Media.Knet.Ca

ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS BULLETIN

December 20, 2006

More information can be found on the AFN’s website at www.afn.ca/residentialschools

We are one step closer to receiving compensation and benefits through the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). As of December 20, 2006, the Settlement Agreement has received court approval from eight of nine court jurisdictions. These eight decisions are posted on the AFN website. We expect a decision from the remaining jurisdiction (Northwest Territories) early in the New Year. While there are other administrative issues that require resolution, these will not change the conditions of the Settlement Agreement.

After this, there is one final step to approve the Settlement Agreement: it must be approved by Indian Residential School Survivors. All Indian Residential School Survivors must decide if they wish to be included in the settlement in order to receive the benefits of the Settlement Agreement, or opt out by advising the notice administrator in writing. All of this will be explained through an extensive notice and community outreach plan which will begin once all court approvals are finalized. It is estimated that there are 80,000 people alive today who will need to be contacted regarding their options under the Settlement Agreement.

We would like to clarify the circumstances around two areas not covered under the Settlement Agreement: (1) Indian Residential School ‘day scholars’ who attended a listed Indian Residential School(s) during the day do not qualify for compensation under the Settlement Agreement. However, if they suffered sexual, serious physical or psychological abuse, they may apply through a new and improved Independent Assessment Process once the Settlement Agreement is approved. This is an important improvement over the old process. Further, (2) students who attended an Indian Day School on reserve are also not part of the Settlement Agreement. We recognize that they too may have experienced pain and suffering, but Abused Indian Day School students must consider launching a separate civil action in order to seek redress and compensation.

The Assembly of First Nations fought very hard for an Advance Payment for Elders. As such, eligible Elders age 65 years or older, as of May 30, 2005, who are verified as attending an Indian Residential School listed in the Settlement Agreement qualify for an $8,000 Advance Payment. The deadline for applications for the Advance Payment must be received by Indian Residential School Resolution Canada (IRSRC) by December 31, 2006.

As of December 18, 2006, there were an estimated 13,400 Elders eligible for the Advance Payment, of which 12,955 applications have been received as follows:

• 9,534 (74%) applications verified and processed;
• 1,404 (11%) applications in process;
• 496 (4%) require further information;
• 281 (2%) applications cannot be processed and applicants have been notified that IRSRC cannot confirm residency; and
• 1,240 (9%) applicants did not meet the payment criteria (age or deceased).
• A total of $76.3 Million has been paid to Elders in the form of an Advance Payment.

With respect to missing records, efforts are ongoing to address this problem prior to the Common Experience Payment being available. IRSRC is receiving records from various sources on a regular basis and is establishing a database of former students to verify attendance for the Common Experience Payment.

The Assembly of First Nations has lobbied all of the provinces and territories to ensure that the Advance Payments and Common Experience Payments do not impact Old Age Pensions or social benefits due to former Indian Residential School students. All provinces and territories have confirmed this with the exception of Nunavut where we will continue to address this issue with them.

Once the Settlement Agreement is approved, other components will also be implemented, including the new Independent Assessment Process, Truth & Reconciliation Commission, Commemoration initiative and funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

We ask for your patience and support as we move through the final stages of approval of the Settlement Agreement. Additional Information, including a list of common Questions & Answers, is also available on the Assembly of First Nations website (www.afn.ca/residentialschools).

• Questions and Answers

Merry Christmas...Happy Holidays...and Best Wishes for the upcoming New Year to all northern First Nations, families, and friends!!

A special greeting to Kasabonika Lake First Nation as well!!

From Mitchell, Esther, Margaret, and Dahwa Diabo (and our Siamese cat Bijou!)

++++++++++++++++

From: Binder, Michael: SITT [mailto:Binder.Michael@ic.gc.ca]
Sent: December 18, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Greetings from SITT

Visit http://multimedia.ic.gc.ca/sitt/sitteng2006.html (large file that requires FLASH)

++++++++++++++++

From: Paquette, Louise: FEDNOR [mailto:paquette.louise@ic.gc.ca]
Sent: December 18, 2006 1:07 PM
Subject: Happy holidays / Meilleurs voeux

http://fednor.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/infednor-fednor.nsf/vwapj/FedNor2006.html/$FILE/FedNor2006.html

Louise Paquette

++++++++++++

At this special time of year, I find myself looking back on a very busy year and feeling very thankful to the K-Net family of friends and partners. It has been a very successful year of continued growth and development thanks to YOU!

I look forward to 2007, working with everyone and wishing only the best for everyone in this coming year!

Brian Beaton

From http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/21/hunt-supremecourt.html

B.C. First Nation can hunt at night: Supreme Court
December 21, 2006 - CBC News

Two aboriginal men from British Columbia have the right to hunt deer at night with lights, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday.

In a 4-3 decision, the court sided with Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen, members of the Tsartlip First Nation of Vancouver Island.

The men had been convicted in a provincial court of hunting at night by flashlight, a practice that is illegal under B.C.'s Wildlife Act.

But the Supreme Court said the men's treaty rights, in this case, prevail over provincial law. The court overturned the convictions.

The four judges who ruled in favour of the men said that the North Saanich Treaty, signed in 1852, allows modern Tsartlip people to hunt using traditional methods.

And Tsartlip people traditionally hunted at night using lights, the judges said.

Originally, the Tsartlip people would have used torchlight, bows and arrows, but their equipment must be allowed to evolve, the judges said.

"And the use of guns, spotlights and motor vehicles reflects the current state of the evolution of the Tsartlip's historic hunting practices," the judges wrote in a summary of their decision.

In the narrow decision, the three dissenting judges argued that night hunting is dangerous and the right to hunt unsafely is not protected by the treaty.

Olsen and Morris were charged in 1996 after they fired five shots at a decoy deer set up by conservation officers to catch people hunting illegally. Olsen and Morris found the deer by flashlight.

After the men lost their case in a provincial court and in the B.C. Court of Appeal, they took it to the Supreme Court. The high court heard their appeal last year.

Decision renews night hunting debate

Lawyers for the Tsartlip say Thursday's ruling by the high court means other aboriginal people should be allowed to hunt at night in B.C. as well, without fear of prosecution.

Louise Mandell noted that other First Nations may not have treaty rights like the Tsartlip, but hunt at night and have the right to do so as aboriginal people.

"I think that the decision definitely shines a bright light on the province to make sure that those night-hunting practices are recognized," she said.

However, the B.C. Wildlife Federation's Paul Adams is critical of the decision, calling it dangerous.

He told CBC News that there is a question of public safety, especially in the densely-populated Saanich Peninsula, north of Victoria, where the Tsartlip live and hunt.

"The discharge of a rifle at night time when you don't know what is beyond your target is a very dangerous thing for the general public."

Meanwhile, a B.C. law professor said Thursday's judgment is significant at a broader level.

"It shows that treaties can be paramount to provincial law," said John Borrows of the University of Victoria.

"Treaties can have overriding influence over provincial laws. We've seen that before, but we've not seen it before in British Columbia with treaties."

See also Supreme Court of Canada ruling at http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc59/2006scc59.html