Media.Knet.Ca

The PEOPLE will decide!

The Aboriginal Peoples Choice (APC) Music Awards at http://aboriginalpeopleschoice.com

The APC Music Awards is the only event where you, the fans, have the opportunity to choose which artist will be honoured in each category. Be a part of Canadian Aboriginal music history — sign up today to cast your vote.

This national inaugural event will be held Friday, November 3, 2006, at the MTS Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba during the Manito Ahbee Aboriginal Festival (www.manitoahbee.com).

DEADLINES

• Artist Submissions - July 31, 2006
• Online Voting Begins - August 7, 2006
• 1ST Round of Voting Ends - September 7, 2006
• 3 to 5 Nominees Announced for Each Catagory - September 13, 2006
• Final Voting Begins - September 13, 2006
• Last Round of Voting Closes - October 13, 2006

RULES AND REGULATIONS

23 categories will be available for artists and industry people to submit. There must be a minimum of 3 submissions in order for each category to be adjudicated. 3 to 5 nominees for each eligible category will be announced on September 13.

Song or CD must have been released in the last 2 years (for 2006 awards). Releases between June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2006 will be eligible for 2006 APC Music awards program.

1. Artist must be a Canadian citizen.

2. Artist must be Indigenous – Metis, Status, Non-Status, Inuit. Proof of ancestry is the onus of the Artist. Exception to this is for Best Aboriginal Music by Non-Aboriginal Artist Category.

3. Artist(s) CD, Song or Program must have been released/aired within the last 2 years to be eligible for the 2006 Aboriginal Peoples Choice Music Awards (June 30, 2004 to June 30, 2006).

4. Released materials must be commercially accessible. Demos are not eligible.

5. All submissions must be mailed to:
 
Aboriginal Peoples Choice Music Awards
Submissions
Lower Level – 376 Donald Street
Winnipeg, MB
R3B 2J2
 
Submissions must include a completed registration form with a Digital Media Kit (OR) CD accompanied by a 150 word artist biography with an 8X10 glossy photo.

6. Artists must complete and sign the release form, included with the entry form, granting APC permission to use submitted materials for promotion/publication purposes.

7. Submitted material will not be returned.

Click here to download your entry form at http://aboriginalpeopleschoice.com/cim/3200C5_2T62.dhtm

Chief Mike Metatawabin writes in the June 29 issue of Wawatay ... "During my time as Chief, we celebrated many successes which included ... bringing grid based electricity  ... bringing fibre optic-based communication systems to the community."

Robert Cringley writes "If we build it they will come, It's time to build our own last mile." 

This article posted at http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060629.html, caught my eye. This is precisely the Kuhkenah Network (K-Net) model that is being supported with First Nations.  The communities have the option of choosing a network vendor.  K-Net also works on that principal by attempting to allow itself the choice of internet vendors in order to give the communities the best pricing possible.  

The article in it's entirety follows.

Bob Frankston is one of the smartest people I speak to. If you don't recognize his name, Bob is best known as the programmer who wrote VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet, realizing the design of his partner, Dan Bricklin.  Bob and Dan changed the world forever with VisiCalc, the first killer app.  After a career at Lotus and eventually Microsoft, Bob would now like to change the world for the better again, this time by fixing the mess that we call the Internet.

The problem, to Bob's way of thinking, isn't the Internet per se, but the direction powerful political and business forces are attempting to take it.  Part of this can be seen in last week's column on Net Neutrality, but Bob takes it further - a LOT further - to a point where it becomes logically clear that making almost any regulation specifically to hinder OR HELP the Internet can only make things worse.  And by making it worse I mean inhibit in a severe way the growth of human knowledge, culture, and economic development.  It's just a choice between freedom and totalitarianism, simple as that

To Bob the issues surrounding Net Neutrality come down to billability and infrastructure.  While saying they are doing us favors, ISPs are really offering us services they can bill for.  Nothing is aimed at helping us, while everything is aimed at creating a billable event.  Take WiFi hotspots, for example.  Why should the telephone or cable company care about who connects to my WiFi access point?  They are my bits, not the ISP's.  I paid for them.  If I can download gigabytes of pornography why can't I share my hotspot with someone walking down the street wanting to check his e-mail?  Frankston's analogy for this is accusing someone of stealing your porch light by using it to read a street sign.

It isn't about service, it is about creating billable events, that's all.  And billable events, by definition, are things we have others do because we are unable or unwilling to do for ourselves.  So a Verizon or a Comcast does us a favor, they say, by licensing rights to a movie and allowing us to buy or rent it over the Internet.  We could buy the rights ourselves, but who would know where to even go?  And wouldn't Verizon, as a big buyer, necessarily get a better price?  When you have a preferred or exclusive provider versus a competitive marketplace, prices are always higher, not lower.  In this case the ISP isn't doing us a favor, they are forcing us to buy from them something that we might well be able to buy from someone else for a lot less.

But they need the money! After all, they spent billions bringing broadband to our homes in the first place.  Don't they deserve to be paid back for that huge investment?

My Internet service isn't free, is yours?  I'm paying Comcast every month and from what I can glean from the company's annual report, they seem to be making a profit from my business.  Is it enough of a profit?  Well they'd always like more, but the current return must be good enough because they keep my bits flowing.

To Bob Frankston's way of thinking this all comes down to who owns the infrastructure.  The phone and cable companies own the wire outside our homes but we own the wire inside. (It didn't used to be that way, you know. There was a time when the phone company owned the wire in our walls even though we paid for its purchase and installation.)  The Internet has been a huge success to date specifically because nobody much controls the electrons.  This is as opposed to services like broadcasting where some perceived scarcity of spectrum allowed governments to determine who could give or sell us entertainment and information.  The ISPs (by which I mean telcos and cable companies) would very much like to go back to that sort of system, where they, not you, are the provider and determinant of what bits are good bits and what bits are bad.

No thanks.

Frankston points out that we build and finance public infrastructure in a public way using public funds with the goal of benefiting economic, social, and cultural development in our communities.  So why not do the same with the Internet, which is an information infrastructure?  Well we did that, didn't we, with the National Information Infrastructure program of the 1990s, which was intended to bring fiber straight to most American homes?  About $200 billion in tax credits and incentives went primarily to telephone companies participating in the NII program.  What happened with that?  They took the money, that's what, and gave us little or nothing in return.

But just because the highway contractor ran off with the money without finishing the road doesn't mean we can go without roads.  It DOES mean, however, that we ought not to buy another road from that particular contractor.

The obvious answer is for regular folks like you and me to own our own last mile Internet connection.  This idea, which Frankston supports, is well presented by Bill St. Arnaud in a presentation you'll find among this week's links. (Bill is senior director of advanced networks with CANARIE, which is responsible for the coordination and implementation of Canada's next generation optical Internet initiative.) The idea is simple: run Fiber To The Home (FTTH) and pay for it as a community of customers -- a cooperative.  The cost per fiber drop, according to Bill's estimate, is $1,000-$1,500 if 40 percent of homes participate.  Using the higher $1,500 figure, the cost to finance the system over 10 years at today's prime rate would be $17.42 per month.

What we'd get for our $17.42 per month is a gigabit-capable circuit with no bits inside - just a really fast connection to some local point of presence where you could connect to ANY ISP wanting to operate in your city.

"It's honest funding," says Frankston. "The current system is like buying drinks so you can watch the strippers. It is corrupt and opaque. We should pay for our wires in our communities just like we pay for the wires in our homes."

The effect of this move would be beyond amazing. It would be astounding.  No more arguments about Net Neutrality, for one thing, because we'd effectively be extending our ownership and control of the wires all the way to the ISP interconnect.  Of course you'd still have to buy Internet service, but at NerdTV rates the amount of bandwidth used by a median U.S. broadband customer would be less than $2.00 per month.  Though with that GREAT BIG PIPE most of us would be tempted to use a lot more bandwidth, which is exactly the point.

There would be a community-financed Internet revolution and this time, because it would be locally funded and managed, very little money would be stolen.  Dark fibers would be lighting up all over America, telco capital costs would plummet, and a truly competitive market for Internet services would emerge.  In 2-3 years whatever bandwidth advantage countries like Korea have would be erased and we'd be back on track building even more innovative online industries.

This would be a real marketplace not a fake one. Today's system is a fake because it depends on capturing the value of the application -- communications -- in the transport and that would no longer be possible because with the Internet the value is created OUTSIDE the network.

"One example of the collateral damage caused by today's approach is the utter lack of simple wireless connectivity. Another is that we have redundant capital-intensive bit paths whose only purpose is to contain bits within billing paths," Frankston explains.  "In practice, the telcos are about nothing at all other than creating billable events. Isn't it strange that as the costs of connectivity were going down your phone bill was increasing -- at least until VoIP forced the issue."

"We have an alternative model in the road system: The roads themselves are funded as infrastructure because the value is from having the road system as a whole, not the roads in isolation. You don't put a meter on each driveway.  Tolls, fuel taxes, fees on trucks, etc. are ways of generating money but they are indirect. Local builders add capacity; communities add capacity and large entities create interstate roads.  They don't create artificial scarcity just to increase toll revenues -- at least not so blatantly."

"I refer to today's carrier networks as trollways because the model is inverted -- the purpose of the road is to pass as many trollbooths as possible. We keep the backbone unlit to assure artificial scarcity. Worse, by trying to force us within their service model we lose the opportunity to create new value and can only choose among the services that fill their coffers -- it's hard to come up with a more effective way to minimize the value of the networks."

A model in which the infrastructure is paid for as infrastructure -- privately, locally, nationally, and internationally can create a true marketplace in which the incentives are aligned. Instead of having the strange phenomenon of carriers spending billions and then arguing that they deserve to be paid, we'd have them bidding on contracts to install and/or maintain connectivity to a marketplace that is buying capacity and making it available so value can be created without having to be captured within the network and thus taken out of the economy.

So why not do it?  Well the telcos and cable companies would hate it.  Who made them gods?

My recent discussion with Bob Frankston started with talk about Microsoft and what that company might do to turn itself around.  "Microsoft seems to confuse end-to-end with womb-to-tomb," Bob said. "Or at least BillG did the last time I tried to speak to him about it. The problem Microsoft has is that it hasn't really given people enough opportunity to add value to the computing. Ironically, Google's APIs and mashups go more in this direction and I do need to give Ray (Ozzie) some credit for joining in this trend. The challenge will be reconciling that with the monolithic platform company. .Net, a stupid name for a great idea, could do very well if liberated from Windows."

So what's a Microsoft to do?  Concentrate less on womb-to-tomb and more on end-to-end by embracing the idea of community-owned networks.  One billion dollars each in seed capital from Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and Google would be enough to set neighborhood network dominos falling in communities throughout America with no tax money ever required.  And they'd get their money back, both directly and indirectly, many times over.

Microsoft could go it alone, but the point would have to be to build a market, not to control the last mile, and I think the temptation to fall back on old habits would be less with a consortium involved.

But this leads us to the promised question of what else Microsoft might do as it moves forward into an uncertain future?  Well the one thing they aren't doing (hardly any companies do) is to plan for that uncertainty.  I have a plan.

Frank Gaudette, when he was Microsoft's first-ever chief financial officer, told me that he hated having all that cash lying around because it was a drag on earnings.  In the money markets he could make at most a few percent per year.  Investing in Microsoft's own products was yielding more than a 50 percent annual return.  The problem was that Microsoft was making so much money then (and now, frankly) that they couldn't spend it all on their core business.

Where Gaudette saw a problem, I see opportunity: spend it on something else.

In a sense Microsoft is a lot like the Roman Empire.  The Roman Empire's growth and economy was driven by conquering and plundering neighboring regions.  Within the Empire they created a sort of safe economic zone where commerce could work and technology could be developed.  However, that came at a price, as they tended to destroy everything outside the empire as it grew.

Same for Microsoft, whose leaders were greedy and made a number of good, shrewd business decisions.  They were also ruthless. Over time they managed to destroy the surrounding software industry.  Within Microsoft's world was a sort of safe economic zone.  If you were not a threat to Microsoft or if you did something Microsoft didn't want to do (like make PCs) you were able to grow under the shadow of Redmond.  When the emperor spoke, you listened.

It is too early to predict the fall of the Microsoft Empire.  Does Microsoft have the leaders and generals who can lead the company into the future?  Who knows?  In the software world there is nothing else to conquer or plunder.  In other markets it will be hard, if not impossible, for Microsoft to dominate whole industries as it has in the past.  Microsoft now needs to act like a responsible company, work well with others, and grow through cooperation and teamwork.  This will be hard for Microsoft.  The Romans couldn't do it.  The Romans neglected one of their "partners" and eventually that partner did them in.

Today's Microsoft is a great generator of cash.  With some good product refreshes, this cash generation can continue for years to come.  The BIG decision is what to do with the cash.  Microsoft needs to develop new businesses.  Microsoft could have a great future doing things that have nothing to do with computers.  They could be making a great electric car, or great new medications, or any number of other things.  Microsoft could create new industries that could have a huge benefit to the economy.  Microsoft could change the world, again.  Ten years from now Microsoft could be a huge holding company of which PC software is but one part.  They don't have to gut the software unit, which is viable enough to be a great moneymaker for another 25 years if Microsoft manages it well.

Right now Microsoft is like a deer in the headlights.  They are stuck on software and computer stuff.  They can't move.  There are much more interesting growth opportunities out there.

And you know there is a really simple way to proceed.  Warren Buffett announced this week that he's giving $30+ billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to continue their good work of curing diseases so we'll be around to buy more computers.  Buffet is the best builder of holding companies in the history of industry.  The simple answer for Microsoft is to give Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway half of Microsoft's excess cash flow every year.  This year that would be about $6 billion.  With Berkshire's switch to international investing, they'd find productive places for that money.

Eventually Microsoft's value might be mainly in its Berkshire shares, which would in turn greatly increase the value of Buffet's gift to the Gates Foundation.  It seems only fair.

From http://www.timminspress.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=89416&catname=Local+News

Forget Toronto field trips, Timmins youth say

Don Curry - Timmins Daily Press - June 28, 2006

Schools should forget Toronto field trips and promote Northern Ontario instead, participants at the second annual Osprey Youth Development Workshop said in Timmins May 25.

Participants, including high school students, college staff and faculty, and young people in the workforce said Toronto field trips send a message to young people that there is nothing worth seeing in the North. They said canoeing and kayaking trips and visits to other centres in Northern Ontario would send a positive message that the North is worth exploring and has a lot to offer.

They said the City of Timmins should promote itself better, pointing out to young people that housing is cheaper and the environment cleaner than in southern Ontario. However, they also pointed out that garbage in the streets, stores with boarded windows and crumbling infrastructure such as arenas and playing fields send a negative message to those interested in re-locating here.

Another major theme among the participants was that 17 is too young to be graduating from high school and graduates should look at options of returning to school for another year, or taking a year of study at Northern College to examine their career options.

They said the message has to be sent that university is not the only option after high school.
Colleges and the skilled trades are excellent alternatives that should be considered.

The skilled trades programs at ?cole secondaire catholique Th‚riault were cited as a positive development. All Grade 9 students take compulsory skilled trades courses in such areas as computer-assisted design, welding and woodworking in state-of-the-art labs. This exposure causes many to look at the skilled trades fields in a new light.

Some participants said each high school could specialize in certain areas and students could take courses at more than one high school. A high school guidance counsellor spoke about the challenge of getting information to students, a point echoed by a Northern College recruiter.

The group consensus was that e-mail is the way to reach young people. Every participant had an e-mail address and they all said they check e-mail daily.

Electronic newsletters sent out by guidance departments could highlight information sessions coming up from various colleges, universities and employers and that would ensure that all students received the information. Some suggested that parents be included in this message delivery system along with graduates who left the city for post-secondary education or employment.

One student mentioned a presentation from McMaster University that everyone was instructed to attend, but she said she didn't even know Northern College had been in her school to make a presentation.

All agreed that career fairs should target younger audiences, starting at Grade 7. They said it's too late by Grade 12 as most students by then have decided when, where and if they are going to continue their education.

They said younger students should have class tours of local industry to inform them at an early age about local opportunities and make them proud to live in Timmins.

Large employers in the city were criticized for not attending the workshop and for always asking for experienced workers when they advertise jobs. Participants asked why companies can't take young people and train them on the job?

The mining industry should get out the message that all its employees are not miners, participants said.

They said mining companies employ office staff, human resources professionals, Information Technology specialists, etc. but that is not generally known. They said they should come into classrooms to talk to students, not simply leave information with guidance departments.

The fact that Northern College has no varsity athletics program was mentioned as a negative because it fails to attract student athletes interested in pursuing sports and misses an opportunity to create school spirit. Participants said Canadore College in North Bay and Cambrian College in Sudbury have varsity teams and Northern could join those leagues.

Participants were hopeful that the Ontario North East University concept now being studied in Timmins would result in making more university programs available in the city.

One round table group noted that although Timmins is a multicultural city there appears to be a divide between French and English.

They said that isolation starts at a very early age, when school buses are segregated by language and religion. They said integrating the school buses would be a major step forward.

They said schools should host multicultural events and invite students from other schools to attend.

Student voluntarism was cited as a positive development and an O'Gorman High School student noted her school recognizes those students who volunteer above and beyond the 40-hour school requirement.

Don Curry, president of Bay Consulting and CEO of Young People's Press in North Bay, was the workshop facilitator.

This Canada Day, the Dominion Institute is launching 2020: Voices on Canada's Future; a four month public dialogue to discover what Canadians think will be the single most important issue facing the country in the year 2020. Visit http://www.twenty-twenty.ca for more information.

One of the topics of interest is Aboriginal Issues at http://www.twenty-twenty.ca/topic_autochtones.phtml ... so now is the time to share your thoughts about what Canada might look like in 2020. The question asked "What does the future hold for Canada's Aboriginal people?"

Other questions include:

• How would the country change if the cost of oil doubles or triples in the coming decade?
• Where and how would we live if global temperatures rise dramatically?
• What will our cities, our health-care system and Canada's role in the world look like?

The CBC and the Dominion Institute have invited 20 leading thinkers to comment on the single issue or event that they think could transform Canada by 2020.

CBC.ca will post the essays online as they are released over the next six months. Coverage on CBC-TV and CBC Radio includes interviews, commentary and mini-documentaries on the ideas raised by each of the thinkers.

Canada in 2020 is an initiative of Dominion Institute in association with La Presse, the Toronto Star and the CBC.

Add your voice to the debate and compete for a $2,020 prize, visit Canada in 2020.

Check out CBC Online coverage of this opportunity to share your views ... visit "Project asks Canadians to imagine 2020" - June 30, 2006 at http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/30/canada2020.html

With only 12 days left before the elections for the position of National Grand Chief, both candidates are presenting their stories online.

Check out the two candidates at their web sites ...

• Chief Bill Wilson at http://www.chiefbillwilson4afn.ca/
• National Chief Phil Fontaine at http://philfontaine.ca/index.htm

Visit http://whitefeatherforest.com for more information about the Land Use Strategy for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Lands. Download a copy of the strategy (PDF -13Mb) at http://whitefeatherforest.com/pdfs/land-use-strategy.pdf

Press release from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/csb/news/2006/jun26nr_06.html

McGUINTY GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS PROSPERITY FOR ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES - Whitefeather Forest Land Use Strategy Will Provide Greater Self-sufficiency For Pikangikum First Nation

PIKANGIKUM, June 26, 2006 — The McGuinty government is helping build stronger Aboriginal communities by sharing in the approval of the Whitefeather Forest Land Use Strategy, Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay announced today.

“We are working with Pikangikum First Nation to identify resource-based economic opportunities that will lead to greater self-sufficiency and a stronger community,” said Ramsay. “A key component of the strategy is also protecting natural heritage and conserving biodiversity, including species at risk such as the woodland caribou.”

The Whitefeather Forest Land Use Strategy, entitled Keeping the Land, is the first of its kind in Ontario and balances social, economic and environmental values. It was prepared under the Community-based Land Use Planning process adopted by the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Northern Boreal Initiative. The goal of the initiative is for First Nations to play a leading role in planning for their future. Pikangikum First Nation launched its Community-based Land Use Planning initiative in 2003.

“Keeping the Land embodies the wisdom of our Elders and the vision of the people of Pikangikum for the future of this community and our children,” said Chief Dan Owen of Pikangikum. “In partnership with Ministry of Natural Resources staff, we’ve ensured the strategy reflects our Anishinaabe values and highlights our shared responsibilities for the land.”

Today’s announcement is another example of the McGuinty government’s commitment to building stronger and more prosperous northern and Aboriginal communities. Other initiatives include:

• A $1-million capital grant to the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres to support the renovation of 23 Indian Friendship Centres throughout the province.
• Opening up the development of waterpower sites on Crown land, some of which directly benefit First Nations.
• Investing more than $500,000 over three years in Aboriginal youth employment programs to provide summer jobs and training for Aboriginal youth.
• Contributing $60 million to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation to support job creation and emerging technologies.

“This strategy, prepared in partnership with Pikangikum First Nation, will lead to a brighter future for First Nation youth and benefit all Ontarians,” said Ramsay. “We are working hard on behalf of Aboriginal communities and the North, and I congratulate Pikangikum First Nation for taking a leadership role in land use planning and looking towards a brighter future for its young people.”

Related Information:

KEEPING THE LAND — A LAND USE STRATEGY FOR THE WHITEFEATHER FOREST AND ADJACENT AREAS - http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/csb/news/2006/jun26bg_06.html

Backgrounder - Northern Boreal Initiative - June 26, 2006

The Ontario government established the Northern Boreal Initiative in 2000 to explore new opportunities for land use planning, commercial forestry and protected areas in the part of the province north of current forestry operations. The initiative supports greater self-sufficiency and prosperity for northern First Nation communities through resource-based economic development. It was designed to help far north First Nations take a leadership role in community-based land use planning, a process that balances environmental and economic interests with traditional Aboriginal values.

The Northern Boreal Initiative aims to deliver new jobs and allows First Nations in the far north to assume a leadership role in sustainable forest management. Strategic land use planning that seeks to balance resource development, protection and conservation while respecting Aboriginal traditional knowledge and customary pursuits will pave the way for stronger and more prosperous First Nations.

Community of Pikangikum and Whitefeather Forest

Pikangikum First Nation (population: 2,200) is a remote-access community located approximately 100 kilometres north of Red Lake in northwestern Ontario. The Whitefeather Forest is a northern boreal forest area traditionally used by the people of Pikangikum. A variety of remote tourism establishments exist throughout the area based on numerous lakes and river systems. There is one all-weather road in the area, and customary activities in the forest include hunting and fishing, trapping, and harvesting of other non-timber forest products. These customary livelihood activities are no longer sufficient to support this rapidly growing community. The Whitefeather Forest planning area covers 1.3 million hectares north of Red Lake. This initiative provides an opportunity for economic renewal for the community, now and in the future.

Community-based Land Use Planning Process

In June 2003, Pikangikum First Nation and MNR began Community-based Land Use Planning for the Whitefeather Forest and Adjacent Areas. This approach considered local community concerns and priorities, as well as broader ecological factors and provincial level direction. Factors such as forest management, resource-based tourism, mining exploration, hydro-electric development, parks and protected areas, resource access and community access were also reviewed.

Pikangikum Elders provided guidance throughout the process, and assisted with planning, consultation, and provision of indigenous knowledge and direction for new activities. Meetings were held with First Nation organizations in Ontario and Manitoba, provincial environmental groups, tourist operators, forest industry representatives, local hunters and anglers, the mineral sector and the Municipality of Red Lake. Open houses held in Pikangikum and Red Lake were all well-attended.

The ministry acted as a planning partner and facilitator, provided ecological information, and led public participation in environmentally significant decision-making. A major amendment to Crown Land Use Policy will implement the land use direction for the establishment of protected areas, enhanced management areas and general use areas as described in the approved strategy.

Forestry as a New Land Use

Community-based Land Use Planning considered forestry as one of many interests. With the approval of this strategy, Pikangikum First Nation will move towards acquiring commercial forest management tenure. Keeping the Land sets out objectives and provides guiding direction for the manner in which forestry will take place. Pikangikum will take a leading role in planning, forest management and operations. New commercial forestry opportunities will require approval under the Environmental Assessment Act and licensing under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The allocation of specific areas for the purpose of commercial forest management will subsequently require the preparation of a forest management plan.

Conservation and Protection

Keeping the Land commits to maintaining healthy ecosystems, sustainability of resources, protection of significant features and a variety of recreational opportunities through strategic land use planning. Implementation of the strategy provides the opportunity to add over 400,000 hectares to Ontario’s protected areas system by dedicating spectacular landscapes and 400 kilometres of culturally significant waterways to a new partnership arrangement between Pikangikum First Nation and Ontario Parks. Protected areas include representative natural and cultural features, contributing to the completion of Ontario’s parks system and the protection of Aboriginal interests.

The strategy also recognizes the importance of the ongoing protection of species at risk and their habitat. Both the Ontario government and the people of Pikangikum are committed to the conservation of woodland caribou in the northern boreal forest. Land use direction for conservation of biodiversity is outlined in Keeping the Land. The strategy identifies protected areas that include suitable habitat, calving islands and travel corridors. It also commits to a strategic access approach to maintain remoteness. The strategy directs an adaptive management approach to respond to new developments in woodland caribou research, resource development or natural events on the landscape such as wildfire or blowdowns.

Funding support has been provided to the Whitefeather Forest Initiative by the following agencies: FedNor, Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation, Living Legacy Trust, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Forestry Futures Trust, Natural Resources Canada - First Nations Forestry Program, Independent First Nations Alliance, the Sioux Lookout Area Aboriginal Management Board and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Media Enquiries
Alex Peters
Whitefeather Forest Management Corp
Pikangikum First Nation
807-773-5578

Tim Sullivan
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Parks
807-475-1497

John Sills
Ministry of Natural Resources
Thunder Bay District
807-475-1272

General Enquiries
 
Natural Resources Information Centre
1-800-667-1940
TTY 1-866-686-6072 (Hearing Impaired)

from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060626.MINE26/TPStory/?query=mining

Province 'missing in action' in mining dispute, lawyer says - KATE HARRIES - Special to The Globe and Mail - POSTED ON 26/06/06

THUNDER BAY -- The Ontario government came under fire in court on Friday for standing by while a dispute has escalated between an Indian band and a Toronto mining exploration company.

"There's been an absolute and complete failure by Ontario to fulfill its duties," lawyer Francis Thatcher told Mr. Justice Patrick Smith of the Superior Court, who is hearing an application by Platinex Inc. for an injunction to prohibit Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation (KI) from getting access to its drilling site on Crown land in KI traditional territory.

Mr. Thatcher, acting for the Independent First Nations Alliance, an intervenor in the case, said the province has dragged its feet since a Supreme Court ruling six years ago spelled out its duty to consult with aboriginals in any situation where treaty rights could be infringed.

He scornfully dismissed draft consultation guidelines, circulated last week by the Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, as "a day late and a dollar short," adding that extensive aboriginal input should have been sought before they were produced.

The draft guidelines are to be officially released tomorrow when Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay addresses an All Ontario Chiefs conference in KI. "This is just a starter document," spokeswoman Anne-Marie Flanagan said in a telephone interview Friday. "We want to have a really open and full consultation on this."

Mr. Thatcher said the province was "missing in action" and should have had a lawyer in court to explain its conduct, as Judge Smith's ruling on the dispute has the potential to affect the rights of aboriginals across Ontario. "Ontario has completely dropped the ball," he said.

"If they dropped the ball on KI, they dropped a brick on Platinex," said company lawyer Neal Smitheman, who told Judge Smith that a finding against Platinex could jeopardize all mining activity north of the 51st parallel. "Failure to consult by the province could put in jeopardy every mining claim in the province," he said, adding, "I'm asking the court not to punish Platinex for the sins of the province."

KI lawyer Kate Kempton told Judge Smith that the province's failure to consult with KI on mining exploration in its traditional territory make its approval of Platinex's claims and leases void.

"Ontario completely abdicated its responsibility to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug," she said, noting that officials from the Northern Development and Mines Ministry attended only three meetings in the seven years Platinex has owned claims in the Big Trout Lake area.

KI is seeking an injunction to stop Platinex from proceeding with its plans without KI's consent and has launched a challenge of the Ontario Mining Act which, Ms. Kempton said, makes no provision for constitutionally required consultation.

She pointed out that, according to Mr. Smitheman, Northern Development and Mines has just renewed Platinex mining claims that were due to expire next month. "Guess what? My client wasn't consulted about that." The failure, she argued, is an "absolute violation" of Canadian law, as shaped in recent Supreme Court decisions.

"This disrespectful, abusive relationship with the Crown cannot continue," she said. "Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug is seeking a meaningful decision-making role about its own fate and its own future. . . . which is what the law requires."

Ms. Kempton said KI is not opposed to economic development and is willing to consult with Platinex and the province. The harm comes from unilateral decisions that have no regard for aboriginal laws and perspectives, she said.

"There is an intolerable risk that one more harm heaped on top of all those with which KI is currently burdened would push KI and its social and cultural structure past the brink."

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

from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060630.CAMPBELL30/TPStory/TPComment/Ontario/

Natives seek a voice as miners eye North
By MURRAY CAMPBELL - Friday, June 30, 2006, Page A11

BIG TROUT LAKE, ONT. -- The four native men who walked to Toronto across Ontario's vast northern expanse didn't get the publicity that the protesters at Caledonia did. This is a great pity because the issues that drove these guys to walk 2,000 kilometres at the height of black-fly season are just as compelling as the dispute over a subdivision near Brantford.

the full story must be purchased online...

Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Moves Forward Despite Canadian Government Interference

     OTTAWA, June 29 /CNW Telbec/ - Indigenous peoples and human rights organizations in Canada are welcoming the historic decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council to back the adoption of the draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

     However, these organizations also expressed their deep frustration and disappointment with the Canadian government's efforts to stall this much-needed and long overdue human rights instrument. Canada called the vote as a pre-emptive move against the Declaration's passage, but in the end Canada was one of only two countries to vote against the Declaration.

     Instead, the Council voted to bring the proposed Declaration forward for possible adoption by the UN General Assembly later this year. The vote was 30 in favour and 2 against (with 12 abstentions and 3 absent).

     "Canada's opposition to the Declaration has soured the first meeting of the Human Rights Council," says Beverly Jacobs, President of the Native Women's Association of Canada. "The Council was created in the hope that states would set aside domestic considerations and work impartially to advance the human rights of all. It's a bitter disappointment that Canada would mar the very first session by openly pursuing a dubious domestic agenda."

     The Canadian government was an active participant in the Working Group that drafted the current text and, in recent years, had a played a critical role in building state support for the principles of the draft Declaration. The current government has tried to explain its sudden opposition by claiming that some provisions of the Declaration are incompatible with Canadian law. It has not provided any substantiation of this claim. Canada had failed also in an earlier attempt to bring forward a counter-resolution to have the decision on the Declaration delayed so it could be re-opened for further negotiation. All of these moves damage Canada's international reputation as a leader in Indigenous and human rights.

     Indigenous peoples' organizations that have participated in the Working Group point out that not only is the Declaration a non-binding, aspirational statement that would not override any domestic laws, it also contains specific assurances, introduced by Canada, that its provisions must be interpreted in a fair and balanced manner that respects basic principles of human rights, democratic society and good government.

     "We are outraged that Canada would demonstrate such bad faith in opposing a text that it helped write," says Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada "It is even more astounding that Canada would then try to persuade other states that another round of negotiations is needed. It was fortunate - though embarrassing for all Canadians - that Canada quickly found itself isolated on a Council that was prepared to move forward with a principled defence of Indigenous peoples' human rights."

     Strong international support for the Declaration is an important step forward in countering the widespread racism and discrimination that threatens the survival and well-being of Indigenous peoples worldwide. The draft Declaration clearly affirms that Indigenous peoples must not be arbitrarily denied the right of self-determination, which is recognized in international law as a universal right of all peoples. The Declaration also affirms diverse rights regarding lands, territories and resources that are essential to the cultural identities of Indigenous peoples and the fulfillment of their basic human rights.

     "This is an historic day for Indigenous peoples around the globe," said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine. "We are grateful that the Council has recognized the importance and urgency of moving ahead with human rights protections for Indigenous peoples. It is very unfortunate that in trying to stand in the way of the Declaration, Canada has done so much harm to its credibility and influence on a Council that it worked so hard to create."

     The Declaration has been under development for more than two decades. The current proposal, which emerged from an 11-year-long Working Group process, has been endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People and by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. It has also been supported by a wide range of states worldwide, including states such as Norway and Denmark which, like Canada, have a history of negotiation and treaty-making with Indigenous peoples.

-30-

/For further information: Media Contacts: Craig Benjamin, Amnesty International Canada, 1 (613) 744-7667 ext. 235, cbenjami@amnesty.ca; Don Kelly, Assembly of First Nations, Communications Director, (613) 241-6789, ext. 320, dkelly@afn.ca; Ian McLeod, Assembly of First Nations, Bilingual Communications Officer, (613) 241-6789, ext. 336, imcleod@afn.ca; Jennifer Preston Howe, Canadian Friends Service Committee, (416) 920-5213; Linda Kayseas, Native Women's Association of Canada, Media Coordinator, (613) 722-3033, ext. 231; Louis Moubarak, Rights & Democracy, (514) 283-6073, ext.
261/

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

FROM: THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR NEWSPAPER at http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151617838257&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670

Aboriginal Leaders Feel 'Betrayed' By Ottawa - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS  - UN high commissioner Louise Arbour happy with decision.
 
United Nations Human Rights Council overrides Canada and Russia to approve native peoples declaration
By Lisa Schlein - The Canadian Press GENEVA (Jun 30, 2006)

Over the objection of Canada and Russia, the new United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a declaration to protect the rights of indigenous peoples around the world, including their land claims and resources.

By a 30-2 vote yesterday, the council approved the declaration that says indigenous people should be free from discrimination and that they have a right "to consider themselves different and to be respected as such."

Only Canada and Russia voted against it. A dozen countries abstained and three were absent.

When the tally appeared on the electronic screen, the packed conference room erupted into applause. People wept and hugged each other and smiled broadly. Louise Arbour, the UN high commissioner for human rights and a former Supreme Court of Canada justice, joined in the standing ovation.

"I'm very excited," said Willie Littlechild, an aboriginal lawyer and Treaty Six international chief from Alberta. "I'm very, very delighted and encouraged by the signal the new Human Rights Council has given the world that they are serious about addressing indigenous issues as we go forward by adopting a declaration."

The declaration goes to the UN General Assembly for final adoption in the fall. The document is not legally binding. But governments and indigenous groups point out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was also not a binding document, but over time it became customary law.

Indigenous groups had hoped the declaration would be approved by consensus but Canada asked for a vote.

Earlier in the week, a Canadian motion to have the council authorize further consultations on the draft declaration was defeated. A roll-call vote of the 47-member council took place.

"When you're doing the right thing, you don't really worry about whether you're isolated or not," said Paul Meyer, head of the Canadian government delegation to the council.

"I think there were a number of countries that indicated they shared some of our concerns about the process and the substance and some of the deficiencies of both aspects that led us to take the vote we did."

The United States, Australia and New Zealand also opposed the declaration, but they are not members of the council and thus cannot vote.

The Canadian government has problems with provisions on land, territories and resources which were unclear and open to interpretation, Meyer said. Other problematic areas are provisions on land claims, the concept of "free, prior and informed consent" and issues relating to self-government provisions.

Littlechild said he was "personally disappointed that Canada chose to follow that path because ... they were there all the way through since 1982 helping us draft together a document, a balanced document."

Kenneth Deer, who represents Mohawks at Kahnawake and the United Nations Council of Chiefs, also felt betrayed.

"Canada had a lot to do with the declaration getting this far ... It's ironic that for 11 years they carried the resolution and at the end they voted against the declaration and against their own work."

But Meyer doesn't see it that way.

"Our position evolved," he said.

"But ... we always had an objective which was to get the best sort of declaration possible and we were willing to go the extra mile on this. We specifically came here with a plea for additional time."

Deer said the declaration should be stronger, but more negotiations would not help because governments that "wanted to reopen it would want to weaken it and not strengthen it."

He warned of "strained" relations between the Canadian government and indigenous peoples, but Meyer said he doesn't think relations will be adversely affected.

+++++++++++++ 

Canada votes against UN rights declaration - Jun. 29, 2006. 07:23 PM - Canadian Press

GENEVA — Over the objection of Canada and Russia, the new UN Human Rights Council adopted a declaration Thursday to protect the rights of indigenous peoples around the world, including their claims on land and resources.

By 30-2 vote, the council approved the declaration that said indigenous people should be free from discrimination and that they have a right "to consider themselves different and to be respected as such."

Only Canada and Russia voted against it. A dozen countries abstained and three were absent.

When the tally appeared on the electronic screen, the packed conference room erupted into applause. People wept and hugged each other and smiled broadly. Louise Arbour, the UN high commissioner for human rights and former Supreme Court of Canada justice, joined in the standing ovation.

"I'm very excited," said Willie Littlechild, a Aboriginal lawyer and Treaty Six international chief from Alberta.

"I'm very, very delighted and encouraged by the signal the new Human Rights Council has given the world that they are serious about addressing indigenous issues as we go forward by adopting a declaration."

Indigenous groups had hoped the declaration would be approved by consensus but Canada asked for a vote.

Earlier in the week, a Canadian motion to have the council authorize further consultations on the draft declaration was defeated. A rollcall vote of the 47-member council took place.

"When you're doing the right thing, you don't really worry about whether you're isolated or not," said Paul Meyer, head of the Canadian government delegation to the council.

"I think there were a number of countries that indicated they shared some of our concerns about the process and the substance and some of the deficiencies of both aspects that led us to take the vote we did."

The United States, Australia and New Zealand also opposed the declaration, but they are not members of the council and thus cannot vote.

The Canadian government has problems with current provisions on land, territories and resources which were unclear and open to interpretation, Meyer said. Other problematic areas are provisions on land claims, the concept of "free, prior and informed consent" and issues relating to self-government provisions.

Littlechild said he was "very personally disappointed that Canada chose to follow that path because ... they were there all the way through since 1982 helping us draft together a document, a balanced document."

"I felt very betrayed," Littlechild said.

Kenneth Deer, who represents Mohawks at Kahnawake and the United Nations Council of Chiefs, also said he felt betrayed. "Canada had a lot to do with the declaration getting this far ... It's ironic that for 11 years they carried the resolution and at the end they voted against the declaration and against their own work."

But Meyer doesn't see it that way.

"Our position evolved," he said. "But ... we always had an objective which was to get the best sort of declaration possible and we were willing to go the extra mile on this. We specifically came here with a plea for additional time."

Deer said he the declaration should be stronger, but more negotiations would not help because governments that "wanted to re-open it would want to weaken it and not strengthen it."

He warned of "strained" relations between the Canadian government and indigenous peoples, but Meyer said he doesn't think relations will be adversely affected.

The declaration goes to the UN General Assembly for final adoption in the fall.

The document is not legally binding. But governments and indigenous groups point out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was also not a binding document, but over time it became customary law.

+++++++++++++++ 

  
UN Press release

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS TEXTS FOR PROTECTION FROM ENFORCED DISPPEARANCE, RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Extends Mandate of Working Group on Drafting Optional Protocol to International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
29 June 2006

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted by consensus the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and recommended that the General Assembly adopt the treaty.

The Council also adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour to 2 against and 12 abstentions a resolution on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Council adopted the declaration as proposed by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration and recommended that the General Assembly adopt the non-binding declaration.

Also adopted by consensus was a resolution on the Open-ended Working Group to draft an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Council welcomed the report of the Working Group with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol and decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a period of two years in order to elaborate the Optional Protocol.

+++++++++++++
Action on Resolution on Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.3), entitled Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted after a roll-call vote by thirty in favour, two against, and twelve abstentions, the Human Rights Council adopts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as proposed by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 in annex I to the report of the Working Group on its eleventh session (E/CN.4/2006/79); recommends to the General Assembly that it adopt the following draft resolution:

The General Assembly, expresses its appreciation to the Council for the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and adopts the Declaration as contained in the annex to Council resolution 2006/….

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choos!
e, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (30):
Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switerzland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against (2):
Canada, Russian Federation.

Abstentions (12):
Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine.

Absent (3):
Djibouti, Gabon, Mali.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, acknowledged the important role that Canada, as well as other indigenous organizations, had played in the process of the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The proposal did not receive the necessary support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues. Canada had worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world. Canada had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively advocating Aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to working internationally on indigenous issues. Regrettably, however, Canada would vote against the resolution.

++++++++++++++++ 
 
FROM: CANADA.COM WEBSITE
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=2c51f850-9f36-4691-b2c7-57574169ece9&k=34650
UN Overrides Canada Over Native Rights

Associated Press- Published: Thursday, June 29, 2006

GENEVA -- The new UN Human Rights Council on Thursday overrode Canadian and Russian objections and passed a declaration to protect the rights of native peoples around the world, including an assertion that they have a possible right to restitution for land and resources taken from them.
By 30-2 vote, the body approved the declaration that said indigenous people should be free from discrimination and that they have a right "to consider themselves different and to be respected as such." A dozen countries abstained and three were absent.

A coalition of indigenous people who had been campaigning heavily in favour of passage had complained that Canada, a former supporter of the declaration, had switched sides after the Conservative party ousted the Liberals earlier this year.

They said Canada thus joined the United States, Australia and New Zealand -- all countries with significant native populations -- in opposing the declaration. The U.S., Australia and New Zealand, however, have no vote because they are not members of the 47-nation council, which began its first session last week.

The council replaced the widely discredited 53-country UN Human Rights Commission.

© Associated Press 2006

WELCOME TO THE NEW VOLUNTARY GATEWAY AT HTTP://VOLUNTARYGATEWAY.CA ~ Connecting people and resources for community vitality… Voluntary Gateway Newsletter for Thursday, June 29, 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Voluntarygateway.ca has a brand new look and a whole new image!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Front and center is the new weekly KEYNOTE bringing our readers up to date on the hottest issues and topics!

This week’s KEYNOTE...

REGIONAL REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CANADA'S CHARITABLE AND NONPROFIT SECTOR A new set of key information and resources on Canada’s charitable and nonprofit sector was released by Imagine Canada today, June 29, 2006. The reports offer regional profiles of the sector in all provinces and territories, and also put forward a number of key recommendations on what government, businesses and organizations can do to strengthen the capacity of the sector to better serve Canadians.

Read the full Keynote at Voluntary Gateway…

------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND THERE’S MUCH MORE…

Check out Voluntary Gateway’s growing collection of links to information, resources, events and news, all organized under 5 convenient core pages in both official languages.

POINTS OF ENGAGEMENT

Engage in online discussions and get the latest news from the open source world of technology.

SUSTAINABILITY AND FINANCE

Get up to date on funding and marketing news, policy and planning resources and catch the latest on social enterprise activities in Canada.

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Find information on boards and governance, leadership and staffing and all the most up-to-date issues, facts and trends in volunteerism.

NEWS AND EVENTS

Browse ALL the news and events spanning the entire voluntary sector in Canada.

GATEWAY CONNECTION

Your connection to the Voluntary Gateway and the people, programs, organizations and new ideas that bring this country together.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Send your feedback to info@voluntarygateway.ca.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Become a part of the growing membership at the Voluntary Gateway… sign up today!

I would like regular news from the Voluntary Gateway:

Please forward this email to a friend.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Government of Canada’s Social Development Partnerships Program funds the voluntary gateway

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voluntarygateway.ca ~ created BY the voluntary sector FOR the voluntary sector

Searching for:

• Singers
• Dancers
• Musicians
• Bands
• Performers

Categories:

• Senior Talent Search: Ages 13 - 21
• Junior Talent Search: Ages 6 - 12

Preliminary Competitions:

• Juniors - July 7, 2006
• Seniors - July 8, 2006

Final Senior Competition during CLE Fair, Sunday, August 13, 2006

Senior Awards:

• 1st Prize: $1,000 cash PLUS all expense paid trip to the 2006 National Youth Talent Awards in Edmonton, Alberta
• 2nd Prize: $500
• 3rd Prize: $250

Junior Awards:

• 1st, 2nd, 3rd - Cash Prizes

Entry Deadline: Friday, June 30th with Limited Entries Accepted, $10 Entry Fee, Call 807-622-6473 (CLE Office) for Entry Form, 425 Northern Avenue, Thunder Bay, ON