as whites, and 3 times as likely to die in custody as blacks. (StatsCan circa 2005)

Police nearly used force to end native blockade Shawn Brant: The report Fantino doesn't want you to see:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2008/18/c5993.html

Media Advisory - R. v. Shawn Brant Publication Ban Reinstated

    TORONTO, July 18 /CNW/ - Please be advised that the Ontario Court of
Appeal has this afternoon issued an order, which has the effect of temporarily
reinstating the publication ban that was lifted earlier today in relation to
the preliminary inquiry held in the case of R. v. Shawn Brant. As a result of
this order the media should immediately cease reporting on evidence heard at
the preliminary inquiry and remove all related reports from websites.
    This afternoon's Court of Appeal order temporarily stays a ruling made
earlier today in Napanee until Wednesday afternoon, July 23rd, at 4:00 p.m. so
that a full stay application can be heard by the Court of Appeal on this
matter.

Now why did they do that? I managed to grab this copy just as the reports were disappearing one by one from the google news search.

Police nearly used force to end native blockade

July 18, 2008

The Canadian Press TORONTO — Documents released today show Ontario Provincial Police were minutes away from moving in on First Nations blockades on Highway 401 during last year’s aboriginal day of action. The documents include wiretaps of conversations between OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino and Mohawk protester Shawn Brant. The transcripts indicate Fantino told Brant he would do “everything I can within your community and everywhere else to destroy your reputation.” Fantino also told Brant “your world’s going to come crashing down” during the negotiations to end the tense standoff with police on June 29, 2007. The heated exchanges between the two men seem to contradict the force’s own guidelines when dealing with aboriginal groups. That code of conduct comes from recommendations stemming from the inquiry into the 1995 shooting death of native protester Dudley George by police at Ipperwash Provincial Park.

There have been umpteen court appearances by Six Nations people from Grand River and from Tyendinaga. Now why is it that ONLY Shawn Brant's court cases ALWAYS have a publication ban put on them?

I see. OK, so the publication ban is to protect Fantino from himself. Fantino is some pi**ed that they have compromising tapes of him! If Fantino doesn't want to get caught with his mouth open, perhaps Fantino should not make threats.

Aerotropolis Secrecy Leaves Citizens and Councillors in the Dark

If our governments don't tell us what the debate is about, how can we reasonably be expected even to know what questions to ask?

By Don McLean Jul. 7, 2008

Commentary

A bombshell letter from the provincial government landed on councillors' desks on the afternoon of June 23, just as they were about to debate staff recommendations on the size of the aerotropolis employment growth district.

AEGD Growth District Area

The letter exposed a big problem facing citizens, and perhaps even councillors, in participating effectively in Hamilton's biggest planning decision of the decade.

A report given to councillors that afternoon by city planning staff advocated that 1134 hectares of prime agricultural land around the airport should be set aside for future industrial development.

That would be the largest boundary expansion in decades, would establish the central economic direction of Hamilton for at least the next 25 years, and would likely cost several hundred million dollars to service with water, sewers, roads and other public infrastructure.

The 1,134 hectare number was generated by consultants and staff, and is the result of a provincially-mandated exercise to determine how to accommodate projected employment growth to 2031. It has already generated controversy because consultants hired by the city decided that none of those new jobs will be located on old industrial lands along the bayfront.

Many citizens and several councillors objected when the 1,134 number was first presented in March. They argued that it's wrong to pave over more farmland before every effort is made to re-use the older lands, including over 1,500 hectares along the bayfront, which have seen the loss of more than 30,000 jobs since the early 1980s.

City Numbers are Fudged

The letter was received on June 20, but only given to councillors three days later - just as they began their decision meeting. Essentially, it says the city's numbers are fudged. Specifically, it identifies six city assumptions that "are not supported" by the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH).

The province doesn't agree with a staff decision to inflate the expected job growth by 20 percent - from 49,000 to 59,000 - thereby inflating the land 'needed' by about 283 hectares.

The province also doesn't accept the city assumption that ten percent of the existing industrial business parks and the one proposed at the airport will remain forever empty, or that another ten percent will be used for non-industrial activities such as coffee shops and gas stations. Those assumptions could add as much as 400 hectares.

The province disagrees with staff's decisions on "netting out existing uses" around the airport including infrastructure and utility corridors, as well as floodplains and future roads. It questions the city's use of "a net-to-gross factor of 20 percent". The latter figure alone is 227 hectares.

Add all that up and the 1,134 hectares could shrink to about one-fifth of what staff and consultants are arguing for. Keep in mind that the province is the final decision-maker on boundary expansions.

No Infill Development

Perhaps most significantly, the province disagrees with the city's plan to locate all the 'needed' industrial land in greenfield areas.

"The Growth Plan requires municipalities to prepare intensification strategies and plan to accommodate significant amounts of both future residential and employment growth in existing built up areas," says the letter. "To date [we] have not seen any intensification analysis related to employment lands."

In short, the provincial position could ground the whole aerotropolis - especially if the cost of servicing it can't be scaled back proportional to the acreage.

Since a key part of the servicing is extending water and sewer services 25 kilometres from the Woodward Avenue treatment facility, it would appear the servicing cost per hectare will climb dramatically as the aerotropolis shrinks.

Accountability Gap

So why did this 'difference of opinion' between the city and the province not surface until decision day? How come there's not a hint of this conflict in any of the multiple staff and consultant reports presented to councillors on this issue?

We might also ask why it took nearly three full days to deliver the five-page letter to councillors, and then only at the beginning of a meeting when reading it would require not paying attention to what they were supposed to be doing.

But it's worse than that - much worse. Staff and their consultants have apparently known about these provincial objections for eight months. When asked at the June 23 meeting to explain the conflict, the director of airport development freely admitted as much.

"Having been at those meetings over that six or eight months that we've discussed with the province about our assumptions, they have not provided any technical basis for their position," he declared.

"They have just indicated that they have a concern that it may not be, you know, sufficient to lead to a conclusion that meets the philosophy and the vision that they have."

Staff and consultants have prepared well over 700 pages of reports for councillors and the public without mentioning this fundamental conflict. We have no way of knowing if they have shared any of this privately with members of council.

The Mushroom Treatment

We do know that they've held a string of "public information meetings" without erecting a single display board that sets out the views of the province and the fact that those views and their implications are quite different from those of the city.

Citizens are asked to attend these 'information' sessions and provide informed input. How can citizens do that when they are not told about such critical issues? We are treated like mushrooms.

The city has spent over $300,000 on consultants and an untold amount on staff time to come up with the recommendations on the aerotropolis employment growth district. The only other participant in this process with similar resources is the province.

If our governments don't tell us what the debate is about, how can we reasonably be expected even to know what questions to ask?

The majority of councillors went ahead and voted to accept the 1134 hectares, rejecting a motion by Mayor Eisenberger to rezone only 50 percent for industrial use initially - although still adding all of it to the urban area.

It is quite possible that the councillors didn't have enough information to do anything else.

It's absolutely certain that the public consultation was a farce.

Don McLean is chair of Friends of Red Hill Valley. He teaches environmental studies for two Canadian universities. He is also an active volunteer with Citizens at City Hall (CATCH).

Public consultation? Is it over? Guess the province won. Fine. six city assumptions that "are not supported" by the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH).

- inflating the land 'needed' by about 283 hectares.

- and by another ... 400 hectares.

- and another ... 227 hectares.

--> 1,134 hectares could shrink to about one-fifth of what staff and consultants are arguing for.

! - the province is the final decision-maker on boundary expansions.

No Infill Development

- Perhaps most significantly, the province disagrees with

the city(STAFF)'s plan to locate all the 'needed' industrial land in greenfield areas.

"The Growth Plan requires municipalities to prepare intensification strategies and plan to accommodate significant amounts of both future residential and employment growth in existing built up areas," says the letter. "To date [we] have not seen any intensification analysis related to employment lands."

In short, the provincial position could ground the whole aerotropolis

yes!