Media.Knet.Ca

In the May 1 ruling, Justice Smith ruled that "KI's motion for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed" [173] based on his findings that sufficient efforts to consult have been made. It seems that Platinex's need to avoid bankruptcy influenced the judge's decision.

Click here to read the complete ruling by Justice Smith.

Ontario government press release ...

Ontario Government Remains Committed to Consultation in Far North Mineral Exploration Case

May 02, 2007

SUDBURY – The Ontario government reiterated its commitment to reaching a resolution through consultation in the case involving Platinex Inc. and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) First Nation, following the latest Ontario Superior Court decision.

“The Ontario government looks forward to resuming meaningful consultation efforts, and we will continue to be a committed participant in this process,” said Minister of Northern Development and Mines Minister, Rick Bartolucci. “Any process that brings the parties back together and encourages greater understanding of each others’ concerns is a positive development.”

In a May 1, 2007 decision, the Honourable Mr. Justice G.P. Smith issued an interim declaratory order for the parties to resume consultation efforts, and implement a consultation protocol, timetable, and Memorandum of Understanding. The order permits a careful, staged exploration program to proceed, and allows the court to remain engaged in the consultation process to ensure the steps laid out in the decision are followed.

The ministry recognizes the Crown’s obligation to respect and honour the Aboriginal and treaty rights of communities and that communities have a right to be appropriately consulted and accommodated as set out in recent Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court decisions also confirmed the importance of all parties engaging in a reciprocal, constructive consultation process.

-30-

Contacts:

Laura Blondeau
Minister’s Office – Sudbury
(705) 564-7454

++++++++++

Platinex's press release ...

Platinex Enabled to Proceed With Drilling Program on Big Trout Lake Traditional Territory 

TORONTO, May 2 - Platinex today reported that a decision has been rendered in the legal action among Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, "KI", Platinex Inc. and the Ontario government favourable to Platinex.

On July 28, 2006, the Court granted an interim interim injunction to KI conditional on KI immediately establishing "a consultation committee charged with the responsibility of meeting with representatives of Platinex and the Provincial Crown with the objective of developing an agreement to allow Platinex to conduct its two phase drilling project at Big Trout Lake". Having failed to reach an agreement, early in April 2007 KI sought an interlocutory injunction preventing Platinex from conducting its exploratory drill program pending an expedited trial.

On May 1, 2007, the Court dismissed KI's motion. Among other things, Mr. Justice Smith's order requires the parties to implement a consultation protocol, timetable and memorandum of understanding addressing specified items by May 15, 2007. Platinex will be permitted to commence phase one (24 holes) of its drill program on June 1, 2007, subject to the Court being satisfied that a proper protocol is in place. The order contemplates an on-going supervisory role for the Court.

Platinex welcomes this opportunity to work with KI on the further definition of the chromium and platinum group element mineralization on its Big Trout Lake property.

INAC Prentice tells the House of Commons (see transcripts below) that "This House should apologize and I am confident at the end of the day that this House will apologize." But then goes on to say that they will await the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (five years and $60 million from now) before issuing such an apology. AFN National Chief Fontaine calls for a "timely and appropriate" apology.

+++++++++++
Statement by Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine regarding today's Opposition Motion in the House of Commons

     OTTAWA, May 1 /CNW Telbec/ - "I am very pleased that the House of Commons will apologize for the misguided and racist residential school policy, which originated in that place, and which resulted in profound harm to generations of Indian residential school students, our families, and communities.

     Those of us who were personally abused, as well as those who suffered intergenerational effects of abuse, deserve the fullest, most sincere, and complete apology from the representatives of the Canadian people.

     I applaud the efforts of Gary Merasty, MP for Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, and the support given to his motion by all parties in the House of Commons. This has been a long time coming. By this apology, I sincerely hope that some of the pain and suffering endured by our people will begin to heal.

     We expect that the Prime Minister of Canada will apologize in a timely fashion and in an appropriate public ceremony so this matter can finally be put behind us."

     Phil Fontaine
     National Chief

     The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing First Nations citizens in Canada.

-30-

/For further information: Bryan Hendry, A/Director of Communications, (613) 241-6789, ext. 229, Cell: (613) 293-6106, bhendry@afn.ca/

+++++++++++++
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice Makes a Statement in the House of Commons

May 1, 2007 TIME: 10:42 a.m.

LOCATION: HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA
PRINCIPAL(S): THE HONOURABLE JIM PRENTICE, MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND FEDERAL INTERLOCUTOR FOR MÉTIS AND NON-STATUS INDIANS

Speaker: Resuming debate, the Honourable Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In beginning, I dedicate my words to something that's previously been written in this country by one of my favourite authors Aretha Van Herk in the book Mavericks where she said as follows, "Demolished by diseases like smallpox and tuberculosis, struggling with byzantine and ridiculous rules, fighting to stay alive, Canada's first peoples have enacted an astonishing feat by refusing to fade away and vanish for all of the deliberate or accidental attempts to erase their presence."

   Now I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter before the House today. I hope in my comments, Mr. Speaker, to raise our discussion beyond partisanship, to frame a debate that will carry Parliament and indeed this country beyond partisanship and the pointing of accusations. For the sake of all of us, for the sake of Canada I hope that we can all rise to the level of that requirement and I hope that we all avoid crossing the line. Because in dealing with this sad chapter of Canadian history we will all require that because both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians will require that we do that and because at the end of the day the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is so fundamental to the process that we are now engaged in will require us as parliamentarians to rise to that level, Mr. Speaker.

   And I observe such as others such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has in a previous context "Neither genuine repentance nor atonement on the one hand nor forgiveness on the other is possible in the shadow of partisanship."

   I begin therefore, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the government will support the motion of the honourable member from Desneth é--Missinippi--Churchill River. (Applause.)

This House should apologize and I am confident at the end of the day that this House will apologize.

   The obligations, on the other hand, of the executive branch of government, tied inextricably to the terms of the residential school agreement and to the eventual results of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission require some discussion in the House and I propose to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, in my comments.

   I think that it is important that the historical record reflect accurately upon this matter. I have not been in this house for much of my life but I have been here for three years at this point. I am somewhat taken aback at how quickly revisionism has taken over what has transpired with respect to the residential school matter and while partisanship can be forgiven in that I suppose all members of the House from time to time seek refuge there, the revision of Canadian history is an entirely different matter which I'm not prepared to countenance in this House, Mr. Speaker.

   It is this government that brought an end to the denials of the past. It is this government that executed on May 8th of 2006 the Residential School Agreement negotiated after much effort with the lawyers involved on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, the class action plaintiffs representing some 12,000 individuals in this country, the Assembly of First Nations and the churches of Canada.

   Now an apology on the part of the House of Commons is necessary and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of which I intend to speak will deal with this in some detail but as we begin, Mr. Speaker, in reading a book entitled A National Crime by John Malloy and in asking why the House of Commons should apologize I would simply quote from the introduction which in part is a conclusion of the book.

   Mr. Malloy asks this question, "How did this happen? How were responsibility and Christianity perverted?" He concludes as follows. "One conclusion becomes unavoidable. Despite the discourse of civil and spiritual duty that framed the school system there never was invested in this project the financial or human resources required to ensure that the system achieved its 'civilizing' ends or that children were cared for properly. Nor was there ever brought to bear the moral resources necessary to respond to systemic neglect or to the many instances of stark physical abuse that were known to be occurring. Furthermore, it is clear that throughout the history of the system the church-state partners were aware of the historical circumstances and moreover that they came to understand the detrimental repercussions for all Aboriginal children of their residential school experience."

   That summation, Mr. Speaker, I think encapsulates what we will probably hear more of from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission over time.

   And I must say, Mr. Speaker, that all of this began Canada many years ago. This is a school system that was conceived in the period leading up to 1892, was brought to fruition in the years thereafter and was not entirely dismantled in this country until the late 1970s.

   Now the apportionment of blame and responsibility in that context is one in which many Canadian governments have a responsibility to share. This is a system that was conceived and carried forward under successive Canadian governments for close to 100 years. So it is part of our collective history and this sad chapter of what happened in our country is something that we will collectively have to come to grips with and I return to my comments that it is something that we will only come to grips with if we do so in a fair way without accusations, recriminations and without the pointing of fingers in that respect. And the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which I wish to speak to at this point will be fundamental to all of that.

   The history of this matter is that there were approximately 130 residential schools in this country operated by four major church denominations: the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the United Church, the Catholic Church. And the total attendance at these schools was over 150,000 Aboriginal Canadians. There are 80,000 Aboriginal Canadians alive today who attended these schools. The descendants from those people number somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 Canadians.

   In 1990, the first lawsuits were filed against the Government of Canada in respect of this matter. In 1998, as my friend has pointed out, in a statement of reconciliation, Canada acknowledged its role in the Indian residential school system. And in 1998, much was accomplished with the creation of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation which had a $350 million endowment and $40 million in additional funding provided thereafter. This foundation administered in excess of 1,300 individual community projects to come to grips with this chapter in Canadian history.

   In 2003, a national resolution framework was launched to contribute to reconciliation but at that time, Mr. Speaker, the matter continued to move forward in this country by way of litigation, class action lawsuits between First Nation claimants and the Government of Canada. And at that time an alternate dispute resolution was put in place.

   Now in the 38th Parliament of Canada and that's where I'm concerned about some of the revisionist history that has taken place here, at that time the Conservative Party was in opposition and I would point out for the record, for posterity, if you will, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party not only has led the way on this matter by finalizing the agreement of May 8, 2006. But the Conservative Party together with the other opposition parties in the House of Commons at that time fundamentally drove the process that led to the residential school agreement.

   And one need look no further, Mr. Speaker, than the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, finalized on April 7th of 2005 with the cooperation of the then opposition parties in the House of Commons - the Bloc, the NDP Party, the Conservative Party - opposed at the end of the day by the Liberal government, opposed by the Liberals at committee and during a concurrence motion that passed by one vote in this House of Commons. And so, Mr. Speaker, if we wish history to be clear, one need look at the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of April 7th of 2005.

   And at that time the state of affairs in this country was that we had an alternate dispute resolution process which had been the subject of continuing pressure and questioning in Question Period because it had been disclosed that of every dollar spent in dealing with the claims of people who had been wronged by the residential school system, 80 cents on every dollar was spent on bureaucracy, civil servants, lawyers, experts, adjudicators and only 20 cents made its way through to the victims of this sad chapter in Canadian history.

   And at one point it was a celebrated case that disclosed these facts. The system was so hamstrung with rules that an elderly woman in her 80s had taken her ADR case forward and it turned out her allegation of physical cruelty was that she'd been confined in a closet, as I recall, for three days with her sister. Her claim was disallowed on the basis that she had not been confined solitarily. That's the sort of thing that was going on only three years ago in this country, Mr. Speaker, before this government concluded this agreement.

   Now, Mr. Speaker, the April 7th report of the Standing Committee left nothing to the imagination. It documented the failings of the process at that time, the absence of any evenhanded process, the absence of adequate compensation, terming the compensation to be grossly inadequate, documenting, I quote, "That the process was proceeding too slowly, allowing too many former students to die uncompensated, that it used a dispute resolution process that was disrespectful, humiliating and unfeeling and which revictimized former students." I recall being in committee, Mr. Speaker, when members of the Conservative Party pointed out to the government at that time that they had never in their time in the House of Commons as members of parliament heard testimony as moving as what they heard in the work leading up to this report. And it was pointed out at that time that there were high structural costs and egregious burden of proof and that it was a process that students did not trust.

   The committee at the end of the day in a report that was quite straightforward, was three pages in length, expressed its regret at the manner in which the alternate dispute resolution process was being administered and provided eight very straightforward recommendations at that time.

   The first was that the government proceed with urgency. The second was that it terminate the alternate dispute resolution process. And the third, Mr. Speaker, was this and if one wants to search and find the source of the residential school agreement that today provides some hope for this country and some reconciliation of where we are going to go, it lies in the third recommendation which was as follows. "That the government engage in court-supervised negotiations with former students to achieve a court-approved, court-enforced settlement for compensation that relieves the government of its liability for those former students who are able to establish a cause of action and a lawful entitlement to compensation."

   For the first time, a recommendation from this House of Commons approved in the concurrence proceeding that there be court-supervised negotiations with former students, a court-approved, a court-enforced settlement, Mr. Speaker.
At the end of the day, that is exactly what this government did on May 8 of 2006.

   In addition, Mr. Speaker, there were comments with respect to legal fees. There was a recommendation that there be an expedited settlement of those claims involving aggravated circumstances such as sexual and severe physical abuse. Again, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day that is precisely where this government has arrived at.

   But I wish to emphasize in particular, Mr. Speaker, recommendation number 6, "That the government to ensure that former students have the opportunity to tell their stories to all Canadians in a process characterized by dignity and respect cause a national truth and reconciliation process to take place in a forum that validates the worth of the former students and honours the memory of all children who attended the schools." A Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

   Herein, Mr. Speaker, lies the birth of that concept as the way forward for this country. It is a concept that I feel strongly about. A little known matter in this House is that I spent some time in South Africa in the days after Apartheid as South Africa moved from Apartheid to its current form. I was a constitutional advisor to an organization there that was dealing with the dismantlement of the Apartheid structure. And I watched as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was struck in South Africa unfolded. I watched as it assisted South Africa in coming to grips with a very sad chapter of their history and I became a believer in the importance of that kind of an approach as a method for this country to come to grips with this sad chapter of Canadian history - a forum which would allow all Canadians but in particular First Nation citizens who had been victimized by this process an opportunity and a way to come forward to tell their stories to ensure that their stories were recounted, recorded in Canadian history and a method at the end of the day, Mr.
Speaker, for all of us to come to grips with a chapter in Canadian history that belongs to no single party, to no single government but really to all of us as Canadians as a result of the hundred years of history.

   Now, Mr. Speaker, in the days following that, Mr. Frank Iacobucci, formerly Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was appointed as the government's representative, the search for a court-supervised settlement process began. And an interim agreement was in fact announced, as I recall, on November 23rd of 2005, having been concluded on November 20th of 2005. That of course was in the shadow of the election of December 2005.

   And during the election the Conservative Party indicated at that time that it would be supportive of such an agreement providing two conditions were met. The first was that a final agreement needed to be concluded and the second was that court approval needed to be secured. Neither of those steps had been taken in February of 2006 when the Conservative government was elected.

   I can assure the House that although the residential school matter was not strictly speaking the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs in the days following the formation of the government - responsibility rested elsewhere in the government - I took the completion of this agreement very seriously and I can tell to the House that there were extensive meetings in my office of Mr. Justice Iacobucci, Mr. Phil Fontaine with the Assembly of First Nations and we struggled to bring this to a close. We struggled to bring the resolution of the terms of the agreement such that it could be taken forward for a court-approved process.

   There were extensive negotiations dealing with a number of outstanding difficult question at that time - how to arrive at a final agreement, how to ensure adequate financial provisions were made in a budgetary sense for this agreement and how to arrive at an agreement that would be in the best interests of all Canadians. And Minister Oda, I should say for the sake of the record, was very involved in this at that time.

   At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the agreement that has been concluded required extensive work over the last year to complete. The courts process involved proceeding forward with nine jurisdictions to secure a court approval. That process is not entirely finished at this stage. It has been approved by all nine jurisdictions but the terms of the agreement provide for an opt-out period. The essence of the opt-out period is that if an adequate number of First Nation claimants decide that they do not wish to be part of this agreement then the agreement is voidable at the option of the government. And so the legal process is not yet completed, Mr. Speaker, and is moving forward.

   The agreement, as I think everyone knows, is a very fair and generous agreement, one which I take immense personal satisfaction as a Canadian in seeing come to fruition and one which this government takes pride in. It provides most -- importantly, I should not say most importantly, it provides importantly for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will be established together with a research centre, a budget of $60 million and a five-year mandate. The government is currently engaged in the process of selecting the three commissioners, one of who must be an Aboriginal Canadian.

   It is my sincere hope, as happened in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, that this matter will be dealt with, that the whole issue of apologies, the whole issue of how this country is to find a way forward will be dealt with by the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, that it will be dealt with in a manner which speaks of the dignity and the integrity of the Canadian people in wanting to come to grips with this chapter of our history and that the executive branch of government will need to see that document because the full history of this will not be disclosed. We will not have explored the full depth of the history of the residential school agreement, of this chapter of Canadian history until the work of that commission has finished, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. (Applause.)

   Speaker: Questions and comments. The Honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

   Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, I commend the honourable member for his dignified statement but I have three questions. One of them is having told us that his party will support the motion put forward by my honourable friend, could he clarify whether this amounts to a government apology or merely parliamentary support for a motion introduced by the other side of the House. I was simply unclear as to what the intention of the government was in that respect. And I ask this question because I've been in this House on numerous occasions in which the minister has been asked directly whether the government and the prime minister will apologize about this matter and an apology has not been forthcoming. So I need clarification as to what the minister has just told us in this House and I ask this furthermore because the government has been very quick to apologize on other matters - the Chinese head tax - but has been, I think it is fair to say, curiously resistant about a public apology in this crucial matter of our history so I am unclear and would be grateful for the minister's clarification.

   And, finally, would it be fair to say that this commendable action by the minister to support our side of the House's resolution, that this action would not have occurred at all had we not presented this motion? It seems to me that he should clarify what the government's precise intention is here. Is this a government, prime ministerial apology or simply support for an opposition motion? Exactly what has he told us in the House this morning? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

   Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Well, I thank the honourable member for his thoughtful comment and his gracious response. What I've indicated to the House is that the government is prepared to support the motion that has been put forward calling upon this House to apologize. And, as I said in my comments, I anticipate that the House will apologize. I anticipate that this is a motion that will pass successfully. I acknowledge it is a motion brought forward by my honourable colleague.

   I think in my comments I've tried to indicate, however, that the position of the executive branch of government in the circumstance where we are in the midst of the implementation of the May 8, 2006 agreement, an agreement which is still very much before the courts, which still requires the completion of the opt-out period in respect of which advertisements are currently taking place in major newspapers across this country, is a separate issue. And I think I've also indicated that I attach enormous significance. This has been something that I have personally believed from the time I became involved in this chapter of Canadian history as an opposition member in this House that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the key to the way forward for us as a nation because it is there that we will come to grips with what happened. It is there that we will come to understand the damage that was done to Aboriginal people and to this country by the misguided efforts that were undertaken.

   And I have looked to South Africa as a comparison and I note in that context that -- have noted previously that as and when the Reconciliation Commission had completed its work it called in one of its recommendations for an apology by the government at that time to those people who had perpetrated violations of human rights.

   It would seem to me that the task at hand for us as a nation is in a nonpartisan way to move forward, to try to really understand this chapter of Canadian history, to look at the damage that was done to our First Nation and our Aboriginal people and to do it with a Reconciliation Commission that will consist of three very respected Canadians. In fact, we have just now embarked on the process to select those Canadians to ensure that they are beyond reproach, that they are people who are nationally known for their integrity, for their commitment to this beautiful country of ours and people who will get this right.

   My hope is that through the work of that commission we will better understand what needs to be done and the government will look forward to receiving the recommendations of those parties of the commission after they have completed their work and I think only at that time, Mr. Speaker, to be fair, I think only at that time once the full facts are known can the full response from the Government of Canada at the executive branch be offered. Thank you.

   Speaker: Further questions and comments. The honourable member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River.

   Gary Merasty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess it is difficult to hear sometimes and people will argue that it's revisionist and it has to be understood that for the most part of written history in this country Aboriginal people did not control the pen. The statements that I talk about are statements from survivors, from the past victims. And if it's indeed an accusation of revisionism then I guess so be it.

   The question I have is the minister made a curious comment on until all the facts are known. The facts are known. The facts are in black and white.
They're written in some cases in blood by many of these people who appeared before these various bodies to talk about their experiences. I would ask the government to proceed with an apology and still proceed with the Truth and Reconciliation, take lessons from truth and reconciliation processes in Africa and other countries and improve upon it in this country. But I distinctly believe and truly believe that the facts are there.

   Speaker: The Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to revisionism this is a sensitive topic for me simply because I believe the way that we are dealing with this currently as a nation speaks well of our system of government and frankly speaks well of this Parliament and of this House of Commons. And I'm simply concerned that we not get into accusations on this because, frankly, there are members in every single house in this -- every single party in this House of Commons that deserve some credit for bringing this matter forward through to the resolution of the May 8th, 2006 agreement. As I pointed out in my comments, it was really only through the efforts of the opposition parties, all three opposition parties in the 38th Parliament that I think this matter was forced through to a completion and there are several members in this House that deserve some share of credit for that. So I don't want us to go too far down the road of revising Canadian history and I wish those facts to be known.

   With respect to my colleague's statement that the facts are known, well, I say respectfully that all of the facts are not known. If they were all known, we would not be investing $60 million as a nation in a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with respected Canadians that will travel this country and speak to everyone who wants to speak with the Commission over a five-year period. Once those facts are known, I think there will be recommendations, clearly, that come forward at that time from the Commission and the executive branch of the government at that time will have a heavy responsibility to follow through with what I hope will be the closing chapter of this era in Canadian history and deal with the recommendations. And I would be surprised, very surprised if those recommendations at that time did not deal, as the South African Commission did, with the context and the concept of an apology. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

   Speaker: Questions and comments, the honourable deputy leader -- I'm sorry, the honourable member for Sault Ste. Marie.

   Tony Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to commend the minister on some of the comments that he made, particularly where he asked that this very sensitive and important issue be dealt with in a nonpartisan way and that we not point fingers and that we get on with some constructive, positive action and suggested that the House indeed might support the resolution and I indeed believe that it will, a majority of this House will support that. It will be interesting to see if the government caucus will at the end of the day support it. I'm hoping that they do.

   He talked about us being careful not to cross the line and not to be nonpartisan -- and to be nonpartisan and yet in his speech in some places he was very partisan in pointing a finger at the previous government, particularly where, you know, he got into the description of the former dispute resolution mechanism. Just wondering if the minister would share with me so that when I get up later in this debate what he meant by not crossing the line.

   Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Indian Affairs.

   Hon. Jim Prentice: Well, I thank the honourable member for his question. I would simply refer him to the April 27th report of the previous Standing Committee which I think is a seminal document in terms of the steps by this Parliament to come to grips with this issue and to search for a way forward. At the time, the very concept that we would move forward with an omnibus settlement, court-enforced, court-endorsed was something which had not been contemplated in a serious way within Parliament or government and I didn't wish to be partisan in any way in my comments. I certainly have the capacity to be quite a bit more partisan than anything I might have said but I tried to be as statesman-like as I could have. And I simply point out that many people were involved at that point in time and that I do see what has been achieved here. We're not finished but I do see it as a measure of the success that we can have in this country moving forward.

From http://chiefs-of-ontario.org/news/april30-07.html

April 30, 2007 ANNOUNCEMENT: All Ontario Chiefs Conference

As per the decision of the Political Confederacy, April 20, 2007, please be advised the All Ontario Chiefs Conference is confirmed and scheduled for June 12-13-14, 2007 to be held in Sioux Lookout at the Pelican Falls First Nations High School.

Continental breakfast and lunch will be provided for the duration of the Conference.

Should you have any questions, please contact this office toll-free 1-877-517-6527.

We look forward to seeing you at the Assembly.

Miigwetch.

The work being completed by Keewaytinook Okimakanak's Kuhkenah Network team in partnership with the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund (NOHFC) was highlighted at the release of the Progress Report of the Northern Prosperity Plan by Minister Bartolucci, in Sudbury yesterday at Cambrian College.

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines News Release ... 
 
April 30, 2007
 
Northerners Seeing Real Results From Northern Prosperity Plan -

Progress Report Demonstrates Positive Impacts Of Plan On North And Minerals Sector

SUDBURY – Record investments in highway expansion and rehabilitation projects and safer drinking water for 63 northern communities are just two of the results highlighted in a progress report on the Ontario government’s Northern Prosperity Plan released today by Northern Development and Mines Minister Rick Bartolucci. 

“When our government unveiled the Northern Prosperity Plan three years ago, we said we were providing better economic tools to help northerners build stronger communities,” said Bartolucci. “Today I am pleased to report that northerners have seized the opportunities offered under the plan’s programs, with gratifying results.”

The progress report was released at a pan-northern videoconference broadcast from Cambrian College’s eDome in Sudbury. The videoconference connected groups of community, business and education leaders in North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sioux Lookout, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timmins. 

The progress report details results of McGuinty government programs and initiatives to support northern economic development and the province’s minerals sector. It also profiles individuals and businesses that are achieving success with help from provincial programs and initiatives, including a group of biomedical research companies in Thunder Bay that are at the forefront of cutting edge research, development and innovation in the health and life sciences sector.

“Biomedical research is the next big economic driver,” said Dr. Ryan Parr, vice-president of research and development at Genesis Genomics, a potential tenant of Thunder Bay’s new Cancer and Cardiac Research Centre to which the Ontario government has provided more than $2 million. “We’re on the boundary of a revolution, which means tremendous economic development potential for the North.”

“Despite the long-standing challenges of our cyclical economy, today we celebrate northerners’ efforts to build a prosperous North,” said Bartolucci. “I am proud that our government’s Northern Prosperity Plan has been an important catalyst for a range of community and economic development initiatives upon which the future of Ontario’s North and its minerals sector are being built.”

The Northern Prosperity Plan is founded on four pillars: Strengthening the North and its Communities; Listening to and Serving Northerners Better; Competing Globally; and Providing Opportunities for All.

The report is available online at www.ontario.ca/northernprosperity and in print at ministry offices and Government Information Centres / ServiceOntario centres throughout the North.

-30-

Contacts:

Laura Blondeau
Minister’s Office – Sudbury
(705) 564-7454

Ron St. Louis
MNDM – Sudbury
(705) 564-7120

Ontario gov't press release ...

Aboriginal Student Self-Identification

April 27, 2007

To assess Ontario's progress in helping more Aboriginal students reach their full potential, it is necessary to have accurate and reliable data.

A new resource will enable school boards to develop effective policies and practices for voluntary, confidential Aboriginal student self-identification. These policies will help identify First Nation, Métis and Inuit students who attend Ontario's publicly funded schools.

The information will help school boards improve programs and supports for Aboriginal students and enable them to focus their efforts on student achievement.

The resource is called Building Bridges to Success for First Nation, Métis and Inuit Students – Developing Policies for Voluntary, Confidential Aboriginal Student Self-Identification: Successful Practices for Ontario School Boards (PDF, 596 KB). It includes:

• background information,
• a recommended process,
• case studies,
• practical tools, and
• reference information.

For more information, contact the Aboriginal Education Office at:

Aboriginal Education Office
900 Bay Street, 12th Floor, Mowat Block
Toronto, ON M7A 1L2
General Inquiries: 416-326-3561

FedNor press release ...

Government Invests $6.7M In Northwestern Ontario

INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (ICT) INITIATIVES - $2,402,961

Keewaytinook Okimakanak (K-Net)

A FedNor contribution of $500,000 will help K-Net to identify and address ICT needs, promoting broadband uses among First Nation communities across Northern Ontario. This will enable First Nation communities to share electronic files, access online services, and take advantage of video conferencing technology and e-commerce opportunities.

An additional $500,000 will assist K-Net to interconnect its network of remote First Nations and the networks of health and education facilities. This project will facilitate more extensive and efficient sharing of information and broadband applications.

The remaining $500,000 will assist K-Net in upgrading telehealth and digital X-Ray equipment in Sioux Lookout, Red Lake and several remote First Nation communities, providing patients with access to medical specialists without the need to travel to other centres.

Lakehead Social Planning Council

Under the direction of the United Way of Thunder Bay, the Lakehead Social Planning Council will use FedNor funding of $400,000 over the next three years to establish 2-1-1 community information and referral services across all of Northern Ontario. As part of a national initiative, this project will help residents find and access a variety of social and health services.

Northwestern Ontario Innovation Centre (NOIC)

The Northwestern Ontario Innovation Centre will receive $288,000 to address gaps in broadband services in Northern Ontario and encourage small businesses to take advantage of high speed Internet applications. An additional $53,334 will be used to expand its services and programming, and $21,667 will support the development and delivery of a series of interactive sessions to help companies foster an innovative work environment.

Oshki-Pimache-O-Win Education and Training Institute

With a FedNor investment of $139,960, the Oshki-Pimache-O-Win Education and Training Institute will upgrade its distance learning infrastructure and capacity to improve access to postsecondary education and training for Nishnawbe Aski Nation communities.

TOURISM INITIATIVES - $1,832,111

Township Of Nipigon

A FedNor contribution of $1,532,111 will be used to help Nipigon implement its municipal revitalization plan, which centres on the creation of a tourism attraction inspired by the children’s book, Paddle to the Sea. This project will include the construction of a large family park in the downtown area, as well as a promenade and a series of 18 interactive stations reflecting chapters of the book.

Town of Fort Frances

A FedNor investment of $300,000 is supporting the first phase of Fort Frances’ Heritage Tourism Plan. This project focuses on renovating and expanding the Fort Frances Museum and Cultural Centre, including the construction of exhibits.

SMALL BUSINESS INITIATIVES - $1,187,500

Atikokan Economic Development Corporation

An investment of $290,000 will support the ongoing operations of the Atikokan CFDC, providing services to support local economic development and small business growth, including access to capital, business services, assistance with community-based projects and strategic community planning.

Greenstone Economic Development Corporation

The Greenstone CFDC will use FedNor funding of $322,500 to support its ongoing operations that focus on local economic development and small business growth. Its primary services include access to capital, business counselling and technical services, and assistance with special community initiatives and strategic planning.

Chukuni Communities Development Corporation

Lake of the Woods Business Incentive Corporation (LOWBIC)

These regional Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDCs) will each use a FedNor contribution of $287,500 to support their ongoing operations that focus on local economic development and small business growth, including access to capital, business counselling services, strategic community planning and assistance with community-based projects.

FIRST NATION INITIATIVES - $1,083,019

Naicatchewenin First Nation

A FedNor investment of $463,800 will enable Naicatchewenin First Nation to expand its cedar furniture manufacturing plant, Kish Gon Dug (KGD) and acquire additional equipment. An additional $141,930 will be used to provide marketing and production management counselling, helping KGD manage its current sales commitments, identify new opportunities, and develop a long-term capital improvement plan enabling the company to achieve full production capacity.

Pikangikum First Nation

Pikangikum First Nation will use a FedNor contribution of $477,289 to develop value-added forestry opportunities for the community’s Whitefeather Forest Initiative. Activities will include securing environmental assessment approval for commercial forestry projects and the completion of a forestry management plan.

YOUTH INITIATIVES - $216,935

Eight new youth Interns will gain valuable job experience through FedNor’s Youth Internship Program (YIP), helping them make the transition from the campus to the workplace. Their responsibilities will include website and database editing, implementing marketing plans and coordinating economic development. Host organizations receiving FedNor YIP funding of up to $27,500, are:

• Wawatay Native Communications Society (2 Interns)
• The Friends of Chippewa Park
• The Community Arts and Heritage Education Project
• Pwi-Di-Goo-Zing-Ne-Yaa-Zhing Non-profit Advisory Services
• Lakehead Region Conservation Authority
• Township of Dorion
• Shigogama First Nations Council

On August 8, 2006, Minister Clement celebrated the 1000th youth intern placement in Northern Ontario. In the last year alone, FedNor has invested $676,935 in support of 25 youth interns in Northwestern Ontario.

+++++++

From FedNor press release ....

Government Invests Over $2.7 Million In The Timmins-James Bay Area

SAULT STE. MARIE, Ontario, April 27, 2007 — The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Minister for FedNor, underlined the commitment of Canada’s New Government to Northern Ontario today by announcing the results of a $28.1M investment in support of 140 economic development projects benefiting hundreds of communities located throughout the vast region. Minister Clement announced the funding, provided by FedNor’s two main programs – Northern Ontario Development and Community Futures – during a visit to Sault Ste. Marie this morning.

“Today’s announcement shows that Canada’s New Government’s is committed to improve the economic well-being of the businesses and residents across Northern Ontario,” stated Minister Clement. “Investing in technology, youth and community economic development will help create jobs and diversify the economy.”

Of the total, over $2.7 million is earmarked for the Timmins-James Bay area, supporting 12 projects that will improve the social and economic prosperity of the region through investments in youth-related initiatives, broadband expansion across the region, and community economic development projects (see attached information sheet).

“Today’s announcement is an investment in the future of our region and reinforces the vital role FedNor has played, and continues to play, in the revitalization of Northern Ontario’s economy,” stated Timmins Mayor, Tom Laughren. “FedNor’s investment will allow Timmins and surrounding areas to take concrete steps to ensure that our region remains competitive, helping us to grow and allowing us to capitalize on emerging opportunities."

As outlined in Budget 2007, Canada’s New Government is creating competitive advantages for a stronger economy by reducing Canada’s debt, lowering the taxes on hard-working families, helping Canadian businesses compete globally, and making unprecedented investments in the infrastructure that connects the nation.

Today’s announcement supports FedNor’s strategic approach to helping Northern communities transition to a knowledge-based economy. More specifically, FedNor is meeting key Northern priorities, including: helping young graduates find full-time employment through FedNor’s Youth Internship Program; ensuring that Northern communities have access to broadband so that residents can take advantage of the latest e-learning and tele-health initiatives; providing access to capital and advice for small business owners and entrepreneurs; developing an innovation capacity for medical and resource-based research; supporting trade networks to link Northern products and services to international markets; and facilitating marketing partnerships between tourism operators to attract new visitors to Northern Ontario.

By supporting the residents of Timmins-James Bay through its programs and services, FedNor is opening doors and building futures for a prosperous Northern Ontario.

To find out more about FedNor, visit us at: http://fednor.ic.gc.ca

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Erik Waddell
Press Secretary
Office of the Honourable Tony Clement
613-957-0200

Barclay Babcock
Communications Officer
FedNor
705-671-0715 or 1-877-333-6673

The last two articles in a four part series called "Reconciling with First Nations" from TheTyee.ca ...

Long Road to a Treaty
By Sandra Shields
Published: April 20, 2007 - http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/04/20/NewRelationship/

In 1867, the BC government reduced Stó:lō reserves by 92 per cent without Stó:lō consent. Justice today?

[Editor's Note: Two years ago, the government of British Columbia and First Nations leaders laid out a vision for a "New Relationship," spurring initiatives aimed at "closing the gap" between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal British Columbians. This is the second-to-last article in a Tyee Solutions Reporting Fellowship series by Sandra Shields, who is looking at steps being taken in her home community of the Fraser Valley.]

It probably happened in May. The first salmonberries would have been ripening along the creeks draining into the Fraser and the last eulachon would soon be headed upriver to spawn. Queen Victoria was not there, though her birthday was the occasion. She was over in England, mid-way through her long reign. Throughout the 1860s, her birthday was a time when Stó:lō chiefs and their families from up and down the mighty river gathered at New Westminster to meet with representatives of the Queen who had claimed their territory as her own. On this occasion, speeches were traded back and forth and the colonial governor made a promise on behalf of the Queen.

Keith Thor Carlson (http://www.usask.ca/history/faculty_kcarlson.shtml) is a professor of history at the University of Saskatchewan and first became intrigued by this promise when he was working as a treaty advisor for Stó:lō Nation.

"The Stó:lō have this story," he explains, "that says: We did not fight you, we did not cause problems for you when your settlers moved into our territory, because we were under the impression that you would be compensating us according to a standardized formula that we thought was very fair."

The promise went like this: when lands outside their reserves were sold, the Stó:lō would receive a third of the proceeds, B.C. would receive a third, and the Queen would receive a third.

"One of the things that I think is impressive about the oral history is the consistency of it," Carlson says. "A couple of different families have slightly different versions -- one says a quarter, one says a third -- but that's not important, all the basic parts are consistent and unchanging."

Revising history

"The irony is that it's the written culture that is inconsistent and is constantly trying to go back and revise and ignore its own text," he says.

"There was this important book that was published called Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question (http://miva.crownpub.bc.ca/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CTB&Product_Code=005-820&Category_Code=CP-02-01-01). It was published way back in 1875. The Opposition party in the province was looking for a way to get elected and they latched onto this issue of Indian title. They said: you know we've got a lot of disgruntled Indians in this province and they say they've been wrong done by. So the Opposition party commissioned an archivist to go in and collect all the papers that related to the Indian land question in the archives of the province and put them together in a book form. The Opposition promptly got elected and when they realized how much it would cost to follow through on what they had promised, they took that book and pulled it from the bookstores and refused to issue any further editions. So you have Stó:lō people, right up until the 1920s, two generations later saying: We would like a copy of this book, we know it exists, we know it justifies our oral history. But by this time the Opposition was the government and they wouldn't do it. These things are easy to document, they're well known historical facts."

Carlson offers another example. Originally the Stó:lō had relatively big reserves. "A few years later when the government came in and reduced the reserves, they said: You don't need big reserves because you are fishermen and you have this lucrative fish economy. The Stó:lō were selling fish to white people and making all kinds of money from it. So no sooner had they shrunk the reserves than the government changed the laws in the 1880s and said: You can no longer sell fish that are caught in the river, only fish caught in the ocean can be sold, and the fish you do catch can only be used for personal consumption or ceremonial purposes."

Carlson has spent years studying the oral and written history of Aboriginal-colonial relations in the Fraser Valley. When it comes to treaties, he knows where he stands.

"The sad thing here," he says, "is that the Stó:lō are asking us to live up to our laws. They're not saying that for you to come here you have to live up to Stó:lō laws. They're saying: We understand that you have laws that protect our rights and we're asking you to live up to your laws."

Coles notes on treaties

Today, the Stó:lō, like most First Nations in B.C., still lack formal written agreements with the governments that assumed control of their territory. There is a bit of folk wisdom that says that if you don't deal with your problems, they go down to the basement and pump weights. On an issue where disagreement is the norm, it is safe to say that the B.C. government did not make the work of negotiating treaties any easier by ignoring it for over a century.

In undertaking this series, I was curious to learn more about the negotiations going on in my corner of the Fraser Valley. Was a treaty imminent? How might it affect the whole community? What was the place of treaties in the "New Relationship"?

If you find yourself confused by treaties, you're not alone. Treaties between Aboriginal people and newcomers have a long contested history that has created volumes of case law. Amidst all the legal jargon, it can be easy to miss the drama of treaty negotiations as they continue to build, as any good plot must, to a still uncertain outcome.

Next week, this series explores what is happening with treaties and asks what the future might look like once they are in place. But treaties can only be understood by looking to the past, so what follows is a short primer on key events that have led to the strange embrace that B.C. and Aboriginal people find ourselves in today.

1763: Rules for colonizing

The promise made to the Stó:lō was in keeping with Britain and Canada's approach to relations with Aboriginal people. Common law was made explicit in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 when King George III declared that only the Crown could acquire lands from First Nations and that all purchases must be agreed to in open negotiations. Accordingly, across the rest of Canada, treaties were entered into that saw Aboriginal people give up title to the land in exchange for reserves and various other promises.

BC: A law unto itself

With a few exceptions, the powers that be in B.C. never got around to negotiating with Aboriginal people to acquire their land. One of the reasons: lack of funds. Another: lack of public support.

1858 -- The mainland became a colony; there was a gold rush going on and instead of negotiating treaties, Governor Douglas went ahead and laid out reserves.

1867 -- The B.C. government reduced Stó:lō reserves by 92 per cent without Stó:lō consent. This was consistent with what became B.C.'s position of denying that Aboriginal people ever owned the land and refusing to pay compensation for loss of lands and resources.

1871 -- B.C. became part of Canada and continued to maintain its no-treaty policy for more than 100 years.

1876: Indian Act

This act of Parliament dismantled traditional governance systems and made Aboriginal people wards of the federal government living on reserve land, which was owned by the federal government. They did not have the right to vote, own property or purchase alcohol. (In B.C., title of Indian reserves was not transferred from the province to the federal government until 1938.)

1884 -- Indian Act was amended to include "anti-potlatch law" which made it illegal for Aboriginal people to gather together for any kind of ceremony where gifts were given out.

Nisga'a: First modern treaty

It was a court case that finally changed the B.C. government's no-treaty position. The Nisga'a people of the Nass Valley had been petitioning to have their land rights recognized for generations before they took B.C. to court.

1887 -- Nisga'a chiefs traveled to Victoria to press for treaties and self-government.

1913 -- Nisga'a filed formal claim to the Nass Valley.

1967 -- Nisga'a chiefs launched a case against B.C. seeking recognition of their Aboriginal title to the Nass River Valley where they had fished and hunted for thousands of years.

1973 -- The Supreme Court of Canada found that Aboriginal rights are recognized under Canadian law but the judges were split on whether those rights had been extinguished in B.C.

Within months the federal government announced it would seek to settle land claims in parts of Canada where treaties were never signed. The federal government and the Nisga'a began to negotiate but the B.C. government maintained its no-treaty position. With B.C. holding most of the Crown land in the province, the process was doomed without B.C.'s participation. Throughout the 1980s protests and blockades became a feature of life in the province.

1990 -- In a break with B.C.'s longstanding denial of Aboriginal rights, Premier Bill Vander Zalm sent negotiators to join talks underway between the federal government and the Nisga'a.

1999 -- B.C. and Canada ratify the final agreement leading to the Nisga'a treaty.

2000 -- The Nisga'a treaty becomes law.

BC treaty process (part 1)

1990 -- The current B.C. treaty process grew out of the Nisga'a negotiations. First Nations leaders met with Canada and B.C. and asked for a task force to develop a process for modern treaty negotiations in B.C. The B.C. Claims Task Force was established.

1991 -- The B.C. Claims Task Force report (http://www.aaf.gov.bc.ca/aaf/pubs/bcctf/toc.htm) recommended that First Nations, Canada and B.C. establish a new relationship "based on mutual trust, respect and understanding" -- through political negotiations.

1992 -- The BC Treaty Commission (http://www.bctreaty.net/) was established as an independent body to monitor adherence to the recommendations of the task force.

The six-step treaty process in use in B.C. today was put in place by the task force. The six stages (http://www.bctreaty.net/files/sixstages.php) are a way of organizing the complex series of discussions and documents that ultimately result in a treaty.

In the Constitution

1982 -- Section 35 of the Constitution Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/index.html) recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights and treaty rights, both existing and those that may yet be acquired.

Back in court

1997 -- In the landmark Delgamuukw decision (http://www.delgamuukw.org/), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Aboriginal title is a right to the land itself, not just the right to hunt and fish and gather. The decision confirmed that Aboriginal title does exist in B.C. and that when dealing with Crown land, the government must consult with and may have to compensate First Nations. The court strongly urged governments and First Nations to negotiate rather than litigate. The Chief Justice pointed out that litigation is costly and divisive and said the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal, duty to negotiate in good faith. The decision ended with the often quoted words: "Let us face it, we are all here to stay."

November 2004 -- The Supreme Court ruled on two cases: one involving the Haida Nation and the other the Taku River Tlingit First Nations. In both cases, the court confirmed that government must consult and possibly accommodate the interest of First Nations before proceeding with development on their traditional territory, even where Aboriginal title has not been proven. This duty is an interim measure prior to the question of rights being addressed in treaty or in court.

Campbell vs. Nisga'a

The Nisga'a treaty met with a great deal of opposition. In particular, the B.C. Liberal party under Gordon Campbell took the treaty to court.

1999 -- The B.C. Liberal party (Leader of the Opposition Gordon Campbell, along with Geoff Plant and Mike de Jong) brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Nisga'a Treaty.

2000 -- The B.C. Supreme Court ruled against the B.C. Liberal party and found that the Nisga'a treaty is constitutionally valid and that self-government is a constitutionally protected Aboriginal right.

2001 -- B.C. Liberal party was elected, Gordon Campbell became premier and the legal challenge to the Nisga'a treaty decision was dropped.

Campbell's 180

April 2002 -- Following through on an election promise, the B.C. Liberals held a referendum (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/05/15/bc_referendum020515.html) asking voters whether they agreed or disagreed with eight questions regarding treaty settlements. The questions dealt with legal positions regarding property, governance, resources and tax issues. Critics charged the questions circumvented and contradicted court decisions and were designed to give the province leverage in treaty talks. Ballots were returned by 36 per cent of eligible voters (7 per cent of those were spoiled).

February 2003 -– B.C. throne speech (http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/nrm_news_releases/2003OTP0009-000153.htm) embraced the concept of reconciliation, declared an end to denial and pledged to take serious steps to undo the damage caused to Aboriginal people.

September 2003 -- First Nations Summit - http://www.fns.bc.ca/ (representing Aboriginal people in the treaty process) stated it was time for B.C. to pull itself out of colonial times, and presented "Framework for Recognition and Reconciliation" to Premier Campbell.

November 2004 -- Decisions in the Haida and Taku River cases confirmed that government must consult and possibly accommodate the interest of First Nations before proceeding with economic activities on Crown land.

February 2005 -- Premier Campbell acknowledged that the provincial consultation policy was not working and expressed an interest in "doing it right" this time. He committed to openly discuss how to establish a new relationship.

New Relationship

March 2005 -- First Nations leaders came together in a historic accord between Union of BC Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit and BC Assembly of First Nations. The province began meeting with this leadership council and a joint vision statement, "The New Relationship," was released to reduce uncertainty, litigation and conflict.

June 2005 -- B.C.'s Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/channel.do?action=ministry&channelID=-536896053&navId=NAV_ID_province) is formed.

February 2006 -- Speech from the throne declares that "British Columbia is determined to lead Canada and walk the path together to lasting reconciliation."

March 2006 -- First Nations New Relationship Trust Fund announced with $100 Million for First Nations capacity building. Shawn Atleo with BC Assembly of First Nations said, "Undoubtedly we are at a turning point in our journey towards reconciliation...."

May 2006 -- Premier's Statement on the New Relationship with Aboriginal People: "We have seen the consequences of Canada's collective political failures to its first citizens. We know the toll it has taken on Aboriginal children and families -- and there are no more excuses. We have seen the consequences of shattered hope spawned by over a century of betrayal, denial and negligence by governments of every stripe. There are no more excuses. We have seen the consequences of confrontation, litigation and opportunities lost. We know too well the consequences of frustration, anger, mistrust and despair. There are no more excuses."

BC treaty process (part 2)

The "New Relationship" makes no mention of treaties and has resulted in a growing number of interim agreements designed to (1) address the socio-economic gap and (2) provide a degree of certainty for economic activities on Crown land. Some commentators have speculated that the interim agreement approach may eclipse treaties altogether. In November 2006, the Auditor General of Canada's report (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20061107ce.html) stated that the B.C. treaty process "is important to all Canadians," and criticized the cost, pace and lack of results. About 60 per cent of First Nations in B.C. are in the treaty process, but as yet, no treaties have resulted. By the end of 2006, three final agreements had been initialed. In order to move forward to treaty, final agreements must be accepted by community members through a ratification vote.

October 29, 2006 -- The first final agreement (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/11/08/bc-treaty.html) reached under the B.C. treaty process was initialed by the Lheidli T'enneh near Prince George.

December 8, 2006 -- The second final agreement (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/12/08/tsawwassen-treaty.html) reached under the treaty process was initialed by the Tsawwassen First Nation.

December 9, 2006 -- The third final agreement (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/09/bc-treaty.html) reached under the treaty process was initialed by the Maa-nulth First Nations on Vancouver Island.

March 30, 2007 -- In the Lheidli T'enneh ratification vote, community members voted 123 against the final agreement and 111 in favour.

July 25, 2007 -- Tsawwassen First Nation scheduled to vote on ratification.

Fall 2007 -- Maa-nulth First Nations scheduled to vote on ratification.

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

At the Table - A 'new relationship' perhaps, but Stó:lō frustrations are mounting.

Last in a series.
By Sandra Shields
Published: April 27, 2007 - http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/04/27/Reconciliation/

[Editor's Note: Two years ago, the government of British Columbia and First Nations leaders laid out a vision for a "New Relationship," spurring initiatives aimed at "closing the gap" between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal British Columbians. This is the last article in a five-part Tyee Solutions Reporting Fellowship series by Sandra Shields, who is looking at steps being taken in her home community of the Fraser Valley. To learn more about Shields, her series and Tyee fellowships, go here. http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/03/30/Reconcile/]

Chief Alice Thompson of the Leq'á:mél First Nation has no trouble finding the farm where I live. When she was a girl, she picked raspberries here in the summer. Many locals remember spending hot days amid the raspberry canes in these fields. The berries are gone now, as is the couple who came from Europe after World War II, cleared the fields and built this farmhouse where, on an overcast spring day, Thompson and I sit down for a conversation.

Before completing this series, I wanted to learn how the B.C. treaty process is affecting this out-of-the-way corner of the Fraser Valley. After more than a decade of slow progress ("like watching paint dry" as Grand Chief Clarence Pennier once described it), treaty making in B.C. got interesting last October.

The week before Halloween saw the signing of the first final agreement -- a 200-page document that needed only community approval by the Lheidli T'enneh to become a treaty ready for acceptance by the B.C. legislature and the Canadian Parliament. That same week the leaders of more than 40 communities involved in the treaty process gathered in Nanaimo to sign a "unity protocol." (http://wwww.ubcic.bc.ca/files/PDF/UnityProtocol.pdf) They were all encountering the same obstacles to settling treaties and said it was time for Canada and B.C. to change their mandates on key issues.

In November, the auditors general of Canada and B.C. released reports (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20061107xe03.html) criticizing the treaty process for costing too much and delivering too little. Within days, two more final agreements had been signed by the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth.

Treaties took a hiatus from the headlines until the end of March when the Lheidli T'enneh surprised the province by voting not to accept their final agreement. A week later, the unity protocol hit the news again. Now half the nations in treaty negotiations were pressing Canada and B.C. to fix the treaty process and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, historically opposed to treaty, had passed a resolution in support of the protocol.

Treaties in B.C. seem to be moving through a critical make-or-break year. In this final piece, I was interested in connecting the dots between the provincial headlines and the place that Chief Alice Thompson and I both call home. The dots led to Mike Harcourt, the former premier of B.C. who is about to leave the Treaty Commission after four years of facilitating treaties. The dots also led to Robert Morales, spokesperson for the nations that have signed the unity protocol. But the dots began in my living room with Leq'á:mél Chief Alice Thompson.

Getting past paternalism

You could say Alice Thompson was born to politics. Her dad was chief when she was a toddler, and by the time she was a teenager, her mom was into a 20-year stint as chief. Over the years, Thompson has been band manager and served on council. She was elected last spring and took on the challenge of leading a growing community in uncertain times.

"Unofficially we have 400 members," she says, "and the majority of our population is under 30." She explains that many of their youth grew up with parents who had low self esteem and it's become an intergenerational problem.

"My struggle always is how do we encourage our youth to believe in themselves. A lot of people say their future is in our hands; I believe my future is in their hands. I don't think they realize how much power they have."

Thompson and the Leq'á:mél council have made it a priority to engage community members, young and old. "We are struggling to get out of that paternalism of the past," she says. "My belief has always been that in order for us to succeed we need to have community participation. We can't go around all the time telling people what they need, we need to hear from the community what they need and how we can go about making it happen."

Is the provincial government's new relationship with First Nations helping out? "I think it's dissipating before it even reaches the ground," Thompson says. "The words in the New Relationship document, they're shiny, they look good on paper, but unless they're in motion they don't mean anything." Instead, she finds herself trying to build capacity while grappling with Indian Affairs programs that fail to meet the needs of her community.

"There are just so many areas that need attention," she says. As well as dealing with everything from reserve infrastructure to social programs, cultural activities and economic development, she is increasingly pulled away from community work to deal with external issues. Consultation on forestry matters is ongoing, there is the pressing issue of the dykes along the Fraser, and a major upgrade of transmission lines has the band involved in urgent meetings with BC Hydro.

Together with the band council, Thompson has been making efforts to reach out to the local community, attending regional district meetings and connecting with the city council in nearby Mission. She is heartened by the way the Leq'á:mél community centre has become a hub where people from outside the band feel comfortable.

As for treaty, Thompson says, "It's been a long haul and we've still got a long haul to go." The Leq'á:mél joined the treaty process in 1994 as part of the Stó:lō Nation alliance. A few years ago, the alliance fractured and treaty talks were suspended. Recently, seven of the bands (with a combined membership of about 1,200 people), returned to the table with the ambitious agenda of completing an agreement-in-principle (or AIP) by April 2008.

"We did at one point think about pulling back and going on our own, but it would just be too overwhelming," Thompson says. Sharing the cost is an advantage, as is the opportunity to share resources and knowledge, and to be able to discuss issues.

"I've always said we need to be in charge of our own destination and that translates over to self government." She remembers bringing the subject up in the 1980s when her mom was still chief. "My mom said: What are you talking about?! She was almost mad at me. She said it would never happen -- not in her lifetime."

Twenty years later, Thompson has just helped wrap up the governance chapter of the Stó:lō Nation AIP. If everything goes according to plan, that chapter will become part of the treaty that will enable the Leq'á:mél to move out from under the Indian Act and begin to govern themselves.

The big thumb

The amount of work involved in modern treaty making is staggering. While Thompson and others participate in working groups where chapters are drafted, Chief Joe Hall, president of Stó:lō Nation, is on the four-person team that sits down and does the actual negotiating with Canada and B.C.

"As much as we'd like to believe these treaties are about negotiating a new relationship that will allow us to co-exist," he says, "the governments' approach often demonstrates that for them it is more of a devolution and a liability prevention exercise." Basically, it's about covering the Queen's butt.

Still, he finds the process exciting. "I call the Indian Act the big thumb," he says. "The notion that we can get out from under the Indian Act in the not-too-distant future certainly has its attractions."

"If it's a good treaty, then down the road you will see the health and welfare of communities improve. Lower unemployment, lower social assistance, lower health problems, longer lifespan, a self-generating economy. Those would all be hallmarks of a good treaty."

A critical part of the process, he says, is community outreach to ensure members participate in discussions about the treaty process. "The constituents who are going to be voting on the treaty, they have to be knowledgeable. We want to make sure they understand all facets of the treaty. There are going to be areas of give and take, there's going to be mitigation, and if they don't understand the mitigation that was involved, then all they see is that 100 per cent of our desires haven't been met."

How is the mood at the table since talks resumed? "We're still in the honeymoon stage," he says. "We have been dealing with process issues like dispute resolution and the ratification process, but we all recognize that on the horizon there are some substantive issues that are going to be difficult and they could be potential show stoppers."

Other First Nations have been running into the same show-stoppers and Stó:lō Nation joined them in signing the unity protocol asking the governments for a joint table to discuss solutions.

"Right now, the biggest obstacle to treaties is the mandate that the federal and provincial negotiators bring to the table," Hall says. "The unity protocol is an effort to try and work together as a whole rather than work at individual tables. There seem to be some watershed issues here and once we come to a resolution that is going to work, then we'll see these treaties flow a lot more quickly."

Unity table

When I talk to Robert Morales, our conversation is punctuated by the sound of the BC Ferries' horn. Morales is traveling from his home in the Cowichan to the mainland to meet with First Nations and business leaders about fixing what his recent news release called the "crumbling treaty process."

Morales has spent six years as the chief negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num treaty group (http://www.hulquminum.bc.ca/). He is also the chair of the Chief Negotiators Forum for the First Nations Summit (http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/Unity_NR_AGreportsDec0106.pdf). He moved into the spotlight last October with the unity protocol.

The unity group is asking government to engage them collectively to find mutually acceptable positions on six complex and contentious issues at the heart of treaty making: certainty, constitutional status of treaty lands, governance, co-management of traditional territories, fiscal relations and taxation, and fisheries.

To date, B.C.'s approach to treaties has been more divide-and-conquer. "If you read the attorney general's report for B.C.," Morales says, "they were quite critical about B.C.'s approach of using the lead tables, Lheidli T'enneh, Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth, to develop the policy."

The reverse approach was taken in the Yukon where treaty negotiations began with discussions that included all First Nations and resulted in an umbrella agreement (http://www.theyukon.ca/dbs/cyfn/dyncat.cfm?catid=77) covering key issues like land, compensation, self-government and co-management of resources. The umbrella agreement became the framework within which each nation could create its own final settlement.

"In B.C. the first agreement off the ground becomes the umbrella agreement for the whole province," says Morales, "so whichever one of those agreements gets ratified becomes the umbrella agreement for everybody else. We didn't have any input into it. It is just not acceptable."

Another concern raised in the auditor general's report is that government mandates are set by bureaucrats who remain behind the scenes and are not up to speed on the new relationship. The report called treaty negotiations "one of the most controlled and inflexible processes in the federal government." A unity table where the chief negotiators come together with high-level government officials would be a way to bypass this inflexible process and create what Morales calls "a real negotiating decision-making process." One with "compromise on all sides."

"Our challenge as First Nations," he says, "is to come up with a common vision on those six issues." Not an easy thing, he points out, when dealing with the diverse opinions and circumstances of 60 First Nations. "What I expect we will end up with is two or three policy positions on each of the key issues so there is some opportunity to choose." This multiple choice approach would offer both governments and First Nations room for give and take.

Does Morales still believe in treaties? "If we expect to resolve the land question and overcome our present socio-economic position, then I think treaty is a worthwhile process," he says. "It is probably the only process that will get us there. We can piecemeal it, which is the new relationship approach, getting little bits of certainty here and there for five or 10 years but then you're back to the drawing boards again."

He points out that the process is expensive for First Nations and they would like to get on with it. Many First Nations, Morales says, would like to see treaties settled before the 2010 Olympics.

"If the government keeps putting it off, then I suspect the costs will just continue to escalate. I think everyone loses if we can't resolve this."

Harcourt on treaties

Mike Harcourt has been a supporter of treaty making in B.C. since his days as a law student. When he became premier in 1991, one of the first things he did was sign the document that set up the treaty process. Four years ago, after a remarkable recovery from a near-fatal fall, Harcourt came full circle as the federal appointee to the BC Treaty Commission (http://www.bctreaty.net/) where one of the tables he facilitated was Stó:lō Nation. Harcourt is leaving the Treaty Commission in two weeks, so this seemed an auspicious time for a conversation about treaties.

When we speak on the phone early one morning, Harcourt says that BC's relationship with First Nations was the issue that got him out of the mayor's chair and into provincial politics. As mayor of Vancouver from 1980 to 1986, Harcourt watched confrontation and bitterness increase across the province. "I was getting frustrated that we weren't acknowledging that Aboriginal rights and title existed and that we needed to sit down and negotiate."

He is heartened by how things have changed, but believes the relationship with First Nations people is still the key issue in B.C. He advocates patience, pointing out that the old relationship, "which didn't work for anybody," was 150 years old. "We're into a new phase," he says. "It's new and it's tender and we're still in trial and error."

What about the unity protocol? "I think the Commission can play a role there in terms of dialogue and information exchange about the points that have been raised and whether they can be worked out on a province-wide basis."

He says that not only is signing treaties the right thing to do, it comes with huge economic benefits for both First Nations and B.C. He estimates that $150 to 200 billion will flow through the provincial economy in the next two decades as a result of treaties.

Are we ready?

For several years now, Harcourt has been asking whether we are ready for treaties and answering his own question with a resounding No. There is much to be done, he says, if we want to prevent crash landings once treaties are signed.

"The province has got to get its co-management regime in place and make it do-able," Harcourt says. And together with the feds and First Nations, B.C. must get on with closing the socio-economic gap.

The federal government "has got to get ready to dismantle Indian Affairs out here in an orderly way." Under the present system First Nations are drowning in paper. "The Attorney General Sheila Fraser did a review. She was shocked and reported that the average First Nation, which is 500 people with probably five to 10 leaders doing all the work, has to prepare 162 different reports every year to the federal government."

First Nations face "huge challenges" to be ready, and Harcourt identifies three key things. "First, they've got to do a long-term vision through a comprehensive community plan (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/bc/proser/fna/ccp/ccp_e.html)," he says. He is excited about the results of a recent pilot project the Treaty Commission helped facilitate and sees these plans as the foundation for successful self governance. Second on his list is the need to develop a government structure to replace the band council which is really a service-delivery body. And third is the need to build the human capacity to carry out these responsibilities.

Municipalities need to ante up, too, and Harcourt says the last five years have seen some municipalities take the lead on finding ways to share services and infrastructure with their Aboriginal neighbors.

"Business has got to up its game to genuine joint ventures and partnerships with First Nations." And he doesn't let the public off the hook either, stressing that the work of "cross-cultural understanding" must continue.

His final message? "I remain optimistic because I think we're going to do it, but more importantly, we have to do it. We have to have the new relationship and treaties are a huge means towards that end."

Back on the ground

Whatever unfolds over the next six months, 2007 seems set to become a watershed year in the history of treaty-making in B.C. The outcome will have significant implications for every one of us, even though the complex drama playing out in the headlines remains far away from most of our daily lives.

In concluding this series I returned to Leq'á:mél territory for a conversation closer to the ground, this one at my picnic table with a friendly young man sporting a grim reaper tattoo on one brawny shoulder and a clown on the other. Jason Glover is 20 years old and graduated from high school in 2005. He works for Stó:lō Nation doing cultural tours in the Coqualeetza longhouse and says his mom, Chief Alice Thompson, is his biggest role model.

He grew up on the Leq'á:mél reserve. "When I was a kid this was a really good place to live," he says. "Everyone was so together and you could always depend on each other. But over the years with drugs and alcohol and the effects of residential school being passed from the parents who went to residential school on to their kids and on to their kids' kids, eventually it just sent our reserve into a downward spiral. Now if you don't have your car parked right beside your dog, your gas tank might be empty in the morning."

Why does he choose to stay? "This home needs more people to fight for it," he says and adds that even though there are conflicts between families, whenever there is an emergency everyone comes together. He'd like to see the community get back to being that way all the time.

How does he feel about treaties? "There is a negative vibe to treaty," he says. "The treaties today are a lot different from the old ones in the rest of Canada, and sure someone's flashing a high million in your face, but I still don't think much of treaty and it's going to stay that way until the federal and provincial governments can prove that they're going to continue to work alongside First Nations fairly."

He is angry about what has happened to his people, and says that many of the youth in his generation are angry too. "I try to control it because I know if it comes out the wrong way, it's not going to benefit anybody." Lots of things make him angry. The way some of the teachers he had in school expected First Nations students to fail. The way in the summer you can't see across the river because of the smog from Vancouver. The way that when people drive past skid row, the first person they point at is the First Nations person.

Last year in a geography course at UCFV, he encountered a non-Aboriginal professor and another student who "saw things the way First Nations do."

"I was just blown away," he says. "It's been so rare to hear non-Native people talking like Native people have been talking for the past 100 years. It's a relief. It's reassuring to know that someone outside of our community cares."

The experience made him feel like things might be slowly turning around. "As time goes on First Nations communities and non-First Nations communities are going to end up having to walk together on the same path," he says, "and why not try and learn something from each other so we can walk together in a positive way? That's the idea of the new relationship, I think, being able to walk forward together."

A long walk

Last fall, I walked out my back door to explore whether a new relationship with Aboriginal people was unfolding in the Fraser Valley. The ensuing journey was often as sobering as it was hopeful. As the Delgamuukw decision says: "We are all here to stay." And as Jason Glover said at the picnic table in my backyard: "It's going to be a long walk to get First Nations and newcomers to see eye to eye."

The much-needed systemic change promised by treaties remains in the future, and the pain of the past continues to color many lives, but out here in Leq'á:mél territory, I think the ground beneath our feet is beginning to shift.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, in response to a question from  Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP) about CAP ...

Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that this government has ensured that the community access program will be funded for 2007-08. Once the details are finalized we will provide information to the CAP recipients about CAP operations for 2007-08.

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government is going to finalize it some time this year. The groups will be interested.

++++++++++

Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP) press release ...
 
BERNIER MUST REINSTATE COMMUNITY INTERNET ACCESS: NDP - Vital literacy and job skills program expired four weeks ago

OTTAWA - The Conservative government is again using delay and secrecy to weaken an important program that assists vulnerable Canadians and communities, said NDP Literacy Advocate Denise Savoie (Victoria). Savoie reiterated her insistence that Industry Minister Maxime Bernier publicly confirm the status and budget for the now-expired Community Access Program (CAP).

The program, which expired on March 31st, supports the provision of Internet access to low-income, unemployed and homeless Canadians at over 4,000 community sites across Canada.

"For the most vulnerable Canadians who do not own a computer or
have access to the Internet at home or in their workplace, CAP is the only way to access online resources that can lead to training, employment, and a better life," said Savoie.

Savoie expressed concern that the delay could cover up a funding cut for the second consecutive year.

"Last year they snuck a $6 million cut into the Supplementary
Estimates, and this year they*re three weeks late announcing their plans," said Savoie. "The 2007-08 Main Estimates refer to "significant reductions" in the program, but the Minister refuses to come clean with his budget."

Savoie expressed concern that CAP could receive the same treatment as the Summer Career Placement Program, which was delayed for months this year before re-appearing with lower funding as the re-branded Canada Summer Jobs.

They've had months to complete their review of CAP and re-brand the program to make it look like they created it from scratch, said Savoie. How long does it take to come up with a new name and re-paint the pamphlets Conservative blue?
  
Ed Gillis
Legislative and Communications Assistant
Denise Savoie, MP (Victoria)
Tel: (613) 947-4424  
Fax: (613) 952-1458 
www.denisesavoie.ca

Anishinabek Nation Press release ... APRIL 24, 2007
 
Federal study validates proposed new Anishinabek Nation law
 
NIPISSING FIRST NATION, MEDIA RELEASE--(CCNMatthews - April 24, 2007) - The principles of the first modern Anishinabek Nation law are validated by key recommendations of a newly released federal report on Matrimonial Real property.

"It took an exhaustive and expensive federal study to prove what we have known all along," said Grand Council Chief John Beaucage. "Our people know best how to govern ourselves."

A national consultation process, launched last year by Indian Affairs Minister James Prentice, released its 500-page report today, including recommendations that First Nations develop their own laws and enforcement processes dealing with Matrimonial Real Property issues.

"This is exactly in line with the Anishinabek Nation position," Beaucage said. "We have proposed a template to help our communities to create their own local regulations designed by and for their citizens."

The Grand Council Chief said his office was still analyzing other aspects of the federal report, tabled today by ministerial representative Wendy Grant-John, that deal with proposed establishment of interim federal rules that would allow the courts to make orders regarding possession of homes on reserve.

The draft Anishinabek Nation law - designed to govern and protect the interests of spouses and families in the event of a marriage dissolution - was endorsed March 23 by representatives of the 42 Anishinabek member First Nations at a special assembly in Sault Ste. Marie. The draft law was developed after an intense schedule of nine consultation meetings held across Anishinabek Nation territory over a 40-day period this spring. Final ratification of the law is expected to take place at the Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Assembly at Alderville First Nation in June. Under the terms of the proposed law, member First Nations will have one year to pass community regulations, based on the framework provided in the nation's law.

The Anishinabek Nation incorporated the Union of Ontario Indians as its secretariat in 1949. The UOI is a political advocate for 42 member First Nations across Ontario. The Union of Ontario Indians is the oldest political organization in Ontario and can trace its roots back to the Confederacy of Three Fires, which existed long before European contact.
 
CONTACT INFORMATION 

Bob Goulais, Executive Assistant to the Grand Council Chief, Union of Ontario Indians
Primary Phone: 705-497-9127 ext. 2249
Secondary Phone: 705-498-5250
E-mail: goubob@anishinabek.ca

An Open Letter to all the supporters of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug ...

I am Chief of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, the people of Big Trout Lake.

We are a First Nation community located in what is called Northwestern Ontario. We live in the boreal forest and are fighting in the Canadian legal system to strike down the antiquated, anti-environmental and disrespectful mining regime in Ontario.  We write to ask for your financial support in our struggle. 

The case is already of critical importance to environmental and aboriginal law and policy in Ontario and throughout Canada, and with your help, we can effect even more historic, significant and positive change. 

In February 2006, a junior mining exploration company unilaterally came onto our lands to begin a drilling exploration program, despite our moratorium on such activity. When we protested the drilling, the company pulled out and sued us for $10 billion and an injunction.  We believe this is the largest amount of money a First Nation has ever been sued for in Canada.  If we were to give every penny of our annual budget over to this company, it would take us until the year 3498 to pay it off.

I do know that we, the people of Big Trout Lake, have been entrusted by our ancestors to care for this land.  We stated in unison,  “No, Not on our land and not like this.” This action perpetuated by external forces is an unconstitutional violation of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, not only for K.I,. but for First Nations across Canada.  

We have already had some success in the Canadian courts, winning a temporary injunction against the company.  In it’s decision, the Court stated that “the relationship that Aboriginal peoples have with the land cannot be understated.  The land is the very essence of their being.  It is their very heart and soul.  No amount of money cannot compensate for its loss.  Aboriginal identity, spirituality, laws, traditions, culture, and rights are connected to and arise from this relationship to the land.” 

These judicial pronouncements have resonated far and wide, and set a new threshold in Canadian law.  But the fight is far from over.  To have the court strike down the mining act, to put a stop to free entry, and to prevent the destruction of the environment, we have to go to trial.  And that takes money, money that we don’t have.

Much is at stake - for all First Nations and all Canadians - in this already historic case.  I ask that you do what you can to assist us with funding. Our ability to advance the case depends in large part on our ability to raise funds through the generosity of people like yourselves.

Financial contributions can be made at the following:
 
                        Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug
                        Kanawayandan D’aaki Legal Fund
                        Account Number 22-07117
                        Transit Number  00387
                        CIBC, Sioux Lookout, Ontario

Please contact me directly if you would like to discuss any details of the legal action or anything about our community.  Thank you in advance for your financial assistance in this important and historic fight.

Chief Donny I Morris