» COLONIALISM

What Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows Mean for Treaty First Nations

jimcraven — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:02:24 +0000

What Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows Mean for Treaty First Nations

Jan 14, 2015

Commentators and governments continue to downplay the significance of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Tsilhqot’in decision for Treaty First Nations. Below I summarize both Tsilhqot’in and the Supreme Court’s Grassy Narrows decision from the perspective of treaty rights. I then explain how together the two decisions lay the foundation for a new age of respect and recognition for Treaty First Nations.

Tsilhqot’in

In Tsilhqot’in the Court addressed two main issues. First, can Indigenous peoples advance Aboriginal title claims on a territorial basis or is Aboriginal title confined to dots on a map? Second, if Aboriginal title exists, can provincial legislation apply to Aboriginal title lands?

On the first issue the Court put to rest the dots-on-a-map theory of Aboriginal title. Regular use of definite tracts of land on a territorial basis for hunting, fishing and otherwise exploiting resources is sufficient to establish Aboriginal title.

On the second issue, the Court held that as a general rule, provincial laws of general application apply to Aboriginal title lands subject to the Crown’s obligation to justify an infringement of Aboriginal title, its fiduciary obligations and s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

When Aboriginal title is established, the Crown must do more than fulfil its duty to consult. The Crown must either obtain the consent of Indigenous peoples to use Aboriginal title lands or meet the legal requirements for justifying an infringement.

Finally, the need to preserve Aboriginal title lands for the use and benefit of future generations is an inherent limit on Indigenous peoples’ use of Aboriginal title lands as well as any attempt by the Crown to justify an infringement of Aboriginal title.

Grassy Narrows

In Grassy Narrows the Supreme Court also answered two questions. First, when lands are ‘taken up’ under Treaty 3, did the Treaty Commissioners intend there to be a two-step authorization process involving the federal government? Second, can provincial legislation apply so as to infringe the exercise of the treaty rights?

The Court concluded that the trial judge’s overriding error in Grassy Narrows was her finding that the ‘taking up’ of lands under Treaty 3 requires a two-step authorization process involving Canada. The Court concluded that the right to take up lands attaches to the level of government with the beneficial interest in the land and the necessary constitutional legislative and administrative powers.

The Court also held that both the federal government and provinces are responsible for fulfilling treaty promises. Consequently, Ontario is bound by the Crown’s treaty obligations, the honour of the Crown and the Crown’s fiduciary obligations to Indigenous peoples.

Finally, based on Tsilhqot’in, the Court held that the division of powers doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity does not apply to limit a province’s legislative authority to interfere with the exercise of treaty rights. Ontario has the power to take up lands without the federal government’s supervision but must fulfil the duty to consult. If it takes up so much land that there is no meaningful ability left to exercise treaty rights, it may be liable for infringement of the treaty.

What now for Treaty First Nations?

Together, Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows will have far-reaching effects for Treaty First Nations. Here I highlight two of the most important effects.

First, in many situations provincial governments will have to do more than fulfil the duty to consult. This is because not all government action that affects treaty rights constitutes a ‘take up’ under treaty. Taking up land is generally considered to be putting the land to a use visibly incompatible with the exercise of a treaty right, e.g. a farm yard, a mine site, etc.

Many provincial decisions that affect treaty rights are not a take up of land under treaty. For example, the enforcement of wildlife and fishery laws or the development of forest management plans. In those instances, provincial governments would need to meet the requirements for justifying the infringement of the treaty right.

The basic requirements for justifying the infringement of Aboriginal title and for justifying the infringement of a treaty right are the same. First, the Crown must establish a compelling and substantial objective consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligations to Indigenous peoples. For a government objective to be compelling and substantial, it must be considered from both the public and the Aboriginal perspective. It must also further the goal of reconciliation of Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests with the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty over Indigenous lands.

In addition, the Crown must establish that the infringement of the treaty right is necessary to achieve the compelling and substantial objective. It must demonstrate that the infringement minimally impairs the treaty right and that the benefits to the general public are not outweighed by the negative impacts on the First Nation.

As with Aboriginal title, the provinces should be expected to seek First Nations’ consent for infringement of treaty rights. Without consent, authorizations may be quashed and damages awarded.

The second major issue that should be emphasized is that Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows call into question governments’ assumption that the historical treaties were cede, release and surrender treaties under which First Nations agreed to give up their Aboriginal title. Given that both Indigenous peoples and the Crown are constrained by the necessity of preserving Aboriginal title lands for the use and benefit of future generations, can the common intention of the treaties have been to extinguish Aboriginal title? Also, interpreting the treaties as extinguishment documents would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s discussion in Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows of the Crown’s fiduciary obligations and the honour of the Crown.

As with most Supreme Court Aboriginal law decisions, it remains to be seen how lower courts will interpret and apply Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows, especially in relation to treaty rights. While together the decisions provide the basis for renewed respect for the spirit and intent of historical treaties, the Supreme Court may eventually be called on to clarify the extent of the provinces’ obligations and the limits on their authority.

Native groups use Macdonald’s birthday to raise issue of his legacy of residential schools

jimcraven — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:52:59 +0000

Native groups use Macdonald’s birthday to raise issue of his legacy of residential schools

“If people really knew the history of Sir John A. Macdonald, I’m not sure if they would celebrate his legacy,” Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation said. (ANDRE FORGET/QMI AGENCY)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/stephen-harper-helps-celebrate-200th-anniversary-of-sir-john-a-macdonald-s-birth-1.2183044#.VLM3F3Q82VE.gmail

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/10/sure-john-a-macdonald-was-was-a-racist-colonizer-and-misogynist-but-so-were-most-canadians-back-then/

Nicole Ireland, QMI Agency

Jan 9, 2015, Last Updated: 5:57 PM ET

Aboriginal people in Canada say the 200th anniversary of Sir John A. Macdonald’s birth is anything but a cause for celebration.

“If people really knew the history of Sir John A. Macdonald, I’m not sure if they would celebrate his legacy,” Alvin Fiddler, Deputy Grand Chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, told QMI Agency. Nishnawbe Aski Nation represents 49 First Nation communities in Ontario.

First Nations and Metis people continue to live with the consequences of Macdonald’s policies — both as minister of Indian Affairs and as prime minister — to this day, Fiddler said.

In particular, Macdonald was “instrumental” in establishing the Indian Residential School system in the late 1800s. Back then, Macdonald insisted aboriginal children must be taken from their families and assimilated into the rest of society, rather than receiving education in their own communities.

“When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with his parents who are savages; he is surrounded by savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training and mode of thought are Indian,” Macdonald said, according to archived documents. “He is simply a savage who can read and write.”

That view led to a residential school system that lasted more than 100 years, tearing more than 150,000 First Nations, Metis and Inuit children away from their families and into boarding schools, where they were forbidden to speak their native languages or practice aboriginal culture and often lived in poor conditions. Many suffered abuse. Survivors — having been isolated from their parents — didn’t know how to bond with their own children, passing the trauma from generation to generation, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission was established when the Canadian government apologized for the residential school era in 2008.

Without understanding the complete historical picture, “it’s simply wrong for Canadians to be celebrating (Macdonald’s) legacy,” Fiddler said.

But Fiddler also sees the anniversary as an opportunity for people to learn more about that part of their history, with the hope that education can ultimately lead to reconciliation between aboriginal people and other Canadians.

“We need to have this conversation,” he said.

In a statement, the Assembly of First Nations said the anniversary has “different meanings for different people.”

“Many Canadians know only the conventional history of Macdonald as a ‘father of Confederation,’ yet for many First Nations the legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald is a painful one,” National Chief Perry Bellegarde said.

“First Nations are often lectured about ‘not living in the past’, but the decisions, policies and actions that are preventing First Nations from achieving the same quality of life and the full expression of our rights to control our lives and lands have a foundation in the early decisions of the settler governments,” he continued. “The commemoration of Sir John A. Macdonald’s birthday should be an opportunity to commit ourselves to understanding our past so we can understand how we can move forward together to create a country where we all thrive and benefit from the beauty and riches of this land.”

Click to enlarge and open in new window

Advocates hope ‘groundbreaking’ report on aboriginal women will put spotlight on Murdered Aboriginal Women

jimcraven — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:42:17 +0000

Advocates hope ‘groundbreaking’ report on aboriginal women will put spotlight on Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/advocates-hope-groundbreaking-report-on-aboriginal-women-will-put-spotlight-on-canada-1.2184253#.VLUqC0fV0-Y.gmail

Canada AM: Native women’s report

NWAC’s Vice-president Dawn Harvard shjares her reaction to a report and whether there has been a lack of police action.

CTV National News: Growing calls for action

One Toronto artist is drawing on the growing calls for an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. John Vennavally-Rao reports.

CTV News: Canada urged to hold nation-wide inquiry

As Robert Fife reports, Canada is being urged to hold a nation-wide inquiry into the murders and disappearances of indigenous women.

Marlene Leung, CTVNews.ca

@MarleneLeung

Published Monday, January 12, 2015 10:59AM EST
Last Updated Monday, January 12, 2015 8:50PM EST

Canada is obligated under international human rights laws to prevent violence against indigenous women by taking measures to address poverty and other socio-economic factors, according to a new report.

The report, released Monday by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an arm of the Organization of American States, said Canada’s history of colonization, inequality and economic and social marginalization are some of the root causes of violence against indigenous women.

The commission started an investigation into British Columbia’s missing and murdered aboriginal women in 2013, on a request from the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA).

Photos

Dr. Dawn Harvard, right, of the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) looks on as Claudette Dumont-Smith, Executive Director of NWAC answers questions as they take part in a press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Monday, Jan. 12, 2015. (Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

The report, which includes interviews with Canadian government officials, opposition politicians and aboriginal women’s groups, supports the call on the federal government to launch an inquiry into the issue.

“The IACHR considers that there is much more to understand and to acknowledge in relation to the missing and murdered indigenous women,” the report said.

“This initiative must be organized in consultation with indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, at all stages.”

During a news conference Monday morning, NWAC Vice-President Dawn Harvard called the report “groundbreaking.”

“This report is the first in-depth examination of the murders and disappearances (of aboriginal women) by an expert international human rights body,” she said. “These women and girls are being stolen from our families and our communities and it is time that somebody is taking this seriously.”

The RCMP estimated in a report released last year that about 1,200 aboriginal women and girls were murdered or went missing in Canada between 1980 and 2012.

‘Broader pattern’ of violence and discrimination

The report found that the disappearances and murders of indigenous women are part of a “broader pattern” of violence and discrimination against aboriginal women in Canada, who are significantly over-represented as victims of homicide. The report also found that they are three times more likely to be victims of violence than non-indigenous women.

It also found the following:

Addressing violence against indigenous women is insufficient unless underlying factors of poverty, and racial and gender discrimination are also addressed.
In accordance with international human rights standards, Canada is obliged to continue the investigation of unsolved cases of missing indigenous women.
The federal and provincial governments have a responsibility for the legal status and conditions of aboriginal women, and should provide a co-ordinated national response.

Despite calls for a national inquiry, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly said that the justice system and police investigations are the best way to deal with the issue.

But Teresa Edwards of the Native Women’s Association of Canada said an inquiry is necessary to get reliable statistics and to understand the breadth of the problem.

Edwards — who said her group had yet to hear any government response to the report — also said too many people were dismissing the problem as solely an aboriginal issue, or blaming aboriginal men for the violence.

“What we’ve also discovered, and what this report lays out for Canadians to examine and to research, is that the men committing the crimes aren’t necessarily aboriginal,” Edwards told CTV News Channel said. “A high percentage of our women leave reserves and come to urban centres, and they’re still at risk.”

And at a news conference Monday, chair of the Feminist Alliance for International Action human rights committee Sheila Day said police action after the violence has occurred is only a part of the equation.

“The ground-breaking part of this report says Canada is also obligated to prevent the violence,” Day said. “And in order to prevent the violence, Canada must address the risk factors.”

Harvard said Monday that the NWAC hopes that the new report will put the international spotlight on the government’s response.

“It is our hope and our belief that this report will be known and noted around the world, and the response of the Canadian government will be cause for hope for our peoples or for further shame,” she said. “And we hope it will be cause for hope and for action to begin new change.”

Sure, John A. Macdonald was a racist, colonizer and misogynist — but so were most Canadians back then

jimcraven — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:27:06 +0000

Sure, John A. Macdonald was a racist, colonizer and misogynist — but so were most Canadians back then

Tristin Hopper | January 10, 2015 | Last Updated: Jan 10 1:27 AM ET
More from Tristin Hopper | @TristinHopper

Library and Archives CanadaJohn A. Macdonald was aboriginal affairs minister for 10 years — from 1878 to 1888 — and is often blamed for laying the institutional groundwork for today’s First Nations’ troubles.

In 1887, the first of Vancouver’s many anti-Chinese riots had just broken out when Sir John A. Macdonald stood up in the House of Commons to propose further measures to keep out the Chinese.

The Chinese took white jobs, he said. The Chinese would breed a “mongrel” race in British Columbia and threaten the “Aryan” character of the Dominion. Altogether, the prospect of having white working classes living alongside Chinese could lead only to “evil.”

But in an odd aside, Macdonald admitted that he was supporting the policy largely because he was running a country full of racists.

“On the whole, it is considered not advantageous to the country that the Chinese should come and settle in Canada,” said Macdonald. “That may be right or it may be wrong, it may be prejudice or otherwise, but the prejudice is near universal.”

Although they were laying the groundwork for one of the world’s most tolerant nations, the Canadians of 1867 largely took white supremacy for granted. Blacks were barred from staying in Toronto hotels. The average British Columbian saw Asians as a threat to racial purity. And almost everybody was fine with the expectation that the native way of life would soon be extinct.

On Sir John A. Macdonald’s 200th birthday, the country’s founding prime minister has no shortage of critics to deem him a racist, a colonizer and a misogynist. They’re right on all counts, but the man who founded Canada was the product of an age that made Archie Bunker look like Mohandas Gandhi.

“This is unfair, they didn’t know the things we know,” said Don Smith, a historian at the University of Calgary, responding to modern-day criticism of Macdonald.

Richard Gwyn, the author of a bestselling two-volume biography of Macdonald, warned in a recent piece for The Walrus that Canadians are lazily using the country’s founder as a “scapegoat” for the sins of the past.

“While Macdonald did make mistakes, so did Canadians, collectively,” he said.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/10/sure-john-a-macdonald-was-was-a-racist-colonizer-and-misogynist-but-so-were-most-canadians-back-then/

Criticisms of Macdonald generally centre on his policies concerning non-white Canadians. In short, he worked to keep out the Chinese, smashed Métis rebellions and set Canadian First Nations on track to decades of poverty and isolation.

But almost nobody gets a pass in 19th century Canada.

George Brown, Macdonald’s chief political rival, had a solid anti-slavery track record and urged racial harmony between Toronto’s whites and blacks.

At the same time, though, he also told Torontonians to distrust Jews, Catholics and the Irish. As refugees from the Irish Famine streamed into British North America, Brown wrote that these half-starved migrants were as much of a curse on Canada as “were the locusts to the land of Egypt.”

‘First Nations people in Saskatchewan, I would bet you $5 to a person, consider Macdonald the agent of their subjugation’

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Macdonald’s Liberal successor, was famously responsible for boosting the Chinese head tax to $500 in 1903.

In 1886, Laurier told the House of Commons that it was moral for Canada to take lands from “savage nations” so long as they paid adequate compensation.

A native-ruled Canada would “forever have remained barren and unproductive, but which under civilised rule would afford homes and happiness to teeming millions,” he said.

Below the border, even Abraham Lincoln, Macdonald’s 1860s contemporary, held the view that as soon as the Civil War was over, the United States should get to work shipping all its black people back to Africa.

As the 16th president said in 1858, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

Compared to the age he inhabited, say defenders, Macdonald was comparatively tolerant. He hung out with Irishmen, he had native friends, he urged unity with French speakers and he candidly acknowledged that the Canadian project was not going well for the country’s indigenous inhabitants.

“At all events, the Indians have been great sufferers by the discovery of America, and the transfer to it of a large white population,” he said in 1880.

Eldridge Stanton/Library and Archives Canada/PA-Sir John A. Macdonald

Macdonald oversaw the execution of Louis Riel, yes, but the man had staged two violent rebellions against his government.

“We still admire the way he tried to get Canadians to co-operate,” wrote historian Ged Martin in a recent piece. “But we don’t like the price that had to be paid, in sleaze and pork, to keep the country working together.”

The steepest price, by far, came on the aboriginal file. In addition to being Canada;’s first and longest serving prime minister, Macdonald remains the country’s longest-serving aboriginal affairs minister.

Serving in the post from 1878 to 1888, he laid the groundwork for basically every institution now blamed for the horrid state of Ottawa-aboriginal relations: The Indian Act, Indian Residential Schools and an over-bureaucratized Department of Indian Affairs.

“First Nations people in Saskatchewan, I would bet you $5 to a person, consider Macdonald the agent of their subjugation,” said University of Regina professor James Daschuk.

Last May, Mr. Daschuk, the author of a decidedly anti-Macdonald book, found himself in the somewhat awkward position of winning the Sir John A. Macdonald Prize for non-fiction.

‘He didn’t need to be so cruel’

That book, Clearing the Plains, based on 20 years of research, outlines how Canada capitalized on famine and disease in the prairies to force native populations to relocate to reserves well away from the coming railroad.

Mr. Daschuk notes that the evidence can still be seen on maps. In the once-populous areas southwest of Regina, there are only two First Nations reserves — both of which were established after the railroad was finished.

It was understandable for Macdonald to build a railroad to British Columbia or even pursue a policy of assimilation. But Mr. Daschuk says that what happened on the plains was needlessly draconian: Natives were barred from selling their agricultural products to white settlers, in some cases they were restricted from using modern farming implements and they could be arrested if found off their reserve without a pass.

“He didn’t need to be so cruel,” said Mr. Daschuk.

But it’s not like he had opponents. When critics accused Macdonald’s government of wasting money on feeding the Cree, the Prime Minister had no qualms in telling the assembled House of Commons that his agents withheld food “until the Indians were on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense.”

As Don Smith noted in one of the few papers ever drafted on Macdonald’s aboriginal policy, the first Prime Minister was also somewhat progressive in his belief in Aboriginal title as something to be extinguished with treaties.

Other politicians of the era reasoned that the natives had never owned the land in the first place, so it was free for the taking.

In the 1880s, a landmark Ontario court decision ruled that “there is no Indian title in law or in equity. The claim of the Indians is simply moral and no more.”

As the ugly business of nation-building goes, Macdonald can still boast some of history’s cleanest hands.

Unlike Germany’s Otto von Bismarck, Macdonald didn’t unify Canada by engineering a series of bloody foreign wars. He never owned people, like George Washington. And he never personally killed anyone, like Simon Bolivar.

And even within the 19th century British Empire, the devastating relocation of several thousand native peoples was barely a blip.

As Mr. Daschuk noted, the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad was occurring at the same time as drought and negligent colonial management was conspiring to kill millions in British India.

But even if Macdonald wins the historical context game, it does not mean he will ever be anything less than an antihero for those Canadians who got the short end of the Confederation stick.

As Anishinaabe academic Hayden King wrote in a Twitter post this week, “’nobody is perfect’ is sooner to be adopted as a national mantra than rejecting [Sir John A. Macdonald] as a villain.”

National Post

• Email: thopper@nationalpost.com | Twitter:

FROM STTPML:

APTN’s Bad Harvest: One of the Many Faces of Genocide the Case of Kainai Blackfoot

jimcraven — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 19:33:43 +0000

http://aptn.ca/news/aptn-investigates-full-episodes/

HWUNEEM INVOCATION: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF TURTLE ISLAND

jimcraven — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:43:19 +0000

Saturday, 8 November 2014

HWUNEEM INVOCATION

ex injuria jus non oritur
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY INTO CENTURY XXII : REVERSE ONUS

The Only Acceptable Trade Agreement Is With Original Indigenous Peoples

Of Turtle Island North OPE : ORIGINAL PEOPLES ENERGY

FPIC 1613 LAND CLAIM JUST CAUSE 2014 UNPFII

Witnessing Jingoism in 2014 : It is within the realms of reason for

China’s President Xi Jinping to chide Crown Canada’s Prime Minister Harper

on the outstanding and significant human rights problems in Canada; namely,

the paramountcy issues as arising under the domain of OIP Free Prior Informed Consent :

as referenced to Original indigenous Peoples land & paramount governance claims; regardless

of CDA, CSIS ; or, Energy Projects.

Kwa’mutsun Nation Head of State Stitumaatulwut Hwuneem’s 2005-2013-2014

declaration issuance to the UN Security Council; – challenging Crown Canada’s claim of nationhood

- remains a principle petition to the UN under the Charter Chapter VII provisions. And, the IMH :

International Merchant House provides the access link into indigenous Peoples global commerce and

trade venues. Kwa’mutsun is also a divisional seat of the OIPC : Original Indigenous Peoples Court International; which is linked to the UN IGO-registered GTIF.

EDITOR – PUBLISHER
1.778.433.3908
DIRECT EMAIL
EARTH-1 CENTRAL HQ

US CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 331 (1988) RECOGNIZING THE

IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY’S INFLUENCE UPON THE 1776 CONSTITUTIONAL

FRAMEWORK

Homeless Indigenous Woman Fined For Building Her Own Home

jimcraven — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:11:08 +0000

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/homeless-woman-fined-for-building-her-own-home-1.2824688?cmp=abfb

Homeless woman fined for building her own home Darlene Necan says she’s been made to feel ‘awful’ for trying to house herself

By Jody Porter, CBC News Posted: Nov 07, 2014 6:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov
07, 2014 3:32 PM ET

“This is my castle and I’m so proud to have it,” Darlene Necan says of the one-room house she built with donated materials on the same spot where she grew up. (Jody Porter/CBC)

A First Nations woman in Northern Ontario faces thousands of dollars in fines and a stop-work order on the cabin she is attempting to build in the place where she grew up.

Darlene Necan is a member of the Ojibways of Saugeen First Nation, but she’s been unable to acquire housing in that community, about 400 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay, since the reserve was created in the late 1990s.

Homeless First Nations walkers take fight to Ottawa Group builds new cabin for elder living in chicken barn

Last year, Necan began building with donated materials on land where her family home once stood, 20 kilometres south of her reserve, in the unorganized township of Savant Lake, Ont.

“This is my castle and I’m so proud to have it, even though it’s not done yet,” Necan said during a recent visit to the one-room, plywood house she is not allowed to live in. Darlene Necan cabin interior

Inside Darlene Necan’s ‘illegal’ cabin. (Jody Porter/CBC)

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has charged Necan with breaches of the Public Lands Act that carry fines of up to $10,000, and up to an additional $1,000 fine each time she is caught continuing to build. Necan believes it is because somehow the place she grew up has become Crown land. The ministry did not respond to questions from CBC News about this story. ‘A lot of times I cry’

As an unorganized township, Savant Lake doesn’t have a municipal leader. Denis Mousseau owns the only store, across the street from his hotel, on one of the community’s two main roads.

“It’s a common thing for First Nations people to do, is build their own house without title to the land,” Mousseau said. “First Nations people have the right to do that and I don’t see why [the Ministry of] Natural Resources should be hassling her over this.”

Necan has boarded up the unfinished doorway to her cabin for the winter, and said she feels “shattered” by the charges against her. Her next court date is Nov. 20. Building supplies in snow

Some of the donated building supplies Darlene Necan was unable to use before a stop-work order was issued. (Jody Porter/CBC)

”I still keep going with this fight no matter how awful it makes me feel for trying to house myself and help people, because a lot of people don’t believe in themselves or that things can change if you fight hard enough,” Necan said, her voice cracking.

“It’s what I try to believe. I try to be hopeful. That’s hard too and a lot of times I cry by myself here. But I talk to my [late] mom and my [late] dad and it keeps me going because I keep thinking of them.” ‘Not any better in the city’

Necan has spent much of her adult life couch-surfing among relatives and camping out on the family trap line when the weather allows. The
55-year-old was looking forward to a different life, living in her own home and offering shelter to family members.

“This is exactly the same spot where we lived,” Necan said. “We slowly started moving to the cities because we didn’t have anything after my dad got hurt and we were pretty well desperate.”

Necan’s father was injured while working for the railway.

“My family… they’re not any better in the city than they were here,” she says. “Here, at least they were free to roam around in the bush and go hunting and all that, but in the city you need at least five, 10 bucks to even live for the day.” ‘Aren’t we under treaty?’

Fewer than 100 people live on the reserve up the road. Edward Machimity has been chief for nearly two decades, since the reserve was created. Necan said he refuses to help her, or even answer her questions.

“He has said that he has to be careful about how he helps the off-reserve people and that really got me confused because I thought, aren’t we on Anishinaabe land right now? Aren’t we under treaty?” Necan said.

“Isn’t this why we elected him for, is to help all people, not only the people inside reserve? That is so crap because natives are scattered all over Canada. How can they say only the people on reserve have rights?”

Machimity did not return repeated calls from CBC News.

Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document

jimcraven — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:38:22 +0000

Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document

Posted: 10/02/2014 4:52 pm EDT Updated: 10/03/2014 9:59 pm EDT

Canada singled itself out as the only country to raise objections over a landmark United Nations document re-establishing the protection of the rights of indigenous people last week. It was a gesture one prominent First Nation leader called “saddening, surprising.”

“Canada was viewed always as a country that upheld human rights,” said Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Chief Perry Bellegarde. “For Canada to be the only nation state to get up to make a caveat on the vote – that’s very telling.”

Bellegarde travelled to New York City to attend a special UN General Assembly meeting of more than 1,000 delegates and heads of state for the first-ever World Conference on Indigenous Peoples on Sept. 22 and 23.

On day one, nations voted on the adoption of the document – the first vote of its kind after the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was introduced in 2007.

In his opening remarks, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke about the document’s significance, saying it helps “set minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples” – more than 370 million around the world.

“I expect member states to meet their commitments, including by carrying out national action plans to realize our shared vision,” he told delegates.

The United States, who was among four nations (including Canada) who opposed the adoption of the original declaration seven years ago, notably reversed its position. President Barack Obama threw his administration’s support behind the declaration, regarding it as one that will “help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future.”

The document was adopted by all nations by consensus last week, but Canada was the only country to file its objections, flagging the wording of “free, prior and informed consent” as problematic.

Free, prior, and informed consent is commonly upheld as a key principle in international law. But according to Ottawa, it’s tricky wording that could be interpreted as “a veto to aboriginal groups and in that regard, cannot be reconciled with Canadian law, as it exists.”

“As a result, Canada cannot associate itself with the elements contained in this outcome document related to free, prior and informed consent,” the government explained in a statement.

‘Deeply Concerning’

Interim Assembly of First Nations Chief Ghislain Picard called the government’s objections “deeply concerning,” adding “Canada continues to embarrass itself and isolate itself on the world stage by offering to explain their vote.”

In the feds’ explanation, the word “veto” pops up three times, and Bellegarde says that’s inaccurate.

“Veto does not exist in the declaration anywhere,” Bellegarde said. “Why are they misleading and using that word?”

In 2007, Ottawa first used the same “veto” explanation in its statement rejecting the UN declaration.

Then in 2010, despite rejecting the declaration three years earlier, the federal government issued a statement saying: “We are now confident that Canada can interpret the principles expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework.”

Fast-forward to today and First Nation leaders, including Bellegarde, say they’re flabbergasted over the government’s flip-flopping and contradictory statements.

Bellegarde, who announced his candidacy for Assembly of First Nations chief on Wednesday, told The Huffington Post Canada in an interview the Harper government failed to consult with aboriginal groups in “any forums, any meetings, any dialogues” prior to the two-day UN conference.

He brought up recent decisions from Canada’s own Supreme Court which upheld aboriginal rights and titles and reinforced the necessity to obtain consent from aboriginal people on issues pertaining to property rights and claims.

In Tsilhqot’in Nation vs. British Columbia, a ruling written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, it clearly states government and other agencies who desire access to land conferred by aboriginal titles “must obtain the consent of the Aboriginal title holders.”

“This relationship between this government, our Crown, and Canada and its indigenous peoples does not have to be so unnecessarily adversarial,” Bellegarde said.

Strained Relations ‘Persistently Unresolved’

Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not join Bellegarde at the UN conference, nor did Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister Bernard Valcourt. Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq was in New York at the time, but opted to attend UN climate summit meetings.

Instead, new aboriginal affairs deputy minister Colleen Swords was sent to represent Canada.

Bellegarde said he pressed Swords for a clearer explanation of what “veto” means in the context of the non-legally binding UN outcome document and its application to Canadian law.

“No adequate response given back,” Bellegarde said.

The Huffington Post Canada asked Valcourt’s office for an explanation of Canada’s stance on the outcome document and received a written response.

“Our government is focused on working with aboriginal communities on our shared priorities, and we have in place a constitutionally-entrenched framework that ensures the consultation and accommodation, as appropriate, of aboriginal interests. This framework also balances the interests of non-aboriginal Canadians and it has served as a model for nations around the world,” read the statement.

Valcourt’s office also repurposed one line from UN human rights investigator James Anaya’s 22-page report from earlier this year about Canada’s relationship with its indigenous peoples.

“To quote the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ‘…Canada has taken determined action to address ongoing aspects of the history of misdealing and harm inflicted on aboriginal peoples in the country, a necessary step towards helping to remedy their current disadvantage,’” read the email.

However, Valcourt’s office failed to acknowledge that in the same July 2014 report, Anaya concluded: “The numerous initiatives that have been taken at the federal and provincial/territorial levels to address the problems faced by indigenous peoples have been insufficient.

“The well-being gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada has not narrowed over the past several years; treaty and aboriginal claims remain persistently unresolved; indigenous women and girls remain vulnerable to abuse; and overall there appear to be high levels of distrust among indigenous peoples towards the government at both the federal and provincial levels.”

See whole article at http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/02/canada-un-indigenous-rights_n_5918868.html

ADDITIONAL READING FROM STTPML:

http://sttpml.org/parts-i-and-ii-combined-breathtaking-hubris-and-hypocrisy-the-real-nature-and-foundations-of-anglo-american-imperiums/

http://sttpml.org/redskins-the-origin-of-the-word-and-genocide-behind-it/

http://sttpml.org/the-cia-and-wanted-nazi-war-criminals/

http://sttpml.org/papers-at-the-university-of-minnesota-center-for-holocaust-and-genocide-studies/

http://sttpml.org/canada/wasichu-the-continuing-indian-wars/

http://sttpml.org/nation-building-in-indian-country-the-blackfoot-constitutional-review-by-taiawagi-helton/

http://sttpml.org/indigenous-approaches-to-economic-development-and-sustainability-lecture-at-yunnan-university-china/

http://sttpml.org/corruption-and-genocide-in-indian-country-the-case-of-the-blood-kainai-blackfoot/

http://sttpml.org/canada/the-horrifying-anglo-american-roots-of-nazi-eugenics/

http://sttpml.org/canada/cooking-the-history-books-the-thanksgiving-massacre-anglo-american-genocide-the-father-and-slavery-the-mother/

Corruption is Life-and-Death in Indian Country as Elsewhere

jimcraven — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:58:51 +0000

Message from the Kainai (“Blood” or “Many Chiefs”) Blackfoot at the Rez at Cardston, Alberta

Oki:

I am wondering how we can report the activity that the administration have adopted. The Lands Director, is charging and forcing the farmers to pay extra for every acre he is allowed to farm. I believe that is extortion and fraud. He is doing it openly, the Lands Committee members are receiving kickbacks. The farmers are acknowledging this transaction and have informed us about this immoral and illegal procedure. Any idea how we can stop this. Did i send you copies of those cancelled checks the Lands Director received, if not can I send them to you and put them on google or on the web.

Lands Fraud Cheques

Private Citizen Laying Charges

(Excerpts Primarily from Ontario Attorney General Website)

If you have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed contrary to a provincial or federal statute [e.g.. Criminal Code of Canada], a regulation made under that statute, or a municipal bylaw, you may prosecute the offender yourself. Before launching a private prosecution, you may want to make a complaint to the police. If the police refuse to lay charges and you believe there is enough evidence of an offence to support a conviction, you may lay your own charges.

Generally, allegations of criminal activity are reported to the police. After the police investigate, they may lay criminal charges. However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.

When the information is presented to the court by a private citizen, it is then referred to either a provincial court judge or a designated justice of the peace, who holds a special hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether a summons or warrant should be issued to compel the person to attend court and answer to the charge.

This hearing, held under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, takes place in private, without notice to the accused person. At the hearing, the judge or justice of the peace must hear and consider all of the allegations and available evidence.

The Crown must also receive a copy of the information, get notice of the hearing, and have an opportunity to attend. The Crown may attend at the hearing without being deemed to intervene in the proceedings.

If the judge or justice of the peace decides not to issue a summons or a warrant, then the information is deemed never to have been laid.

If the judge or justice of the peace issues a summons, the person will be served with a copy of the summons, which notifies them of the charge and compels them to attend court. If the judge or justice of the peace issues a warrant, the person will be arrested and brought before a justice.

To avoid any abuse of the private prosecution process, the Criminal Code and the Crown Attorneys Act authorize Crown Counsel to supervise privately laid charges to ensure that such prosecutions are in the best interest of the administration of justice. If a summons or warrant is issued and the case involves an indictable offence, the Crown is required to take over the prosecution. So, a private citizen’s right to swear an information is always subject to the Crown’s right to intervene and take over the prosecution.

If the Crown intervenes, the Crown will review the matter, as it does in every other criminal case, to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. If so, the Crown will proceed with the prosecution. If not, the Crown is duty-bound to withdraw the charge.

Forensic Audit Shows Former Lubicon “Chief” Collected $1.5 Million While Community Went Without Running Water

jimcraven — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:17:12 +0000

Lubicon Lake Band

September 09, 2014 10:02 ET

Forensic Audit Shows Former Lubicon Chief Collected $1.5 Million While Community Went Without Running Water

Former leadership spent more than $27.5 million dollars over a six-year period with little sign of benefits or investment in the Lubicon Cree community of Little Buffalo.

LITTLE BUFFALO, ALBERTA–(Marketwired – Sept. 9, 2014) - The Lubicon Lake Band Chief and Council are reacting to the results of an MNP LLP forensic audit into the Cree Development Corporation covering the period of March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2012.

The corporation, which was meant to provide economic development for the Lubicon Cree community, was controlled by former Chief Bernard Ominayak and his immediate family and supporters. In a period of just four years, Ominayak and his family paid themselves more than $3.3 million.

“For many years our community has suffered without basic necessities like running water, while a small number of people got rich,” said Billy Joe Laboucan, the recently elected Chief of the Lubicon Lake Band. “Dictatorship rule has cost our community tens of millions of dollars and countless opportunities. This is a wake-up call that never again should we allow ourselves to be governed in this way.”

The audit shows large sums being paid, including almost $1.5 million spent on financial and credit card payments and nearly $1.2 million on automotive costs. Community members say they do not have access to the cards or vehicles.

An open letter (http://ow.ly/BhcDW) has begun circulating in the community, calling on the former leaders to account for their expenditures and asking the current Chief and Council to hold restorative justice circles in the community.

“We may never know the full extent of what we have lost as a community financially, but we know what we have lost in trust,” said Chief Laboucan. “We are hopeful that this will never happen again because our members have seen the truth, they have a voice and they are able to make fully informed decisions. It will take all of us working together to heal and rebuild our community.”

The results of the forensic audit can be downloaded here: http://ow.ly/Bhf3X

The open letter can be read here: http://ow.ly/BhcDW

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/forensic-audit-shows-former-lubicon-chief-collected-15-million-while-community-went-1945409.htm#.VBB-68Mnozg.email

CONTACT INFORMATION

Lubicon Lake Band
Andrew Frank
Communications Specialist
604-367-2112
www.lubiconlakeband.ca

» COLONIALISM

What Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows Mean for Treaty First Nations

What Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows Mean for Treaty First Nations

Tsilhqot’in

Grassy Narrows

What now for Treaty First Nations?

Native groups use Macdonald’s birthday to raise issue of his legacy of residential schools

Native groups use Macdonald’s birthday to raise issue of his legacy of residential schools

Nicole Ireland, QMI Agency

Advocates hope ‘groundbreaking’ report on aboriginal women will put spotlight on Murdered Aboriginal Women

Advocates hope ‘groundbreaking’ report on aboriginal women will put spotlight on Canada

Related Stories

Related Links

Photos

Sure, John A. Macdonald was a racist, colonizer and misogynist — but so were most Canadians back then

Sure, John A. Macdonald was a racist, colonizer and misogynist — but so were most Canadians back then

Related

breathtaking hubris and hypocrisy – sttpml

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics | – sttpml

American and Canadian Holocausts: IT Not only CAN …

APTN’s Bad Harvest: One of the Many Faces of Genocide the Case of Kainai Blackfoot

HWUNEEM INVOCATION: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF TURTLE ISLAND

Saturday, 8 November 2014

HWUNEEM INVOCATION

Homeless Indigenous Woman Fined For Building Her Own Home

Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document

Canada Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document

Corruption is Life-and-Death in Indian Country as Elsewhere

Forensic Audit Shows Former Lubicon “Chief” Collected $1.5 Million While Community Went Without Running Water

Forensic Audit Shows Former Lubicon Chief Collected $1.5 Million While Community Went Without Running Water

CONTACT INFORMATION