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

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

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.

Happy New Year? Why does Canada exist? Most of our entertainment and culture comes from the U.S. All of our resources are pre-sold to the U.S. and defended by US armed forces when necessary. We lay claim to "Koo-roo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo? Koo-roo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo-coo!", and rest sublime in our thermal snowsuits quaffing cold beer(s) and delighting in being 'Canadian'. We argue for a bigger piece of the pie for our region, and deride other regions as 'greedy' or 'parasites', while not even rising from our snowsuits and beer for any more than a dismissive grunt. And while we mice are playing our squabble games, the US looks on ... and plants seeds of factionalism ... and waits ... Oh yes, I believe there is a shakeup coming. I believe we'll have to decide whether Canada's tenuous existence is worth the trouble. We'll have to decide whether to share Canada's resources with the Indigenous Nations from whom they are stolen. Hint: The Supreme Court says we must. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be those in Canada who will say "NO", and will cast their lot with the US to defend 'their' oil ... and gold ... and uranium (etc.) resources. After all, in 'Canada' we revere those who rip the earth apart looking for money. Peter Munk of Barrick Gold just got the Order of Canada for doing just that, destroying not only Canada's ecology but the environments of several other countries, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples who fight to protect the land, here and abroad:

Canadian-owned Barrick Gold, the world's largest gold producer, is exploring, building and operating huge, open-pit gold mines on nearly every continent on the planet. On May 2, 2007, CorpWatch in the US published a report detaiing the operations of Barrick gold in nine different countries, focusing on the efforts on the part of the communities to seek justice from this powerful multinational.

http://www.miningwatch.ca/search.php?query=Barrick+Gold&action=search

Where to now Canada? Are Canadians truly nothing more than a docile labour force to serve the foreign 'resource extraction' industries? Is that the true raison d'etre of the puppet corporation called 'Canada'? An 'industry' that does not own what it takes, but extracts in haste ahead of the UN and Supreme Court judgments that clarify the laws of Indigenous Rights? Is that "the true north strong and free" that we defend? Do we care?

Canada’s World:

Indigenous Internationalism

Posted on December 29, 2008 by adam fritz http://canadasworld.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/indigenous-internationalism/

“And Canada itself, based on very specific reports by international organizations, is one of the largest violators of human rights against the indigenous people and Muslims and other communities.” - Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi, December 1, 2008

When the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman flung this accusation at Canada, most Canadians probably shrugged it off as a desperate response to our support for a UN resolution condemning human rights violations in Iran.

When ten days later at a UN Conference on Climate Change the Canadian government found itself having to answer more questions on the issue of indigenous rights than on emissions targets, most Canadians probably wondered how these issues were even related.

When a delegation arrives in Washington on January 8 to talk to President-elect Obama about oil and human rights, most Canadians will probably be surprised to hear that the delegation is a group of First Nations Chiefs from across Canada rather than activists concerned about Iraq.

What most Canadians probably don’t realize is that indigenous rights are becoming a hot topic of conversation at international events these days. There are many reasons for this. The interconnections between issues are becoming more apparent. Indigenous groups are becoming savvier in the ways of international affairs. Decades of effort on the part of indigenous peoples around the world are finally coming to fruition. But the issue of indigenous rights came to a head when the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by most UN member states in September 2007.

Almost as significant as the declaration itself were the four countries that voted against the declaration: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Four settler states with large indigenous populations. It’s not that these countries disagreed with the entire document, but that it touched on a few key issues that are still the subject of intense discussion and negotiation at the local level. Self-determination. The need for free, prior and informed consent before taking certain actions. The proper means of reconciling the past. The fact that indigenous lands hold a great deal of natural resources throws a wrench into things as well.

Now international law is a funny thing, and UN declarations are even funnier. They are non-binding, unenforceable, and only morally persuasive at best. But moral persuasion can go a long way. Indigenous groups understand this and are using it to their advantage. Most Canadians should take note.

TRUE presents: "Rule of Law" and "Indigenous Rights" What it is - what it isn’t

MEDIA RELEASE - Nov. 15/08 TRUE presents: "Rule of Law" and "Indigenous Rights" What it is - what it isn’t

One of the most important and pressing topics to residents of Brantford, Caledonia and Six Nations will be addressed December 3rd when the perceived conflict between the concepts of "Rule of Law" and "Indigenous Rights" will be discussed in depth buy lawyers, Andrew Orkin and Jessica Orkin, at the Wilfrid Laurier University Odeon Theatre at 50 Market Street in Brantford, from at 7:15 pm until 9:30 pm.

Confusion and misunderstanding on this complex subject is at the root of recent conflict and turmoil between First Nations and settler governments across Canada, but more locally, between Six Nations and its neighbours in Caledonia and Brantford.

International human rights and constitutional lawyer Andrew Orkin, LLB BCL McGill, Orkin Barristers, Hamilton - Toronto, originally from South Africa, served for 10 years as co-council for the Dudley George Family before and during the Ipperwash Inquiry. In his 20 year long career since arriving in Canadian, Orkin has been successful in several high profile Human Rights and Indigenous Rights cases, both in the Canada Courts and at the International court level.

Jessica Orkin, BArtsSci McMaster, MPhil Oxford, JD UofT, of Ruby & Edwardh Barristers, Toronto, is a Criminal and human rights lawyer, presently involved in the Brantford City Hall launched court injunction and subsequent legal actions against a number of Six Nations individuals for defending, what they believe to be, their land.

The Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the Royal Proclamation if 1763, , the Haldimand Proclamation 1784, the British North America Act 1867, the Constitution Act of 1982, as well as points in international law will be explained. Given the importance of this subject, we anticipate lively discussion and loads of information relevant to us all.

This will the the last session in our information lecture series for this year. TRUE began in January of 2008 as a Brantford based citizens group with a mandate to offer a forum to help educate Brantford and area citizens about the people, culture, history and problems facing Six Nations.

"The lack of education about the people of Six Nations is the root cause of tensions between our two communities," says TRUE co-founder Jim Windle. "It wasn’t until I began working as a journalist at Six Nations that I became aware of how very little I knew. The information we want to bring to others through our meetings is not taught in our schools and goes largely ignored by the mainstream media."

Windle and his partner Marilyn Vegso decided almost a year ago to try and do something about this lack of understanding. The foundation of TRUE is built on one of the most important treaties made between the Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse) and four successive European governments who landed and settled on what was known to Six Nations as Turtle Island - North America. It is called the Two Row Wampum. An agreement that outlined how the Haudenosaunee and European new comers could share the vast resources of Turtle Island in peace and mutual respect.

"It’s long past time we visit these principals again," says Vegso. "As we say at TRUE, ‘Ignorance of the facts is not racism, but racism has its roots in ignorance.’"

Everyone is welcome to this free-to-the-public information session presented by TRUE - Two Row Understanding through Education. Seating is limited so come early. Call 519-732-5700 or visit our Facebook address at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=18540092734&ref=nf for more information.