The Dominion - Original Peoples

Stopping Nuclear Waste in its Tracks

Sandra — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:10:27 +0000

Communities, Indigenous organizations pass resolutions against transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Saskatchewan

BEAUVAL, SK—Three places in northern Saskatchewan may be on the map in Canada's search for a high-level radioactive waste dump site, but the spent nuclear fuel bundles may be stopped in their tracks. Communities and Indigenous organizations along potential transport routes and beyond have been passing resolutions against nuclear waste.

The Northern Village of Pinehouse, English River First Nation and the town of Creighton are all currently in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) site selection process to find a "willing host community" for a deep geological repository to house the waste piling up at nuclear reactors in Quebec, New Brunswick and especially Ontario.

Canoe Lake First Nation, the town of La Loche, trappers from the Fur Block near Beauval, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Aboriginal Women's Circle Corporation (SAWCC) and the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) have all formally opposed the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Saskatchewan. Others criticize NWMO for refusing to deal with site selection process on a regional basis, even though a decision would affect much more than a single community.

Emil Bell has been educating Band and town councilors about the Nuclear Waste Management Organization process and the dangers of nuclear waste. A Cree grassroots activist, he lives in Fire Lake, outside of the Canoe Lake First Nation reserve.

"Canoe Lake is against this whole thing," Bell told the Media Co-op. Located in northwestern Saskatchewan, east of the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range and tar sands exploitation, the First Nation passed a Band Council Resolution against the transportation and storage of nuclear waste.

"I was the one that was going around, getting all the signatures of the councilors," said Bell. "They are dead set against the nuclear dump. It goes against our Treaty rights, our inherent rights. If we get a major disaster wherever they put the nuclear dump, our waterways are, you know, shot. Animal life, the plant life, are going to be drastically affected."

Bell has been traveling up and down the province, meeting with other First Nations, municipal authorities and groups and urging them to take an official stance against the transportation and storage of nuclear waste. "There's a few of us that are going around, doing a lot of work, and we do it out of our own pocket," he said.

But northern activists are not the only ones speaking about nuclear waste in the region. "The nuclear industry people, NWMO, have a lot of money. They're also going around, trying to convince people to, you know, accept the nuclear dump [with] the promise of a lot of money, the promise of jobs...they keep telling people 'oh yeah, it's safe, it's safe,'" Bell told the Media Co-op.

The predominantly Métis community of Île-à-la-Crosse has yet to take an official position on nuclear waste transportation and storage and will likely revisit the issue after the October 24 municipal elections. Île-à-la-Crosse Mayor Duane Favel says he and others requested that NWMO communicate and deal with municipalities in northwestern Saskatchewan collectively because a nuclear waste repository in the area would impact the entire region.

"Our proposal was, as Northwest municipalities, that we try and get NWMO to deal with us as a region, as the Northwest municipalities. We drafted up a letter [and] we tried to get the signature of every mayor—I believe there's 17 municipalities on the northwest side—[so] that NWMO would have to deal with us collectively, if they were, you know, to talk about nuclear waste within their region," Favel told the Media Co-op in an interview in the Île-à-la-Crosse village office.

"However, that got kind of sidetracked," he said. "They started meeting with municipalities individually and convinced, you know, one or two municipalities to agree to—for NWMO to go into their communities and start this process that they talk about."

Many mayors did sign the letter and a copy was given to the Northwest municipalities and to NWMO. But NWMO declined to pursue the regional approach requested by the municipalities.

"They didn't want to deal with that as a collective organization. They wanted to deal with specific municipalities. And I believe some of the reasoning was, you know, the areas that they were looking for, that would be good for this deposit of nuclear waste, wasn't throughout this region," said Favel. "However, that was not our argument. Our argument was if nuclear waste was to be stored in the northwest side of Saskatchewan, that they should be dealing with us collectively and we should vote as a region whether or not we want nuclear waste stored within this area."

The communication between Île-à-la-Crosse and NWMO is currently non-existent, Favel told the Media Co-op.

"I'm still kind of baffled in terms of why they didn't use that approach and actually consult with everybody within the region and try to, I guess at least in the beginning, have a good working relationship in terms of addressing the issue with the people of Northwest Saskatchewan," he said. "I thought it was a completely disrespectful approach."

While Île-à-la-Crosse and other municipalities consider whether to take an official position on the issue, some locals of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan have been actively organizing opposition to the transportation and storage of nuclear waste. Bryan Lee and other members of the Fish Lake Métis local began looking into the nuclear waste storage issue a few years ago, when they heard locations in northern Saskatchewan were under consideration.

"Once we heard this, then we started looking into the whole issue ourselves because we had heard some things in [the] press, that the NWMO was looking for a 'willing host community' in northern Saskatchewan," Lee told the Media Co-op. "We brought forward a motion within our local to take a position...to oppose the storage and transportation of high-level nuclear waste."

After passing at the Fish Lake Métis local, the resolution was taken to Western Region 2, where it passed as well. A motion for the resolution to be adopted at the provincial level by the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan did not succeed in 2010, but Lee presented it again in 2011.

"I reformatted the resolution and I brought it forward to the annual general assembly November 5, 2011. And in the presentation, we were successful in getting a two thirds majority approval at the assembly, for the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan to take the official position to oppose the storage and transportation of high-level nuclear waste anywhere in Saskatchewan," said Lee.

The Saskatchewan Aboriginal Women's Circle Corporation of Saskatchewan also passed a resolution last year, opposing the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Saskatchewan. The resolution was then adopted by the Native Women's Association of Canada at its annual general assembly held in Saskatoon in August 2012.

The town of La Loche and the trappers' organization from a Fur Block in the Beauval area have also passed similar resolutions. More communities and organizations are currently considering taking an official stance against nuclear waste in the province.

NWMO is moving forward in its search and Pinehouse, English River First Nation and Creighton are still under consideration. But with all the resolutions against nuclear waste transportation, whether the high-level radioactive waste would ever make it to a storage site in northern Saskatchewan without roadblocks along the way is beginning to look increasingly unlikely.

Sandra Cuffe is a freelance journalist and member of the Vancouver Media Co-op. She recently returned to the west coast after eight weeks in Saskatchewan. This article was originally published on the Media Co-op.

Saskatchewan Nuclear Dump

Honouring the Dead, Standing with the Survivors

Tim McSorley — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:40:08 +0000

Seventh annual Sisters in Spirit vigil still seeking answers, action for missing and murdered women

MONTREAL—Close to 200 people joined Montreal's seventh annual Sisters in Spirit vigil and march last night. It was one of more than 160 vigils across North America on October 4 in commemoration of the thousands of Native women who have been murdered or gone missing over the past three decades.

Since it was founded in 2005 by Bridget Tolley, an Algonquin woman whose mother was killed when Surete du Quebec officers hit her with their car, organizers of the Sisters in Spirit vigil have argued that government and police need to take the situation of missing and murdered Indigenous women more seriously. Estimates range from 600 (according to police) to more than 3000 (according to researchers and human rights activists) Native women who have faced disappearance or a violent death since the 1980s.

While violence against Indigenous women may have appeared more often in the headlines due to high profile cases like the William Pickton trial in BC, vigil organizer Bianca Mugyenyi said people need to realize that this is a national crisis, where women from across the country find themselves threatened and in danger on a daily basis.

“Our goal is to raise awareness of high rates of violence that Native women face in this country,” said Mugyenyi, who is with Missing Justice, a Native women solidarity group that has helped organize the Montreal vigil since 2009.

Nina Segalowitz, an Innu woman and frontline case worker with abused women, echoed Mugyenyi's concerns. “We've lost a lot of women in Montreal to violence, from partners and ex-partners...While we're here for Native women, I like to think that we're here for all women who are abused simply for being women.”

First Nations women are five times more likely than other sectors of the population to face violence, she said.

Speakers at the vigil pointed to two significant places where action is needed: government action to ensure the safety of Native women, but also transformation and education in society to decrease violence against women in general, and against Native women in particular.

Mugyenyi had particularly harsh criticism for recent actions of the federal government. Budget cuts have led to the significant reduction and elimination of resources meant to combat violence against Native women. One aspect has been the federally funded Sisters in Spirit program, organized by the Native Women's Association of Canada. The federal government provided funding to the program from 2005 until 2011, in order to build a database of information on unsolved cases of missing and murdered Native women. In 2010, the Conservative government announced it would not continue funding the program, and that the group would need to cease operating. The decision came as a blow, since the program had already built profiles of more than 500 cases and was seen as doing effective work.

Instead, the government announced $10 million in funding, mostly for police operations.

Mugyenyi said that this decision, as well as the Conservative government's “tough on crime” stance, will do little to improve the situation of Native women.

“In the case of missing and murdered women, the police are part of the problem,” she said. “They make assumptions, perpetuate stereotypes. Bridget Tolley's mother was killed by the Surete du Quebec. She's been calling for an independent inquiry, outside of the police, which the government has continued to turn down.” In 2001, Tolley's mother was hit by an SQ police car and died. The investigation into her death, which cleared all involved of wrongdoing, was led by the brother of the officer at the wheel of the car.

Sisters in Spirit has been instrumental in researching and recording cases of native women who have been killed or gone missing.

Instead of more police operations, said Mugyenyi, better education around violence towards women and more social services to help women who are in precarious social situations are needed. She also said the government should heed the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in their support of a national inquiry into violence against native women. That call was put out in December 2011, but the federal government has yet to take action.

While government and police actions play an important role, another significant issue that speakers pointed to is the need for more action against sexism and racism in all communities.

Segalowitz added that she was at the vigil not just to honour the women who have died, but also to stand beside the women who have been able to survive and carry on, and because of her three children, whom she hopes will not have to deal with the same issues of violence and abuse.

Irkar Beljars, a Mohawk man who has helped organize the vigil over the past several years, called on the men in the crowd to make sure they pass the word on and tell their friends where they were tonight, and why it is important to raise their voices against violence towards women.

After seven years of vigils, Mugyenyi expressed hopefulness that the message is being heard. “Every year there are more people, media coverage goes up,” she said. “It's encouraging to be here to see so many people come out to honour the lives of missing and murdered women.”

Tim McSorley is an editor with the Media Co-op and a contributor with the Co-op media de Montreal.

Sisters in Spirit 2012

Buffalo Hat Singers

SIS 2012 signs 2

Sisters in Spirit 2012 signs

Mi'kmaq to Obstruct Traffic to Fight Oil and Gas Exploration at Lake Ainslie

Moira Peters — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:14:51 +0000

First Nations call for a complete halt to drilling in Cape Breton

AULD'S COVE, NS—Mi’kmaq people from Cape Breton and the Nova Scotia mainland are preparing to set up a “partial blockade” of the Trans-Canada Highway in Auld’s Cove, on the mainland side of the Canso Causeway, the access point to Cape Breton.

By 1:30 yesterday afternoon, about 25 people had gathered, setting up flags and signs, and organizing a teepee and food for the warriors and their supporters.

The blockade is in opposition to exploratory oil and gas drilling by PetroWorth Resources, scheduled to begin later this year on the shore of Lake Ainslie in western Cape Breton.

"We’re going to be slowing the traffic down to a bare stop," said Ginny Marshall, pipefitter and mother of four from Potlotek (Chapel Island) on Cape Breton. "But we’ll be allowing people to go through," while handing out information and pamphlets, she explained. "We have to make it known why water is sacred."

Mi’kmaq communities—and many non-Indigenous residents around Lake Ainslie—have been clear in their opposition to exploratory drilling around the watershed, saying that no amount of money is worth risking the pristine water resources that Lake Ainslie supports.

"I’m a pipefitter and I would benefit from this type of job," said Marshall, referring to the development the province says is necessary to the economically depressed region. "But...I’ve seen all the damages that it does...I cannot tell my children, my child...I didn’t try. I let this go. I knew they were going to destroy the water...and money was too important."

Emmett Peters of Paq’tnkek (Afton) emphasized the importance of the action for future generations.

"I don’t know if you’re familiar with the 1752 treaty, [which was affirmed in the 1999] Marshall Decision, where we’re allowed to hunt and fish. So they thought about us 300 years previous. That’s how strong that treaty was," said Peters.

"So now what we’re trying to do is leave something for our children...maybe all it could be is fresh water."

A ceremony is planned for this morning at the blockade site, to which all people are invited.

"We’re going to put up a teepee and we’re going to have a fire, drummers are going come in and drum, sing the honour song and we’re going to have one of our elders say an opening prayer just so everything goes good," said Peters yesterday. "We’re leading, but it’s for all human beings."

Organizers of the action are expecting supporters from Paq’tnkek, Eskasoni, Waycobah, Membertou and Potlotek First Nations. They are also expecting non-Indigenous supporters from the Green Party, Protect Lake Ainslie and the Margaree Environmental Association.

Peter Bernard, a Chief of the Mi’kmaq Warrior Society from Waycobah, estimated this action will last two days.

"We’re trying to do this as peaceful as possible," said Marshall. But she, Peters and Bernard added that they will not give up if the partial blockade doesn’t affect the changes they are looking for: a complete halt on any oil and gas exploration or drilling at Lake Ainslie.

"If they do drill that [exploratory] well, what’s going to stop them from fracking?" said Paul. "It’s going to cost them millions of dollars to drill that one hole. And just leave it? I don’t think so."

Marshall said that if the traffic slowdown doesn’t succeed in stopping PetroWorth’s well, a full blockade will be organized.

"We will take your time...we understand your time is your money," said Marshall. "If no other way is gonna put a stop to this, this is our last resort."

"We’re so lucky to have a place so safe in the world compared to other places," said Marshall. "Blue gold is going to be the next commodity...just like oil, it’s gonna be our water, because water is a key element to life."

PetroWorth Resources could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.

Moira Peters lives and bikes in Halifax. Ben Sichel is a teacher and writer, and editor for the Halifax Media Co-op, where this article was originally published.

Ginny Marshall

Causeway Blockade

First Nations paddle to protect Salish Sea from pipeline plan

Miles — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:24:17 +0000

WHEY-AH-WICHEN (CATES PARK, NORTH VANCOUVER)—On September 1, a dozen First Nations canoes paddled past the the Kinder Morgan crude oil pipeline facility in Burrard Inlet. Tsleil Waututh and Squamish paddlers were joined by other First Nations from as far away as Washington State and Vancouver Island in the ceremonial trip. The Nations later signed a declaration to protect the Salish Sea from Kinder Morgan's proposal to double its pipeline capacity to the facility.

The proposed $5 billion project would push crude oil capacity to 850,000 barrels a day from the current 300,000, which would in turn stand to bring more, and bigger, tankers to Vancouver waters.

Leader after leader called for a united effort to protect the coast under the banner of "Many People—One Canoe."

Canoes Arrive at Whey-Ah-Wichen

Waiting for welcome protocols at Whey-Ah-Wichen

Canoes arrive at Whey-Ah-Wichen - Kinder Morgan pipeline facility in background

Canoes arrive at Whey-Ah-Wichen - II

Leaders sign declaration to protect the Salish sea

Canoes arrive at Whey-Ah-Wichen - III

Canoes arrive at Whey-Ah-Wichen - IV

Welcoming committee on shore

Leaders call for solidarity

Leaders call for solidarity to protect the Salish sea

Leaders call for solidarity to protect the Salish sea - II

Protect the Salish sea!

Rebuilding the Wabanaki Confederacy

Miles — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:52:09 +0000

Non-Indigenous participate in Confederacy Gathering for first time in centuries

ST MARY'S FIRST NATION, UNCEDED WABANAKI TERRITORY (NB)—For the first time in several hundred years, non-Indigenous peoples were invited to participate in the last two days of the week-long Wabanaki Confederacy Gathering this September 1 and 2.

The Wabanaki (translated roughly as "People of the First Light") Confederacy's current incarnation comprises five principal nations—the Mik'maq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, Abenaki and Penobscot—and stretches from the colonial borders of Newfoundland in the North, mid-Maine in the South, and parts of Quebec in the West.

At its zenith, the Confederacy consisted of close to 50 nations, went South to the mid-Carolinas, included most of the interior of the United States, and reached into Ontario.

Approximately 150 people attended the final two days of the almost week-long meeting, held on the shores of the Wulustuk (Staint John) river.

The open portion of the gathering, from the perspective of a non-Indigenous participant, can perhaps be described as a meeting between Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental activists, placed into a paradigm in which environmental activism is no longer a lifestyle choice, or "something one does."

Invitation to participate in ceremony, and patient explanation on the part of the Indigenous hosts, brought about the notion of inter-connection between self and the natural world—so that the notion of 'activism' was simply replaced by the reality of "being."

"When we talk about Wabanaki people, we're also talking about Wabanaki people being the land, being the trees, being the animals, because in that cultural perspective, we're all related," says gkisedtanamoogk, the Gathering's fire keeper. "We're everything. We're not just a species standing apart from everything else."

The notion of special inter-dependence was also co-joined with the necessity of placing oneself into an historical narrative that is not static, but developing.

Portions of sacred bundles, which included ancient Wampum belts—themselves a recorded, as well as symbolic, history in bead work—and the box gifted from the French to the original Wabanaki Confederacy in 1701 upon their acceptance to participate in the Confederacy were brought out and explained, and allowed those in attendance to see themselves as part of something continuous, historic and challenging.

"Within the Wabanaki territory we're looking for allies that are going to stand against the total annihilation of our land and water and air," says jeaba-weay-quay (roughly translated from Obijway to 'The woman whose voice pierces'). "We're looking for allies who will help us to put our nation back together and put it back in order. And we're asking our allies to help us empower that. And in the process of doing that, they will be decolonizing us and they will be decolonizing themselves."

The notion of a fluid historical narrative also extends to the treaties that exist between the Wabanaki and those who have subsequently colonized their territories. The treaties that do exist are of peace and friendship, not of subservience of self and ceding of land.

The Wabanaki thus provide not only a paradigm alternative on the metaphysical sphere, but also a legal umbrella under which the real concerns to the natural environment, and thus all of us, can find sanctuary and process.

Many in attendance over the two-day period spoke of the environmental perils that are now at the doorsteps of their respective Maritime-area backyards.

To observe effort and concern on any number of particular environmental issues come together and begin to form a cohesive whole, under the watch and fostering of the Wabanaki, was as if watching pieces of a puzzle come together in an already-existent frame.

To be invited into this process, as partners with equal concern, has the potential to be extremely empowering on many fronts.

"The Wabanaki are in a far better position to defend the land," says gkisedtanamoogk. "No land was ever ceded, and that's acknowledged by both the province and the federal government. So on the basis of the treaties, what we're suggesting is that you and I have a common responsibility to the land under those treaties.

"You and I, we also have a common responsibility to each other, as holder and keepers of those treaties. Those treaties are as important to Wabanaki people as they ought to be important to you. Those are your treaties too. And under those treaties we are also invoking on international protocol, so we have a social potential of being responsible to each other's needs, but in an entirely different context. And that presents immense implications, both legal implications as well as social implications and economic implications that are more just."

Harry LaPorte, grand chief of the Maliseet First Nation, agrees.

"We're going to rebuild the Wabanaki Confederacy," says LaPorte. "We also invited some non-Natives...to come and be with us and to help us build an alliance, so that when we...come into conflict with the government and some of their decisions and policies...to have them stand beside us and to let their government know that it's not only Native people who are worried about the water, the land, the air. But it's also people from their nation that are concerned."

While some at the Gathering were eager for quick pacts and commitments, due in no small part to the urgency of the environmental issues—such as 'fracking'—that are affecting the area, this was to be sure among the first steps.

Gaps in culture, in no way limited to the most obvious identifiers of language and religion, are real, and will require concerted effort and patience to overcome. Judging by those in attendance however, the willingness to make this alliance work is both urgent and real, not only in terms of ideas shared, but also willingness to participate in ceremonies not necessarily completely understood, but partaken of in a spirit of peace and friendship.

As for the next steps of this alliance, that will be up to the grandmothers.

"The grandmothers are going to be meeting in the meantime to make sure that we keep cohesion of this alliance together and to provide that communication, and to put that wise, white hair together to sit down and talk about what needs to be done," says jeaba-weay-quay. "That's who's going to point the way...the women. The grandmothers. And then we're going to turn around and tell the men 'This is what we need to do. This is what we want. So we need you to help us.'"

"This is a preliminary investigation of what that relationship looks like," says gkisedtanamoogk. "What are the expectations? What are the long-term implications? What are some of the things we can do in the immediate? I'm really excited about this. I sense that something of this magnitude is a paradigm shift of global proportions."

This article was originally published on the Halifax Media Co-op. Miles Howe is the Halifax-based editor of The Dominion and is a contributing member of the Halifax Media Co-op.

gkisedtanamoogk

The Ground Beneath Our Feet

Miles — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:24:14 +0000

Despite missing grave markers, lack of map, Dartmouth cemetery is not for the dogs

DARTMOUTH, NS—A small party stands at the northwest corner of St. Paul's cemetery, staring pensively at what appears to be nothing but a grassy knoll.

We are hemmed in by the thick foliage of Giant Knotweed (polygonum sacchalinese) that surrounds the burial ground on three sides. Behind us lean a smattering of aging tombstones from Catholic families.

Here though, 100 feet away in the field next to the grave markers, there is only the whisper-silent undulation of clean-cropped, rolling grass.

A casual observer would likely not conclude that this field is part of the cemetery. But this is what Don Awalt has come today to explain.

“Lewis Benjamin Paul, Mi'kmaw Grand Chief, was buried almost right here,” says Awalt, an environmental planner with a grandfather buried somewhere in St. Paul's cemetery. “In the late 1970s, there used to be a tripod of stones here, marking his grave,” he says.

Bonnie Murphy, cemetery administrator for the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), looks on, clutching a rolled-up surveyor's map of St. Paul's. We spread the map, but it gives no hint of Paul's final resting place. Paul, the great leader, upon seeing his people driven to starvation by British colonization, famously wrote to Queen Victoria in 1841:

“I have seen upwards of a thousand Moons. When I was young I had plenty, now I am old, poor and sickly too. My people are poor. No Hunting Grounds, No Beaver, No Otter, No Nothing. Indians poor, poor forever, No Store, No Chest, No Clothes. All these woods once ours. Our Fathers possessed them all. Now we cannot cut a Tree to warm our Wigwam in Winter unless the White Man please.”

Indeed, most of Murphy's map is nothing but blank, white space hemmed in by surveyors’ lines. There are several rows of numbered plots outlined on the map, but no more than two dozen are even named.

Murphy can't even be sure whether the nameless plots contain bodies or not.

“We've only taken it over since amalgamation [of Halifax and surrounding areas to create the HRM], and our records are very scarce,” says Murphy. “We're digging [for information] ourselves. We've contacted St. Paul's to see what we can get. We're trying to talk to people who've maintained it prior and everything's scarce.”

The wind picks up, and the map begins to buckle and crease. The group cannot determine which way is north on the map, and it is decided that an HRM survey team will be contacted to re-determine the boundaries of the cemetery.

Awalt leads the group over to a willow tree.

“This is where Napwisin We'jitu is buried, and there used to be a marker somewhere in the grass,” says Awalt. The group peers amidst the overgrowth.

“He was among the top Mik'maq warriors of all time.”

Despite HRM Parks and Open Spaces’ lack of knowledge, there is no question that this site has been a Mi’kmaq burial ground, as well as a Catholic cemetery, for a long time. It has also changed hands, and fallen into states of neglect, several times in recent history.

John Martin's The Story of Dartmouth notes that the cemetery first opened in 1835, and consecrated in 1845. Awalt says that Mi'kmaq were using the land as a burial ground long before that, and notes that the oral tradition suggests Father Thury, one of the famous French “Warrior Priests,” consecrated the land in the late seventeenth century.

A marble tablet, which still stands at St. Paul’s, was erected in Dartmouth in 1962. The tablet notes that “Hundreds of Indians and Two of Their Chiefs” are buried there—though it also says that, despite an ever-increasing number of Catholic dead in the 1800s, the cemetery was only used until 1865. (Awalt says this applies to “white” burials only, and that Mi'kmaq continued to use the area after this.)

The 1962 monument unveiling also saw an extensive clean-up of the property. A Dartmouth Free Press article notes that “20 truck loads of rubbish were carted away” before Father Michael Laba, of St. Paul's Parish, had the area fenced in.

According to Kenneth Redmond, boyscout leader at St. Paul's parish at the time, Father Laba also undertook an extensive mapping of the area to determine exactly where the “Hundreds of Indians and Two of Their Chiefs” were buried.

“Father Laba asked me to...survey St. Paul's cemetery, like record where the stones were; show where Mi'kmaw people were,” says Redmond. “And so I did that and gave him a plan. Since that time Father Laba has died, and I lost all my belongings, including [the cemetery map] in a house fire.”

That map, of which there is perhaps one surviving copy, is currently in absentia.

“We stood [the grave markers] where they were laying,” says Redmond. “They were a little bit scattered but you could see a pattern to it.”

In 1967, a re-development plan was undertaken to see St. Paul's become an active burial ground once again. But by the late 1970s, the place had become a “jungle.” Cora Greenway, writing in the summer 1980 edition of Canadian Collector, notes that when she walked the area in 1978 she found “no trace” of the shale slabs.

“The place was in a mess,” writes Greenway. “The grass was knee-high, half the stones toppled over and the walking most treacherous due to the rocky terrain.”

In 1979, as part of a neighbourhood improvement program, the City of Dartmouth remodelled the cemetery into its current incarnation. Benches were added, stones were again righted, and a paved walk was laid that connected urban development above the cemetery to Alderney Drive. It became something of a park, with a cemetery in the middle.

In 1994, with space for the deceased again at a premium in Dartmouth, the city cast an eye towards re-developing St. Paul's and expanding the cemetery onto the grassy field next to the tombstones. But a strong campaign, led by then Mi'kmaw Grand Chief Ben Syliboy, halted the expansion plans. A 1994 Daily News article notes that estimates as to the number of Mi'kmaq buried there ranged “into the thousands.”

There are now clear signs that people have been sleeping, drinking and defecating in the thick recesses of the knotweed. The shale markers are long gone, and the paved path between the tombstones and the grass, the same area where Redmond remembers righting the fallen grave markers, has become a popular dog-walking thoroughfare.

Mi'kmaw tradition speaks to allowing a burial site to reconstitute itself with native species, but the knotweed is an introduced, invasive species, and Awalt wants it removed. He also wants the HRM to ensure cemetery bylaws, which include letting no dog walk on grave sites, are enforced over the entire area. (Domestic animals defecating on graves is one of those taboos that transcends cultural boundaries.)

As we stand, a member of [the] Mi'kmaw Warriors Society, one of whose mandates includes protecting the burial places of Mi'kmaq, approaches the group. In a clear voice he promises to return to the cemetery with his Warriors, armed if need be, if the entire area is not given the same jurisdiction as any cemetery in the HRM; meaning no dogs, and no sleeping, partying, or defecating on graves, marked or not.

In 1990, a significant percentage of Warriors at Kanesatake were Mi'kmaq, and the man's words bring a stunned hush to the group.

Two weeks later, St. Paul's cemetery is undergoing another facelift.

Bonnie Murphy's survey team has put down preliminary markers. Rebar stakes, driven into the ground and spray-painted neon orange, indicate that Lewis Paul's grassy knoll, and more, is indeed now considered part of the cemetery. Knotweed is being attacked by a crew of city workers with a small backhoe.

“Since our meeting, we have had the surveyors…lay out the boundaries on the site,” says Brian Phalen, of HRM Parks and Open Spaces. “The preliminary work does show that that area that we were in, up by the steps, is certainly included in the cemetery site...We'll be posting the 'No Dogs Permitted Under The Cemetery Bylaws' signs in that section of the property.

“Certainly there are portions of that property that aren't laid out as grave sites, per se...But certainly we do know and recognize that being a traditional burial site, there were many Mi'kmaw burial sites that wouldn't be marked.”

As for the shale slab grave markers and Father Laba's corresponding map, it remains to be seen if they will ever be found. It may well be a return to tradition—in which Mi'kmaw graves went unmarked—by necessity.

"The important thing here is that a pre-contact burial ground is recognized for what it is," says Awalt. "That the grandfathers and grandmothers buried there finally receive the dignity and respect deserved...and this applies to non-natives buried there as well."

Miles Howe is an editor with The Dominion and is a contributing member of the Halifax Media Co-op

Marker at St. Paul's Cemetery

Defending the Land from Nuclear Waste

Sandra — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:23:31 +0000

Indigenous community elders, activists gather in northern Saskatchewan against nuclear waste site

SOUTH BAY, SK—The storm clouds had moved on by the time people arrived at South Bay on lake Ile-a-la-Crosse last Friday for a grassroots gathering against a potential nuclear waste site in northern Saskatchewan. Dene, Cree and Métis elders from affected communities, grassroots activists from around Saskatchewan and others from as far as the west coast and Germany shared coffee, songs, experiences and a whole lot of moose meat from August 3 to 6 at the Survival Celebration Camp for Sustainable Earth.

"We have to protect the land," Jules Daigneault told those gathered in a sharing circle around the campfire. When the 70-year-old elder heard about the gathering happening in South Bay, he travelled across the lake to the camp from his home in Ile-a-la-Crosse in a boat he made himself. "Everything comes from the land. All our food comes from the land."

Gunter Wippel traveled to the camp from Germany, where he has been actively involved in anti-nuclear activism for decades. Wippel has been visiting northern Saskatchewan since the late 1980s, involved with struggles against the expansion of the uranium mining industry. He was also in the province in the mid-90s for the Seaborn panel hearings on nuclear waste management in Canada.

"I can't believe that we still have to protest that same shit," Wippel remarked during the closing circle on Monday.

As is the case in most countries with nuclear power production, spent fuel bundles are stored onsite at reactors in Canada—in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. The federal Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is planning a deep geological repository to place all of Canada's nuclear waste underground in the rock. No permanent waste storage facility exists anywhere in the world, largely due to opposition from scientific, environmental, activist and other communities.

In the latest stage of the decades-long search for a long-term nuclear waste disposal site, NWMO has received expressions of interest to host the site. Although Saskatchewan is already host to the tailings and waste from the uranium mining industry producing the uranium to be refined and processed for nuclear energy elsewhere, the province was included in the search for a willing host community. Along with several places in Ontario, NWMO has three locations in northern Saskatchewan on the map: Pinehouse, the English River First Nation and Creighton.

But elders and community members from Pinehouse and the English River First Nation say that their communities are largely opposed to hosting nuclear waste in their territories. Despite the money that NWMO and Saskatchewan-based uranium mining giant CAMECO have recently been pouring into the local councils, community promoters and other programs, they say that they did not initially even know that their own councils—municipal in Pinehouse and Band in English River—were advocating for the multi-million-dollar proposals.

"The Chiefs there don't say nothing to us. They just talk about money, budgets," Dene elder Louis Wolverine told The Dominion. Wolverine, 84, was one of several elders who attended the camp from Patuanak, near the part of the English River First Nation seemingly identified for the waste site.

"They say that it's okay, that nothing's very dangerous," he said of CAMECO and NWMO. The people in Patuanak don't want nuclear waste, he said. "The elders too—they don't want it."

Elder Mary Jane Wolverine spoke to people attending the elder's circle in Dene, with translation into English by another elder from Patuanak. Several elders spoke of the impacts of uranium mining on fishing, hunting and gathering grounds. Some had traplines and seasonal camps where the Key Lake mine is now located. They are now speaking out to protect their traditional territory, the interconnected lakes and waterways, the animals and the medicinal plants from further destruction.

"We have our children, our future grandchildren growing up...Myself, I don't want it in our country," she said. "All the elders are saying the same thing, that we don't want anything to do with nuclear waste."

In Pinehouse, a town located along the road up to the Key Lake uranium mine, the mayor and municipal council have been meeting with NWMO behind closed doors, says Fred Pederson, an outspoken Cree elder from the community. NWMO has a group of paid promoters, an elder's group and access to young students, says Pederson.

But 60 per cent of eligible voters in Pinehouse signed a petition against nuclear waste disposal in northern Saskatchewan, without the petition even having reached the whole population. The Committee for Future Generations, a grassroots organization in the region, presented the petition with more than 12,000 signatures to the provincial legislature last year. Opposition continues to grow in Pinehouse and around the province.

"It's not the people that want it. It is just our leaders that are promoting it," Pederson told The Dominion. He and several others at the gathering also raised the issue of systemic racism by the provincial and federal governments in their search for a nuclear waste disposal site in northern Saskatchewan, in Indigenous and Metis traditional territories. "It's just like we don't count, like they can kill us off."

When the nightly conversation and music around the fire continued into the wee hours of Monday morning, those who stayed awake extending their time together on the last night of the gathering were rewarded. The northern lights made a surprise appearance in the night sky, with shimmering green lights dancing overhead as the last people wandered off to their tents, campers and the beach.

Elders from affected northern communities, the Committee for Future Generations, and others who attended the camp from further away reiterated their commitment to the struggle against nuclear waste in northern Saskatchewan. Revitalized by the camraderie, inspired by the elders, and energized by the young children playing along the beach, those involved with the gathering have plans well underway to continue the campaign over the next few months.

"If we band together, people produce power," said Pederson. "We can stop all of this. We can stop the destruction."

Sandra Cuffe is a Media Co-op editor based in Vancouver, and a member of the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Survival Celebration

Mining Companies Feel Heat in the Ring of Fire

taramichelle — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:25:16 +0000

Assembly of First Nations backs evictions from northern Ontario

TORONTO—In late July, hundreds of First Nations chiefs from across the country backed a moratorium on mining and development in an area of Northern Ontario known as the "Ring of Fire." They also called for the eviction of companies operating in the mineral rich area, which has been described as "Ontario's oil sands".

The province has called the Ring of Fire "one of the most promising mineral development opportunities in Ontario in almost a century." The area contains the largest chromite deposits in North America, as well as gold, nickel, copper, platinum and palladium. Opening the area to development has become a major focus for the Dalton McGuinty government.

The moratorium demand and eviction notices were voted on by the hundreds of First Nations chiefs gathered in Toronto for the Assembly of First Nations' (AFN) Annual General Assembly. The AFN is the largest First Nations advocacy organization in the Canada.

"It is solidarity," said Sonny Gagnon the Chief of Aroland First Nation, whose community would be impacted by the development. "We need the support. If and when we need to go on the land to enforce the evictions notice…we will have 633 First Nations that will be behind us."

Over 20 mining companies have claims in the Ring of Fire; however a major impediment to these projects is that there is currently no ground access to area. Several companies are now competing to build road or rail access.

Proposals from two of these companies, Noront Resourses and Cliffs Natural Resources, have entered the province's Environmental Assessment stage. This has lead First Nations to believe that the projects are moving ahead without obtaining their "free, prior and informed consent," as laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In late June, the Matawa First Nations Council, which is made up of nine first nations communities, announced an “immediate moratorium on all mining exploration and development…unless, and until, Ontario and Canada come to a government-to-government table with a mandate to negotiate fundamental questions of First Nations jurisdiction…and real resource benefits and revenue sharing for our First Nation.”

"We hope that the Matawa Tribal Council communities will reconsider this action and come to the table to discuss their concerns with us," said Andrew Morrison, a spokes person for the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, in an email to the Toronto Media Coop.

"We recognize that there are differing views and positions on First Nations’ jurisdiction and rights. Those differing views do not diminish Ontario’s commitment to working constructively with First Nations and industry to achieve practical outcomes and results," explained Morrison. "Through good will, mutual respect, and ongoing dialogue we are confident that we can resolve these concerns in a positive, productive and meaningful way."

Chief Gagnon sees the province's dealings with First Nations very differently. "They just seem to want to come into my community, stand on a podium and preach to our people as to how they are going to develop this land. No, no, no. We have got to have dialogue."

He believes that for First Nations to be treated as equal partners they need to be provided with the resources to hire lawyers, geologist and other consultants that the government and mining companies are able to afford.

Cliffs Natural Resources and Noront Resources were among the companies that were issued eviction notice in late June 2012. Both companies refused to respond to a request to comment in this article.

Gagnon said that an action plan to enforce eviction notices was being developed, but would not reveal any of the details.

Tim Groves is a toronto based researcher and journalist, to get email updates on his stories fill out this form.

Chief Sonny Gagnon of Aroland First Nation

Uranium Territory

Sandra — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:53:58 +0000

Inuit campaign for referendum over mine in far north

BAKER LAKE—A conflict over a uranium mine in the far north, four decades in the making, has pitted members of a small Inuit community against their territorial government and a French company.

Inuit in the community of Baker Lake, located west of Hudson Bay in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, have raised a hue over what they call a faulty, biased process and the Government of Nunavut's uncritical support for uranium mining.

John*, an Inuk from Baker Lake who spoke with The Dominion, said the Nunavut Government’s support for uranium mining was biased.

“The new government policy with regards to uranium, I think that’s biased,” he said. “Them knowing their own people don’t really want uranium mining and the impact it would have on the people. We’ve heard for years now the environmental impact it’s going to have in our community.”

He later commented, “I think there should be a ban on uranium mining...no uranium mining in Nunavut, period.”

Bill*, also an Inuk from Baker Lake, said that he was unsure whether or not the new policy truly reflects the opinions of Nunavummiut (“the people of Nunavut”).

“I think they should have held a [public] vote on the issue.”

Outrage over the government’s new policy has been expressed by Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), (“The People of Nunavut Can Rise Up”), the region’s only environmental NGO, which called the process to develop the policy “biased” and “flawed.” High on the list of Makita’s complaints is the fact that the government relied on consultants with close ties to the uranium mining industry to develop its uranium policy.

Makita was formed in 2009 by residents of Baker Lake and Iqaluit, out of frustration over barriers to public participation in decision-making. Makita’s objectives include promoting public participation in decisions related to uranium development, promoting accountability and transparency in the territory’s governing institutions and promoting public awareness of the impacts of uranium mining.

Makita was the driving force that initiated the Nunavut government’s development of a new policy. In 2010, the group demanded that Nunavut hold a public inquiry into uranium mining, citing concerns that “a uranium industry in Nunavut would pose serious risks to the environment, to public health and safety and to Inuit traditions and practices.”

Instead, the government held a “public forum,” which involved hiring consultants to undertake research on uranium mining and a series of public consultation meetings. The outcome was the June 6, 2012 release of a policy providing conditional support for uranium mining. It differed little from a policy the government issued in 2007.

At the centre of the uranium debate in Nunavut is a proposed mine by AREVA Resources Canada Inc, the Canadian subsidiary of the French, mostly state-owned owned multinational corporation AREVA. Located 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, the proposed “Kiggavik” project is only the latest of uranium proposals.

The struggle against uranium mining dates back to the 1970s. At that time, Inuit in Baker Lake unsuccessfully initiated legal challenges against uranium exploration near their community. In the late 1980s, Inuit successfully opposed a proposal by German company Urangesellschaft to mine the same Kiggavik uranium ore body that AREVA plans to exploit. In a local plebiscite in 1990, over 90 per cent of the residents of Baker Lake rejected Urangesellschaft’s proposal.

At the time, all major Inuit organizations opposed Urangesellschaft’s proposal.

The rights to the Kiggavik ore body were eventually acquired by AREVA, which now wants to develop a mine with four open pits and an underground component, a milling operation, a winter access road and potentially an all-season access road. The Nunavut Impact Review Board is currently conducting an environmental review of the Kiggavik proposal.

The community of Baker Lake is divided over AREVA’s proposal, with Inuit expressing a wide range of perspectives on the matter. Inuit Elder Margaret Niviatsiaq, a member of AREVA’s community committee and strong supporter of the Kiggavik mine, said that she supports the proposal due to hopes that it will provide her grandchildren with employment. “We have to think of the next generation. Where are they going to work? How are they going to survive? We have to think about our children.”

However, some Inuit in the community remain highly critical or outright opposed to uranium mining.

Janet* expressed serious concerns with AREVA’s proposal. “[I’m concerned with] how it’s going to affect the environment, the wildlife,” she said. “Even though they say it’s going to be safe, accidents happen all over the world and if anything happens here, especially with our drinking water...I have many concerns.”

She was also suspicious of the industry’s promises of prosperity and economic development. “I always say, the local people are going to get crumbs while someone gets the steak.”

Paul*, a hunter from Baker Lake, was worried that the Kiggavik mine might disturb caribou. “That area where they want to build the mine is along the migration route of three caribou herds.”

He was also concerned that opening the Kiggavik mine might lead to other uranium mines opening in the area. “The problem with uranium is we have so much of it around here. Once they open up one mine, how many others will follow?”

Lucy*, a young Inuk woman, formerly of Baker Lake, was concerned about the colonial implications of developing the economy of her home community by doing business with multi-national mining corporations.

"Relying on mining companies to come in and employ Inuit is still a reliance on ‘outside help’. It does not empower Inuit to become owners and producers of their production. It not only reduces Inuit to be trained just enough to ensure that...a specific sector succeeds in the north...it [also] keeps Inuit and non-Inuit living in the north in a state of dependency. It's backward. It's not progress."

Some who were critical of uranium mining also felt that their concerns and opinions were being suppressed. Janet said that some people in town are afraid to speak out, because they are “intimidated by other people” or “worried that they will lose their jobs”.

Paul felt that his views were being suppressed because his influence was small compared to that of the mining industry. “They [the mining industry] have all sorts of consultants and lawyers and money,” he said. “Those of us who are opposed, when you compare it, we basically have nothing.”

Until recently, there were a number of political barriers to uranium mining in Nunavut. Following the settlement of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, several institutions issued policies that either forbade uranium mining or provided the public with the right to refuse uranium mining. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (an Inuit organization that attained mineral rights to the Kiggavik ore body as part of the Nunavut land claim) initially maintained a policy that forbade mining for uranium on lands to which it held title. The 2000 Keewatin Region Land Use Plan contained a section that stated, “Any future proposal to mine uranium must be approved by the people of the region.”

However, these political barriers were quickly overcome with, some suggest, no meaningful public participation. In 2007 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated reversed its stance on uranium mining and adopted a policy that gave conditional support for uranium mining.

The same year, the Government of Nunavut issued a similar policy when then Baker Lake MLA David Simailak tabled six “guiding principles” on uranium mining in the Legislative Assembly.

In 2008, the Nunavut Planning Commission ruled that “the people of the region” approved uranium mining, based on resolutions of support from various hamlet councils in the Kivalliq.

In a 2010 media release, Makita condemned these policy changes, arguing that they were made “without involving [Inuit] in the decision-making process” and “without regard for the democratic standard set in Baker Lake by a public plebiscite.” Makita further argued that these policies left the question of uranium mining up to environmental reviews, which would ultimately result in “bureaucrats in Nunavut and Ottawa decid[ing] whether or not [uranium mining] is in [Nunavut’s] public interest.”

Accordingly, Makita demanded that the Government of Nunavut hold a public inquiry “on whether or not to open Nunavut to uranium mining.” The group argued that a public inquiry is more “transparent, flexible and democratic than a regulatory process is,” and that the government needed to seriously assess whether or not Nunavut’s institutions had the ability to properly regulate uranium mining.

Petitions demanding a public inquiry, initiated by Makita, were tabled in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in June, 2010.

In August, the government responded by announcing that, instead of a public inquiry, it would hold a “public forum” on uranium mining to help the Government of Nunavut develop a more comprehensive uranium policy.

Makita responded with heavy criticism to the decision to hold a public forum instead of a public inquiry. In a press release, Makita argued that “the proposed process is window dressing—public meetings without a mandate for research and reporting, and without clear standards for transparency or process, will be a waste of time and money.”

During question period in the Legislative Assembly in October, 2010, Premiere Aariak defended the government’s choice of a public inquiry, stating that the government “concluded that the public would be fully consulted with greater participation through a public forum.”

The public forum was held in 2011. Golder Associates—the same consulting firm hired by AREVA to conduct feasibility studies and write sections of their impact assessment for the Kiggavik mine—was hired by the Nunavut government to conduct research into uranium mining. The outcome of this research was harshly criticized by Mining Watch Canada, an Ottawa-based NGO that had been invited by Makita to participate in the consultation meetings held during the public forum.

Jamie Kneen of Mining Watch slammed the Nunavut government’s decision to have its research conducted by Golder Associates. “Golder should not be expected to produce a document on its own that could put its primary clients (the mining industry) in a bad light,” he writes in the report A Flawed Foundation.

Kneen further charged that the information provided by Golder is “biased, inaccurate and incomplete,” that it “misrepresent[s] the nature of environmental regulation and health protection” and that it “presents assumptions and theories as facts.”

Representatives from the Government of Nunavut were not available for immediate comment on their choice of Golder Associates to conduct research for the public forums.

Consultation meetings were held in Baker Lake, Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay in spring, 2011. Comments were also accepted by internet and telephone submission. According to a report by Brubacher Development Strategies Incorporated, local residents from communities throughout the territory asked many questions and voiced a variety of opinions on the possibility of uranium mining in Nunavut.

While some residents spoke about the potential employment uranium mining could bring to Nunavut, others voiced concerns about the potential impacts of uranium mining on the environment. Major concerns included the potential for mine roads to impact caribou migrations, the possibility of contamination of wildlife and water and potential impacts on human health. Many of these concerns were related to the possibility that impacts on wildlife might negatively affect Inuit hunting and fishing. Some indicated that they had moral objections to mining activity in their territory that might support the creation of nuclear weapons. Some residents expressed frustration that the majority of the panel the government commissioned for the consultation meetings was supportive of uranium mining, which they felt ensured that discussions during the consultation meetings were also biased.

On June 6, 2012, the Nunavut government released the results of the consultation meetings and a “new” policy statement on uranium mining.

Aside from some minor changes, the new policy statement is essentially the same as the original guiding principles issued in 2007, and indicates support for uranium mining subject to five conditions. Included in these conditions was an assurance that “uranium mined in Nunavut shall be used only for peaceful and environmentally responsible purposes,” that the people of Nunavut “must be the major beneficiaries” of uranium mining and that uranium mining must have the support of the people of Nunavut “with particular emphasis on communities close to uranium development.” The policy also stipulated that environmental standards must be “assured” and that the health and safety of workers “shall be protected to national standards.”

Makita criticized both the policy and the process by which it was developed. In a press release, Makita again criticized the government’s choice to have Golder Associates help develop the uranium policy. Chair Sandra Inutiq called the consultation process “clearly not an ‘objective’ policy review” and “biased from the outset.” She further argued that “the Nunavut government’s ‘public forums’ were a way to deflect Makita’s call for a public inquiry,” according to the June 8 press release. Due to what the organization considers to have been a “flawed process” with an outcome that supports uranium development, Makita reiterated its position that Nunavut’s institutions are “incapable of protecting the public interest in matters of uranium.”

In an e-mail to The Dominion, Makita member Jack Hicks took issue with the government policy’s assertion that uranium from Nunavut would only be used for “peaceful and environmentally responsible purposes.”

“We know where and how uranium from Nunavut could end up in nuclear weapons. Almost everyone I've ever spoken with—including people who are in favour of opening the territory to uranium mining—knows perfectly well that the [Government of Nunavut] and [Nunavut Tunngavik, Inc.] have zero control over how uranium will be used if it leaves the territory.”

“And given that the world has not found a way to safely store the highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, despite having spent countless billions of dollars trying, the idea that even non-military use of nuclear energy can be called 'environmentally responsible' is absurd,” Hicks said.

“What is tragically fascinating is that in a single generation the Inuit leadership has shifted from holding principled anti-nuclear positions (for example the Inuit Circumpolar Conference’s 1983 Resolution on a Nuclear Free Zone in the Arctic) to repeating the 'peaceful and environmentally responsible' lies of the politicians of the dominant society.”

With regard to the condition that the uranium industry must have the support of communities close to uranium development, Hicks felt that only a plebiscite could be used to determine community support.

“This should take the form of a public vote, such as the one that was held in Baker Lake in 1990. Nothing less than a free and democratic vote is acceptable. And if a majority vote in favour of the Kiggavik proposal, so be it.”

On the question of a plebiscite, Inuit from both sides of the issue agreed with Hicks.

Margaret Niviatsiaq, who strongly supported the Kiggavik mine, told The Dominion, “There should be [a] vote...if there’s no vote there will be a lot of conflict between the community and the mine.”

Janet, who was very critical of AREVA’s proposal but stopped short of expressing opposition, said that there should be a vote “where people are not intimidated and they can vote freely.”

“Looking at the history of proposed uranium in Baker Lake, I still feel that there are a lot of people against it.”

*Due to the controversial nature of AREVA’s proposal, many people spoke under the condition of anonymity. In these cases, pseudonyms have been used.

Warren Bernauer is a graduate student at York University.

Northern meltdown

Barriere Lake Stands Against Resolute

Tim McSorley — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:51:38 +0000

Algonquin community vows to block corporate logging on their territory

MONTREAL & RAPID LAKE—For two weeks now, members of the Algonquin community of Barriere Lake have been standing fast in their opposition to clearcut logging on their territory.

On July 2, 2012, residents of Barriere Lake, located four hours north of Montreal, noticed loggers from Resolute Forest Products (formerly known as Abitibi Bowater Inc.) on their territory. The presence of the loggers came as a shock, since no consultation process had been carried out with the community members who harvest from that land.

These logging operations are also surprising due to an ongoing moratorium on corporate-based logging of the Algonquin land. Since 1991, Algonquins of Barriere Lake (ABL) have been fighting for the provincial and federal governments to respect an agreement they signed that allows for co-management of the land and guarantees the community a say in the exploitation of resources on their land.

ABL members moved quickly to stop the logging.

Tim McSorley is an editor with The Dominion and a member of the Montreal Media Co-op (CMM). David Koch, a Montreal community radio journalist, and Neal Rockwell, a Montreal photographer and film-maker and CMM member, conducted the interviews included in this piece. Pei-Ju Wang, who provided the photos, is a photographer and member of IPSMO.

ABL camp

Resolute clearcutting in Barriere Lake

Confronting loggers

SQ presence to protect Resolute loggers

Quebec government not respecting ABL agreement

ABL show importance of this land

ABL camp continuing

ABL solidarity

Halifax Rallies for Cultural Connections for Aboriginal Youth

dawn — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:09:19 +0000

Campaign to reverse cuts to Mi'kmaq Native Friendship Centre's Kitpu Youth Program ramps up

K'JIPUKTUK (HALIFAX)—The shutting down of the Mi'kmaq Native Friendship Centre's Kitpu Youth Program, and subsequent campaign to reinstate it, was the catalyst for a national day of action last Thursday against the federal government's decision to freeze funds for Cultural Connections for Aboriginal Youth programs across the country.

The Halifax contingent held a rally in Grand Parade Square, which opened with a Mi'kmaq honour song and drumming. Indigenous elder Billy Lewis said a few words, followed by Kitpu Youth Program coordinator Glen Knockwood. Local MP Megan Leslie was also present, providing her take on the federal government's decision.

Most touching, though, were the testimonials from those directly affected by the program: Tayla Paul, a local Indigenous woman who experienced a difficult childhood and is thrilled her teenage children can benefit from Kitpu; and three youth whose lives were, in their words, irrevocably changed by the friendship centre's doors being open to them.

Following the speeches, the group marched through downtown Halifax holding candles. "Walk with fire and light," is the campaign slogan. The participants held posters, beat drums and chanted as they wound their way to the friendship centre.

The campaigning didn't end with the rally. The Halifax support group has several emergency fundraisers planned, and there is also discussion about making the twelfth of every month a day of action for this cause until the government reverses its decision.

Click here to listen to an audio recording of the July 12 action in Halifax.

Natascia Lypny is a regular contributor to the Halifax Media Co-op, where this story originally appeared.

Rally to Save Kitpu

Reconciliation Takes Two

dawn — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:43:57 +0000

Residential school survivors gathered in Saskatoon critical of federal government's actions

Note: This article may be triggering. For immediate emotional support, the 24-hour Indian Residential Schools Crisis Line is available toll-free at 1-866-925-4419.

SASKATOON—The thunderclouds had scattered by morning when the sounds of footsteps, engines and drumbeats converged in Saskatchewan last month. Thousands of Indigenous residential school survivors, their relatives and people from different walks of life gathered in Saskatoon, traveling from all four directions.

From June 21 to 24, laughter, tears, songs and stories were in the air at Prairieland Park, where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada held its fourth national event. Survivors who gave statements about their experiences and participants who witnessed the event reiterated the importance of documenting and understanding the truth of residential school history. But on the reconciliation of that history, consensus was not even on the horizon.

"There were approximately 15,000 survivors registered for this event," Commissioner and residential school survivor Chief Wilton Littlechild told the crowd gathered for the closing ceremonies of the national event. "And there has been a lot of truth-telling."

Half the estimated number of residential school survivors in Saskatchewan, the registration was the largest to date. Countless others also attended the event and more than 5,000 viewers from countries around the world tuned in to the live webcast.

The event's Education Day also had the highest participation on record. Nearly 2,000 grades seven and eight students from public, Catholic and First Nations schools attended the national event to hear from survivors and learn about residential school history. Over 150,000 First Nations, Métis and Inuit children attended residential schools operated by the federal government and various churches from the late 1800s until the 1990s. Their languages and cultural practices were forbidden. Many suffered physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

The event in Saskatchewan marked an important midway point in the commission's activities, said Littlechild. Statement-gathering, research and outreach events are ongoing across the country, but the commission must also hold seven national events, according to the mandate established by the 2007 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Winnipeg, Inuvik and Halifax hosted events during the first half of the commission's five-year mandate, with Saskatoon marking the mid-point before Quebec, Vancouver and Alberta.

"We shift our focus now from an emphasis on truth to an emphasis on reconciliation," said Littlechild.

But whose emphasis will be in focus remains to be seen.

Representatives of various churches and the federal government, parties to the Settlement Agreement along with survivors of more than 130 residential schools, have made apologies and often speak of reconciliation in the present tense. References are often made to "a new chapter" in Canadian history, placing the "sad chapter" of residential schools mentioned in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2008 statement of apology firmly in the past.

Many residential school survivors have publicly expressed skepticism, anger and doubt about reconciliation. But another critical perspective is found within the commission itself, in Lead Commissioner Justice Murray Sinclair.

At a regional event in Victoria this past April, Justice Sinclair said that the role of the commission is to begin a conversation with Canada about what reconciliation means. The commission fully expects that reconciliation would take at least as long as the 130 years during which residential schools operated. The issue is about more than the abuse many suffered, he added.

"This is a conversation about an attitude about a whole race of people," said Justice Sinclair, echoing a view that many survivors have expressed about the continuity of attitudes, policies and legislation from the residential schools and the founding of Canada through to today.

"You don't have to forgive your perpetrator to begin your healing," he said, addressing the residential school survivors gathered in Victoria. "Coming to terms does not necessarily require forgiveness."

Frustration and doubt about reconciliation with Canada have also been expressed by members of the commission’s advisory Indian Residential School Survivors Committee.

A member of the Survivors Committee from Saskatchewan, Eugene Arcand played a key role throughout the Saskatoon event. He seemed to be everywhere over the course of the four days, addressing the students at Education Day while accompanied onstage by his granddaughters, speaking at the opening and closing ceremonies, and greeting just about everyone.

Arcand is affectionately referred to by many as any number of variations of the nickname Bird. Like Big Bird, he towers over almost everyone else, but many in Saskatchewan look up to him for more than just his height. Other residential school survivors at the event would tell each other if the Bird was coming their way and wait to shake his hand, meet his family or thank him for the work he has done.

Arcand spoke of his own experiences with truth and reconciliation at a Circle of Reconciliation panel on Friday afternoon. Residential school survivors were seated in a semi-circle alongside representatives of the parties to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The Métis Nation was also represented onstage, although its members were largely excluded from the agreement.

"The truth is somewhat easier, when you can come to it," said Arcand. "Reconciliation has been difficult. It takes two sides."

"I was there at the apology," he said of the Primer Minister's statement of apology to former residential school students in June 2008, on behalf of all Canadians. "I was a little boy the night before, crying in my room."

"It's been difficult to talk out of one side of my mouth about truth and reconciliation when in another side of my heart I have very strong feelings about the actions of the federal government," said Arcand, mentioning the Canadian government's halt to funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, mandated by the Settlement Agreement.

"Actions speak louder than words," he said. When he explained that leaders—not only those of the federal government, but also First Nations leaders—must be evaluated not by what they say but by the legacy they leave behind, the room erupted in applause, whistles and cheers.

Arcand was the first of ten people to speak during the Circle of Reconciliation. Seated directly to his left was former Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Grand Chief Phil Fontaine. Directly across from him was current AFN Grand Chief Shawn Atleo. John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC, formerly INAC), was also present onstage.

In his own presentation about reconciliation, Duncan followed the path other institutional representatives have sometimes taken at commission events and told personal stories. He spoke of the dislocation of his home community in a coal-mining region in BC's interior. He told of his childhood confusion when his mother told him that his Squamish best friend Richard from the neighbouring Capilano reserve might not be returning to public school in North Vancouver for grade five.

Duncan had a ten-minute opportunity to respond to direct challenges from survivors regarding federal funding cuts to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and other organizations, the exclusion of the Métis from the agreement, and other relevant actions taken by the Canadian government. He did not take it.

No one participating in the Circle of Reconciliation mentioned that the court-mandated Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that ended the largest class-action lawsuit in Canadian history is only an agreement until it is broken. If any party to the agreement—such as the Government of Canada, for example—does not fulfill its obligations, representatives of the original plaintiffs—residential school survivors—can return to court.

Many residential school survivors not participating in the panel sessions or in the event in any official capacity were also critical of reconciliation, both in their statements to the commission and in conversations offstage.

Paul Sylvester was enjoying his pancakes on Saturday morning, sitting in the sun at the edge of a long table under the food tent in Diefenbaker Park. The free breakfast was served before the long 12-hour day ahead at the national event across the street. Finishing his pancakes, Sylvester set up an impromptu smoking section while speaking about the land near his community of Turnor Lake. A Dene residential school survivor, he also shared his thoughts about the event and reconciliation.

"It'll never be forgotten or forgiven, no matter how big a conference you set up," Sylvester told the Vancouver Media Co-op. "To me, here, it's just a gathering. Numbers, that's all."

Sylvester gave statements to the commission earlier this year, at regional hearings in both Prince Albert and La Ronge, in northern Saskatchewan.

"The first one was pretty rough. It was just tears," he said. "Between the first and the second one, I felt a lot lighter. After the second one, it don't bother me no more."

Sylvester takes strength from the memory of his mother, he said. He is the eighth of 23 children, although eleven passed away, most as infants, from malnutrition. Despite all of the loss and everything she went through, his mother always told him to stand tall and keep his head up.

He has been retired for a decade, but Sylvester continues to be active in grassroots political activity in his own territory and beyond. In spite of his own experience in the residential school system, he believes in the importance of education. He is currently working with the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Treaty 10 territory on a "Teaching Treaties in the Classroom" project, developing curriculum for elementary and high school courses.

"There's not too much curriculum in the classroom about the lifestyle of the Dene People, of our survival on the land, or the history," said Sylvester. The First Nations history currently taught in the province is largely focused on southern Saskatchewan, he said, and it has not been easy to advocate for revisions.

"It's a give and take," Sylvester said of the struggle to change curriculum in order to include Dene history, Treaty history, and the issue of self-government. "It's viewed as a thing of the past."

But the passion that Sylvester has pursued throughout his life is getting to know Dene territory directly on the land. As a young boy before attending residential school and as a youth after he returned home, Sylvester accompanied his father along his trapline, taking notes and drawing maps. He prides himself on continuing to live off the land, tracking and hunting animals, working the trapline, and using local resources to make his own canoes and snowshoes.

And to deal with the trauma of his residential school experience, Sylvester turned to the land he has known since childhood.

"I did my reconciliation already," he told the Vancouver Media Co-op. "I done my healing on my trapline. When I go out on my trapline, there’s peace."

Fred Sasakamoose also found some healing in walking on the land. He led a three-and-a-half-day Indian Residential School Survivor Walk from the residential school he attended as a child to the national event in Saskatoon.

"I walked to get here," he said, seated in the middle of Friday's Circle of Reconciliation panel. "I walked 130 kilometers."

Sasakamoose, 78, now has more than 40 grandchildren and 40 great-grandchildren. He took five of his grandchildren with him along the walk, which began at the place where St. Michael's residential school once stood, in Duck Lake, Saskatchewan.

The building is no longer there. He had to use old stones and memories from over 60 years ago to attempt to answer his grandchildren’s questions about the location of the building and the makeshift hockey rink where he learned the skills that would later propel him to a brief professional career in the NHL.

"I thought I would hear screaming and crying, because that's all I knew," said Sasakamoose of his visit to the grounds. He was sent to residential school in 1940 at the age of six, along with his eight-year-old brother whose abuse he witnessed before being himself sexually abused at the school. He gave his statement to the commission at a regional hearing earlier this year.

"I thought I would leave everything behind. I told the story so many times. I told myself I'm never going to do it again," he said. "I want to leave it behind me now. I want to be healed. I no longer want to carry that load."

But he still carries the memory of five children from his reserve who were sent to St. Michael's and never came back. They are buried somewhere on the grounds that he visited, he said.

"Every footstep that I've made, it was for the people that never told their story, that are gone," said Sasakamoose.

As the event came to a close on Sunday evening, the sky began to cloud over as people prepared for the journey back to their families, communities and territories. Many will gather again at the commission’s remaining national events in Quebec next spring, Vancouver in the fall of 2013, and later in Alberta. Others will turn to their families, communities, or back to the land for healing.

The discussion about reconciliation will continue. The truth-telling will continue. And the memory of the thousands of children who never lived to tell their stories remains ever-present.

"When we leave here it’s going to rain, just for a little bit," said Eugene Arcand during the closing ceremonies. "Those are going to be the tears of those who couldn't be here, transformed into raindrops."

As people left the event and began to make their way home, in all four directions, the raindrops began to fall.

Sandra Cuffe is a Vancouver-based journalist and went to Saskatoon to cover the national event. This article is the fourth in a series funded and published by the Vancouver Media Co-op about the TRC and the residential school system and legacy.

TRC Saskatoon

BC Treaty Advocate Elected Chair of UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Tim McSorley — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:14:27 +0000

Grand Chief Edward John has spent the past 20 years in the BC treaty process, which produces extinguishment Agreements

The 11th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the top forum for Indigenous peoples in the world, began with a lurch. The sixteen-member Forum elected, by acclamation, Grand Chief Edward John to be their Chair. The announcement was made during a preliminary meeting, May 6, 2012, before the two-week meeting in New York City. Hailing from Tl'azt'en (northern BC), this Chief will be familiar to anyone who has followed the machinations of the BC treaty process over the last twenty years: John was the founding Chair of the First Nations Summit, an organization formed to “represent First Nations” involved with the BC Treaty Commission (BCTC).

Perhaps, in 1992, the election of a man affiliated with this Summit to Chair the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues—understood to be advancing the cause of self-determination, land rights and everything else contained in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, would not be an obvious contradiction in terms. However, twenty years later, after the ratification of two extinguishment treaties in that process, this election must be a point of confusion.

When Nisga’a ratified an agreement with British Columbia and Canada in 2000, they released the Nisga’a claim to 100 per cent of their traditional territory in exchange for about 8 per cent of the land back, in Fee Simple Title and with BC holding the underlying title. There were no alarm bells rung by Chief John. Every First Nation in BC was watching that process very closely, as they believed, rightly, that future negotiations in the BC treaty process would follow the Nisga’a template.

When, in 2007, Tsawwassen became the first Indigenous people to ratify a Final Agreement produced in the BC Treaty Commission, the text of that document stated:

Tsawwassen First Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all other persons from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings, of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Tsawwassen First Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

This clause is also to be found in the Nisga’a Agreement. It is a surrender, rather than the basis of continuing nation-to-nation relations. Tsawwassen made these concessions for a settlement of less than 1 per cent of their traditional territory, held in Fee Simple. The total cash value of the deal was $33.6 million plus self-government funding of $2.9 million annually over the first five years of the treaty—according to government press releases.

Perhaps Chief John takes a leaf out of then-Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl’s book, who declared at the time, “Who am I to say if it’s a good deal or not?”

John is still the Chair of the First Nations Summit today.

Maa-nulth agreed to the same releases when it ratified a Final Agreement in this process later in 2007. Other identical provisions in all three Agreements include the release of Indian Status, including tax-free status; the “modification” (extinguishment) of their aboriginal rights to be only those rights exhaustively defined in the Agreements, the dissolution of the Indian Band and the termination of Indian Reserve lands. “Fee Simple Lands are not 'lands reserved for the Indians' within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1867, and are not 'reserves' as defined in the Indian Act.”

The role of the First Nations Summit in these “negotiations” is, in part, to give advice to the federal government for the allocation of treaty negotiating loans to First Nations for the purpose of developing and ratifying Final Agreements under the BC Treaty Commission. These negotiating allowances average a million dollars a year and the 80 per cent which is a loan comes due the moment a First Nation leaves the process or begins implementation of their Final Agreement.

Staying at the table is an offer most First Nations cannot afford to refuse, especially for those who have been at it since 1993, but the only alternative is to ratify an Agreement and extinguish title. Treaty negotiating loans are not included in government audits of First Nations accounts—perhaps because such a loan would immediately place that community in third party remedial management.

Chief John has stayed with the process throughout and failed to take any meaningful action to indicate his disapproval of the situation, if he does indeed disapprove. He obviously hasn’t resigned in protest.

Self-determination, recently enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, goes out with ratification of these Agreements as well, replaced by what the governments, the Treaty Commission and the First Nations Summit call “self-government”–powers which amount to little more than municipal business under the heavily qualified “Governance” chapters. The presence in each Final Agreement of identical chapters, which circumscribe any exercise of self-determination, betrays a theme, one which previous leaders dubbed “the BCTC Death Row.”

According to Chief Negotiator Robert Morales, Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, in 2007, “there is one negotiation going on at 47 tables. These were to be government-to-government negotiations, but that’s not how it turned out.”

By 2006, the First Nations Unity Protocol Agreement included all but one of the treaty-going groups in the province, and had made clear the flaws in the process. Morales said, while Chair of the First Nations Summit Chief Negotiators’ table at the time, “The experience we’re having at the Tables and in meetings is that government comes to every table with the same language, with one approach, whether the Nation is small or large, urban or rural. We have realized that we can’t change those policies on our own, even at my table where 6,000 people are represented.”

Since Morales’ statements, letters and FNUPA actions—which included blockading a Nanaimo ferry sailing with canoes—the HTG has been in abeyance from the negotiating table and entered a petition describing the exhaustion of domestic remedies within Canada to resolve the outstanding land title issue. That petition was heard in Washington last year by the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the outcomes of which has not yet been announced.

At the Opening Ceremonies of the PFII 11th Session at UN Headquarters, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro noted in her address, “…we don’t have to go far to see examples of Indigenous peoples facing discrimination, even extinguishment.” As she spoke, Chief John was sitting in front of her.

On the second day of the meeting, an intervention by the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus delivered by Steven Newcomb claimed that, “Negotiations such as in Canada under the Comprehensive Claims Policy… lead to the extinguishment of Indigenous peoples.”

The CCP is the basic platform of the BC negotiations, in direct contrast with the 19 Recommendations by the BC Task Force forming the terms of reference or guidelines for the process in 1992. Those guidelines attracted people to the process because they said, in sum, that the government would be open to all types of discussion and conclusions that would lead to real, workable treaties.

Several independent members of First Nations involved in the treaty process have taken their concerns to an urgent action committee of the United Nations’ Committee for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 2009. In reports on Canada’s human rights record regarding Indigenous peoples the CERD has criticized the process, such as in 2007, when they wrote:

While acknowledging the information that the “cede, release and surrender” approach to Aboriginal land titles has been abandoned by the State party (Canada) in favour of “modification” and “non-assertion” approaches, the Committee remains concerned about the lack of perceptible difference in results of these new approaches in comparison to the previous approach.

To date, only four Final Agreements have resulted from the negotiating process implemented by the BC Treaty Commission, one rejected in the community ratification vote, one awaiting federal approval and two in implementation—but all of them leading to the extinguishment of title of the Indigenous nations concerned.

Aside from these, the negotiation process in BC remains stalled largely due to the evident desire of the governments to pursue policies of extinguishment of Indigenous sovereignty rights and the equally evident desire of the BC Indigenous nations to resist this demand. But they cannot leave the process without triggering the maturation of the negotiating loan.

While Chief John and the Summit Executive exchange polite letters and press releases with Canadian government officials conducting studies on the BC treaty process and welcoming “recommendations which outline how the federal government can accelerate treaty negotiations in BC” (First Nations Summit Press Release: May 4, 2012) the cost of remaining in the process grows—and the process remains one of municipalization of Indigenous nations which currently have the internationally recognized right to self-determination and demonstrable title to their territories.

Sliammon First Nation is about to go to a ratification vote this summer.

Jackie MukSamma Timothy, a Sliammon Hereditary Chief, wrote of the situation:

So called "Canada's” ignorance of our existing and affirmed Title and Rights and the threat of limited financial support for non-participating Nations forced my people into entering the treaty process. And they keep us on the negotiation table, by threatening to demand all the negotiation funds back at once or to limit our financial support by the federal government accordingly. For my Nation it is impossible to pay the amount back or to forgo financial aid. Moreover, the longer the process takes the more power shifts to the benefit of so called “Canada” and “BC”, because in the end any agreement resulting in any kind of payment is better than none, given the fact that we have to pay the loans back. Loans that would not even be necessary without Canada's wrong-doings and their ignorance of our existing Title and Rights.

The number of irregularities in the BC treaty process is staggering and climbing. It is not unusual for communities to fail to hold a vote annually in order to approve continued borrowing for negotiation funding, or to have votes against continuing the loans ignored, according to vocal Indigenous dissidents. Hereditary Chief Kakila, Tenas Lake, wrote in a letter to the BC Treaty Commission from 2007:

We are advised by the Honourable Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Jim Prentice that these twelve people (the IN-SHUCK-ch Treaty Society) have since 1993 borrowed $9,717,059.00 to engage in these negotiations. We remind that those are the debts of those people alone. In fact, on October 15, 1994, at a duly convened Samahquam General Assembly, for said purpose, the membership specifically voted, by majority, “no” to any proposed Loan Agreements emanating from the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

Most of the original nineteen recommendations of the British Columbia Task Force, which were agreed on by the three negotiating parties forming the BC treaty process, have long since been abandoned. For example, every Final Agreement produced has been taken to court by neighbouring nations for failure to resolve “overlap” claims. Most negotiations currently underway were initiated by a small minority of community members, over whom the rest of the people in these communities cannot regain control. Court actions such as Spookw v.Gitxsan Treaty Society et al, 2011, and the recent blockade by members of the Gitxsan against the Gitxsan Treaty Society show how serious this flaw is. By insisting that the small, mostly isolated communities are “autonomous” in their dealings with the treaty process, the First Nations Summit has absolved itself of any responsibility for those First Nations, which it claims to represent.

Both the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth Final Agreements were ratified in votes where "public relations crisis-management" firms were hired by the government to produce pro-treaty propaganda, and where treaty negotiating teams promoted only those prominent community members who endorsed the Final Agreement and where immediate fiscal rewards for a "yes" vote were offered to community members.

Bertha Williams, a Tsawwassen Member, wrote in a letter to Rudolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, July 23, 2007:

I would like to reference some very key items that raise very serious question about the legitimacy of this vote. Under “Members Benefits” two cash incentives to voters are stated.“ In particular it states that “each elder over 60 will receive $15,000, shortly after ratification day” and “approximately $1,000 per member on Effective Date.” I feel that these cash incentive are a bribe to vote YES to the Final Agreement. These are the cash guarantees that are written right into the agreement and that are openly promoted, but I know that there are additional monies paid out just to get people to vote on this agreement. As already set out above, the vote will take place without meeting basic requirements for such a fundamental, constitutional vote.

People are not informed about the real content of the agreement they are voting on, but rather the provincial government is paying for the preparation of propaganda material that points to the few mainly cash incentives of the agreement, but fails to point out all the downfalls, such as the extinguishment of our Aboriginal Title to our territories, the loss of the tax exemption and the long-term loss of programs and services that will all result in the further impoverishment of our people.

Many feel that, as a lawyer whose organization gives advice on the allocation of negotiating loans, Chief John is and was aware of how the loan process itself would leave small and isolated communities trapped between descending into a deeper cycle of debt the longer they stuck to their negotiating claims, or acceding to the extinguishment terms offered by Canada, which can afford to wait the process out. This message has been clearly and repeatedly delivered to the Executive of the First Nations Summit by such groups as the First Nations Unity Protocol, starting as early as 2006.

Still Chief John is considered respectable. Earlier this year he received a National Aboriginal Achievement Award and is on the Board of Cultural Survival, an international agency which claims to, "publicize Indigenous Peoples' issues through our award-winning publications; mount letter-writing campaigns and other advocacy efforts to stop environmental destruction and abuses of Native Peoples' rights; and we work on the ground in Indigenous communities, always at their invitation."

Most of the Indigenous nations whose territories lie within the Canadian Province of British Columbia have no treaties with Canada.

The recent appearance of Edward John on the Aboriginal People’s Television Network to state that he does not support extinguishment is not an adequate gesture, when read together with his continued involvement, as Chair of the First Nations Summit, in this well-documented extinguishment process.

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues sends the world a mixed message in its choice of Chair, when considering its stated mandate. Perhaps the message will become clear when the Permanent Forum reports its recommendations, which will be received by the UN Economic and Social Council to advise member states on Indigenous peoples’ rights the world over.

Kerry Coast is a writer and journalist with a special interest in gaining a legitimate passport. Born beyond the treaty frontier in what is now known as "British Columbia," Coast is first concerned with international recognition of the fact of indigenous title in some thirty indigenous nations which have been occupied by a renegade colony. This article was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Grand Chief Edward John

Jeremy’s Case, Jordan’s Principle

dawn — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:35:50 +0000

Historic court case in Halifax identifies gap in health services for First Nations children

HALIFAX—In a precedent-setting case that continued in Halifax on Monday, Maurina Beadle and Pictou Landing First Nation took the Government of Canada to court over its failure to provide Beadle’s son the same level of health care that a child living off-reserve would receive from the province of Nova Scotia.

On the fourth anniversary of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's historic apology to First Nations people for the forced separation of children from their families under the residential school system, the Mi'kmaq mother was in court fighting for the health services that would allow her son Jeremy to remain at home under her care.

"All the things that were promised in Harper's apology are things they are not doing for Jeremy," said Philippa Pictou, Health Director for Pictou Landing First Nation, sitting on a bench in courtroom 501 in the Law Courts on Lower Water Street in Halifax on Monday morning. "Kids being pushed into institutions, instead of being cared for at home."

Jeremy Meawasige is a 17-year-old from Pictou Landing First Nation who was born with a complex array of disabilities and medical conditions. His mother, Maurina Beadle, had been providing all of his care without government assistance until a double stroke in May 2010 left her physically unable to meet his needs at home.

When, with help from the First Nation, Beadle applied for funding for home care health services, she found that her family's Aboriginal status caught her son in jurisdictional red tape that prevented him from receiving the same care on-reserve that he would be provided with by the province of Nova Scotia if he lived off-reserve.

With the support of Pictou, Beadle is invoking Jordan’s Principle for the first time in its history. The child-first policy passed unanimously in the House of Commons in 2007. It dictates that in the instance of a jurisdictional dispute over which level of government foots the bill for a First Nations child in need of medical care, the government first contacted must come up with the funds; any arguments over who ultimately pays for the child's care are to be argued later.

Jordan's Principle is named after Jordan River Anderson of Norway House Cree Nation, who lived all four years of his life in hospital while the governments of Manitoba and Canada fought over which level of government was responsible for paying for his home care.

Jordan's Principle has never been implemented in any province or territory.

"Should a disabled First Nations child on-reserve be entitled to the level of care available to any child off-reserve?" asked Paul Champ, the lawyer representing Beadle and Pictou Landing First Nation, in his opening comments.

Provincial governments generally provide continuing care health services in the home. But because First Nations fall under federal jurisdiction, provincial governments do not provide on-reserve health services.

The federal government, either under Health Canada or Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC, formerly INAC), is responsible for allocating to First Nation bands the resources to provide services "reasonably comparable to those provided by the province," Champ told the court on Monday. Bands must "administer program according to provincial legislation and standards."

In her decision to deny Beadle the requested funding, AANDC official Barbara Robinson argued that Beadle and Pictou Landing First Nation were requesting services above and beyond the "normative standard of care in Nova Scotia."

Champ argued that Robinson's interpretation of the normative standard of care in Nova Scotia is flawed. She determined that Jeremy Beadle is eligible to receive $2,200 per month, "full stop," explained Champ. $2,200 per month is the standard respite cap in Nova Scotia, according to a Community Services policy document.

However, a support program available for persons with disabilities in Nova Scotia—one designed to "maintain the integrity of families," including enabling people with disabilities to live at home&mdashincludes a section in which "exceptional circumstances" allow for additional respite funding. These circumstances are defined in a number of points, and all apply to Jeremy.

Upon cross-examination, Robinson conceded that the Beadles meet all exceptional circumstances criteria, but she also said that the "exceptional circumstances" part of the policy doesn't apply to Jeremy's case. Her reasoning, explained Champ, was that she relied on what happens "in practice," not necessarily in policy or law.

According to the Social Assistance Act, the government "shall furnish assistance to all persons in need," and this includes home care. Cabinet can prescribe maximum levels of assistance. No maximum has been legally established; the $2,200 cap is, effectively, arbitrary.

On Monday afternoon, the proceedings turned to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equality guarantee that ensures that all people have access to equal benefit of the law. Champ reminded the court that the purpose of the Charter is to entrench the goal of equality, in particular to protect those who have been historically disadvantaged.

"The disadvantage that First Nations have historically faced on reserves has never been resolved," said Champ. "Never. Never. First Nations people do not have equal access to schools, home care, or health."

Robinson, when making her decision in the Beadle case, stated that the Charter doesn't apply. Champ explained the exception to the guarantee of equality that excludes First Nations people who, because of their unique status, are not entitled to the equal benefit of the law.

First Nations people are the only legal group in Canada identified by race; they therefore fall into a "legal no-man's-land" because their situation can't be compared to anything--there is no comparative group with respect to which they can be discriminated. Therefore the Charter, and cases argued on the basis of discrimination, cannot be argued. Champ submitted that this is an improper way to interpret Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The services provided by the federal government--either by Health Canada or by Aboriginal Affairs--to people on-reserve, are not provided by legal obligation, but as a matter of policy, based on agreements and programs negotiated with First Nations band councils.

These services are policy, not law, Champ told the court. They are therefore discretionary, and provided according to the government official who interprets the policy. These agreements use such language as "Canada has elected to provide" a given service. These services are therefore a choice, provided at the discretion of the Government of Canada.

One such policy is Jordan's Principle. As an "expression of the House," it is not legally binding, but the federal government is seeking to implement the principle across the country. Where there is no formal agreement, there are dialogues premised on Jordan's Principle, said Champ. He added that in any other case he would not make the argument that Jordan’s Principle legally applies.

"But in this case, there are no statutes. We have policy manuals, funding agreements that change over time in content and funding levels essentially at the whim of the federal government. Do these policies have the form of law? Yes, because there is nothing else," said Champ. "This is, in a sense, is the best that we have."

The animated purpose of Jordan's Principle, he said, is to acknowledge the fact that First Nations people are in a unique legal situation, and also to rectify the historical disadvantage of First Nations people.

A breach of Jordan's Principle is evidence of discrimination, said Champ. "When a child is denied service for one day, as a result of a jurisdictional dispute, that is a breach of Jordan's Principle, and it is always a breach of Section 15 of the Charter."

After the Crown’s submissions and the applicants' responses, Judge Mandimen acknowledged that the case is time-sensitive. Recognizing that the Pictou Landing First Nation cannot continue to provide funding for Beadle’s home care, Mandimen said that he would move his decision through as soon as possible.

Beadle—and First Nations across the country who are watching this case—will still have to wait up to six months for a ruling, although after the trial Champ said he hopes for a ruling by the end of August.

"I know this [case] won’t necessarily change things for Jeremy, by the time it’s over," said Beadle. "But this isn’t for Jeremy. This is for children across the country. They shouldn’t have to wait while the people in power procrastinate."

Moira Peters lives and bikes in Halifax.

A version of this article was originally published by the Halifax Media Co-op as a series, including an introductory article and blog posts about Monday’s morning and afternoon court proceedings. The last post of the series covering Monday’s court proceedings will be published by the Halifax Media Co-op later today.

Maurina Beadle at Pictou Landing

BC Government Weighs in on Musqueam graves

Tim McSorley — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:37:10 +0000

BC orders halt to construction on intact burials

c̓əsnaʔəm—The province of British Columbia has finally weighed in on the protection of the sacred Musqueam grave site dug up by a condo developer in South Vancouver. But the BC Liberals didn't bother telling the Musqueam.

After more than two months of protests at the site, late last week the provincial government ordered construction permanently halted at the spot where intact burials were discovered. A permit amended by the province orders developer Lan Pro Holdings to return the immediate area where the graves were desecrated to close to their "original condition." It does not refer to the rest of the Marpole Midden, where the condo site is located.

The permit change was announced Friday, but the Musqueam only found out through the media.

"We had no idea until the media calls started pouring in for a reaction. They didn't`t tell any of us, not even the band office. We never did get the press release they sent to everyone else," says Mary Point, who has been active at the site demonstration.

Point says the order is a start, but covers a small part of the development site.

"We need to protect the entire site," she says, adding that it makes no sense to protect one small part but not the entire burial grounds.

The Musqueam have continuously occupied the Midden village for more than 4,000 years. The Musqueam have been trying to negotiate a land swap with the developer since the first graves were disturbed in April.

The province, the city, the developer and the First Nation are now scheduled to meet Tuesday to try to move negotiations along.

Murray Bush is a Vancouver-based photographer and regular contributor to the Vancouver Media Co-op, where a version of this article was originally published.

Ongoing Musqueam protest to protect ancient village and burial site, Vancouver, June 2012.