Posts By: First Nations Drum

By Dr. John Bacher

In late April 2001, media attention was riveted around the tear gas soaked streets of Quebec City.

A major figure in the popular summit held against globalization was Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief, Matthew Coon Come, who was revered as an environmental hero for his leading role in the 1994 defeat of the proposed James Bay Two hydro-electric project.

The thousands of demonstrators, many of which braved water cannons, did not know that Coon Come had a change of values and would be soon in secret negotiations with the Quebec government to plan to build new hydro power dams.

This involved the same massive assault on intact forest ecosystems that many of the demonstrators had denounced both in Quebec City, and in earlier summits held in Seattle and Washington in connection with the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

Those engaged on charging the fence in Quebec city and the reporters covering the action, were unaware of the secretive deal making between the AFN chief and the Quebec government. This would later be announced in the surprise Agreement in Principle, (AIP), signed October 23rd, 2001, in which the Cree Nation of Northern Quebec gave its consent to the diversion of the Rupert River.

Although the surprise signing ceremony for the AIP was broadcast live on CBC Newsworld, critical details of the agreement were ignored in media coverage. Especially sparse and misleading were details concerning the nature of the environmental assessments that would be required for the most controversial aspect of the AIP.

Proposed river diversion
This involved the proposed diversion of the Rupert River. It was agreed upon by some of the elected Cree leadership in this document, following a month of secret meetings, after Grand Chief Ted Moses was introduced to Quebec Premier Bernard Landry, by Coon Come.

In following the environmental assessment issue closely since the AIP was signed, media coverage of it has been confusing and misleading.

I have been frequently been corrected by relying on the web site of the small organization fighting this project, Rupert Reverence, for key details such as necessary regulatory approvals.

Rupert Reverence is an environmental group based on both French and Cree activists in the James Bay region. It so far fought a brave struggle against the diversion with few allies. Half of its 12-member board are Quebec James Bay Cree. The organization is co-chaired by Eric Gagnon and Lisa Petagumskum.

The first stage of the new James Bay power scheme, the EM-1, which consists of the construction of a new dam, reservoir and generating station on the Eastmain river, would not require an environmental assessment. Unless this project is cancelled by the Quebec government, construction will begin in the spring of 2003.

What will be subject to a joint federal-provincial assessment, expected to take place over two years, is the EM-1a.

This would involve the diversion of 92 percent of the Rupert’s water at the cutoff point to Eastmain River, which is 100 kilometers to the north, and subsequently to La Grande River. A dam will have to raise water levels 28 feet to make the diversion possible.

Critics charge that part of the motivation for Rupert diversion is to maintain existing reservoirs from the original James Bay One project, which were constructed over strong Cree protests in the 1970s. Reservoir capacities are already being reduced by global warming, and such problems are predicted to become worse in the near future.

Rupert Diversion will damage environment
The proposed Rupert River diversion is one of the most environmentally destructive mega projects currently being considered in the western hemisphere.

The $10 billion proposal would involve the flooding of 1,000 square kilometers of old growth boreal forest, the construction of four dams and 51 dikes. It would require 12 kilometers of diversion channels.

The project would impact 165 lakes and five rivers. Some 555 kilometers of the Rupert would be drained, turning some sections of the river into a dry ditch.

The Rupert diversion would eliminate the habitat of one of the continent’s largest remaining populations of native brook trout and that of unusual fresh water shrimps. It would also disrupt the sanctuaries of many bird species, including one of the last eastern North American refuges for the Golden Eagle [1].

There is nothing on the scale of the Rupert River diversion that is being proposed in terms of harmful environmental impacts anywhere in the proposed free trade zone of the Americas. No major protests in any city have taken place against the Rupert River diversion in vivid contrast to the massive Quebec City “anti-globalization” protests in April 2001.

One October 2002 demonstration, against small-scale dams in southern Quebec in front of Hydro-Quebec’s Montreal offices, was recently joined by a few Friends of Rupert River who drove down for the occasion.

Low standards to blame
The attempt to divert the Rupert River has nothing to do with harmonization of Canadian law to lower international standards. It is instead an archaic relic of low environmental standards in both Canada and Quebec, which give a sinister new meaning to the notion of a distinct society.

This distinction paradoxically shared by the neighboring province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is attempting the only similar scale massive hydro-electric dam in North America, the proposed $12 billion Churchill Falls Two project. It has as been mocked as “The Two Gorges Dam” by its Innu and environmental foes.

In the rest of the continent, considerable effort is being made to dismantle existing dams in an era where co-generation, conservation and renewable power promises cleaner energy paths. Mega dams involving flooding native communities have all stopped in the United States, since such schemes were canceled by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in 1977 [2].

The media saturation of the Quebec Summit, which included lengthy hours of live coverage over four days and the back page treatment of the AIP signing held in the same city four months later, illustrates the confusing and misleading nature of “anti-globalization struggles”.

These are based on opposition to free trade agreements, and international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, (IMF) and the World Bank.

Before the Cree capitulation in October 2002, in what has become known as the “Peace of the Brave”, the alliance between the Cree Nation of Quebec and environmentalists had been so powerful because it was focused on the decisions of elected governments.

Targeted governments included Quebec, Canada, and state authorities in the United States that sought to buy electricity to be generated by the proposed James Bay Two Project. This was later canceled by a 1994 decision of the newly elected Quebec Premier, Jacques Parizeau, after a six- year battle.

The alliance between the Cree Nation of Quebec and environmentalists around the world pointed to paradoxes in “anti-globalization” struggle. These are ignored in simplistic mantras of both the media, and the type of left critics that it rivets attention on.

Part of the successful campaign by native people and environmentalists across North America to kill James Bay Two was to expose how the project, proposed to be conducted by Hydro-Quebec, a crown corporation owned completely by the Quebec government, was in fact in violation of the laws of free trade organized by the General Agreements on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT). Its laws are the focus of many anti-globalization protests.

GATT violations
The violation of GATT came about since large power users in Quebec, which include many highly polluting industries such as aluminum refining, obtain their power below cost, with prices fluctuating according to commodity pricing.

Such subsidies are in violation of GATT and are unique. These contracts were kept secret by the Quebec government, but were eventually published because of the courage of a native journalist, of the Kahniakehaka (Mohawk) nation, Kanentioo, (Doug George). Kanentioo at the time was editor of the Akwesasne based paper Indian Times.

The big media in Canada all bowed to the pressure of the Quebec government not to publish the big power contracts. They were instead exposed in a small native community weekly Indian Times, which has a distinguished history of environmental concern and opposition to organized crime and has also featured several articles critical of the AIP and the Rupert diversion.

The ignoring of these contracts and issues associated with changes in Cree politics since September 2002, is a terrible indication of media self-censorship, favourable to corporate interests in logging and hydro electric development [3].

Cree alliance
The alliance between the Cree and environmentalists around the world exposed the paradoxes and duplicities behind the rhetoric of trade laws and the reality. Not only were the assaults of Hydro-Quebec a state subsidized swindle which violated rational market principles for energy which would favor conservation and renewables, but the logging of the Cree’s lands were and remain unfairly cheapened by the largesse of the state.

The Cree together with the Natural Resources Defense Council, exposed this reality by defending American soft wood lumber tariffs against Canada, based largely on the low fees collected on timber harvested on crown lands.

The reality of the subsidized nature of old growth forest destruction in Canada is ignored by many Canadians in the “anti-globalization” movement, notably such high profile gurus as Naomi Klein and Maude Barlow.

Prominent and outspoken in the Quebec City protests, they have been silent on the issue of the future of the Rupert and environmental issues in the homeland of the northern Cree. Both and their associated institutions, such as the Council of Canadians, have tended to side with efforts to use international trade law to defeat environmental conservation efforts by the U.S. government.

They have never indicated how Canadian government subsidies to logging old growth forests are a violation of both international and continental trade law. Part of the relief in the signing of the AIP expressed in both editorials in the few dailies which gave detailed coverage of it, was that the Cree would no longer confront Canada in the controversial, never ending, softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. [4].

The alliance between the Cree and environmentalists is typical of the potency of similar common causes around the world to defend sustainable human cultures from the assault of industrial resource extraction.

Such successful battles include the recent victory of the U’wa of Columbia against oil exploration, similar victories over oil by the Gwich’in in Alaska and the Yukon and the Haida nation’s winning of the South Moresby National Park Reserve against powerful logging lobbies.

Frequently such struggles involve the defense of environmentally sustainable human cultures, such as the Gwich’in way of life based on the abundance of the 180,000 strong Porcupine caribou herd.

The imagery of assisting sustainable cultures to thrive and survive is quite powerful, and has been compared by Gwich’in leader Sarah James, to being able to go back into time to defend the great plains buffalo grazing way of life from the assaults of 19th century colonizing greed.

Indeed, one of the reasons for one of the Gwich’in’s many victories, is that they were helped by the release of the film, “Dances with Wolves.” It is difficult for even the most powerful corporations to win in such dramatic public relations battles of looters versus Indians, at least in democratic societies. [5]

Filmmaker questions power
One native activist who clearly understands the power of the alliance between environmentalists and native communities is the Kahniakehaka filmmaker, and photographer, Ronkwetason. Ronkwetason for the past 14 years has worked closely with traditional leaders from across North and South America.

In a recent article in the Cree magazine Nation, Ronkwetason wrote that: “If the northern Cree Nation and others agree to sell their rivers and territory for profit and agree to more road for construction companies and buyers, what do they think will happen?

“The Ojibway Nation on Bear Island is surrounded by companies taking, taking, and taking, while cottages and homes of rich owners are serviced by colonizers. The animals and fish and birds who we respect and who give us life do not deserve to be treated badly by construction workers and developers or people with no spiritual foundation. Pollution, and contamination are in the cities.

“Motorboats, trains, buses, cars, trucks, planes are now everywhere, but to agree on the multiplication of these things is suicide to spiritual people.”

Ronkwetason believes that, “In many ways Northern Quebec compares to the Amazon, the way the Amazon used to be. Because it is so rich with animals, amazing animals, beautiful fish and beautiful birds, all with voices of their own; it compares to the Amazon because of its rich magnificent rivers.… The northern Cree Nation has a chance to protect their children’s future, their culture and Mother Earth.”[6]

Not only do environmentally concerned voters show a growing inclination to support native struggles for cultural survival, but these attitudes are also gaining growing strength in the legal profession, among law scholars and in the courts.

Legal opinion in all the formerly white settler dominated former colonies of British Commonwealth, is casting off authoritarian, racist doctrines of conquest and “discovery” in favour of the recognition to aboriginal title on the basis of functioning governments before the time of European contact.

This had been the basis of the 1888 dogmas of the St. Catharines Milling Case, in which the Imperial Privy Council maintained that aboriginal title was held at the pleasure of the crown.

This was swept away in December 11, 1997, when the Supreme Court of Canada issued the Delgammuuk decision. This upheld the right of aboriginal nations to protect sacred lands and environmental features that were the basis for their subsistence economy.

Here Chief Justice C. J. Lamer stressed that aboriginal title, “encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of land in order to engage in those activities which are aboriginal rights themselves.”

He indicated that, “if a group claims a special bond with the land based on its ceremonial or cultural significance it may not use the land in such a way to destroy that relationship (example: by developing it in such a way that the bond is destroyed, perhaps by turning it into a parking lot.” [7] )

Evolution of Canadian law
The evolution of Canadian law forced the Cree leadership of northern Quebec to be in a position where they would either use the courts to exclude industrial extraction from their traditional lands, or become, through agreements with governments, partners in exploitation.

This stark choice was provided by the strange combination of the growing strength of Canadian law to give native communities the right to protect their traditional subsistence economies, and the political weakness of the environmental movement in Quebec.

While in some provinces, notably Ontario and British Columbia, alliances between environmentalists, native communities and the New Democratic Party, have resulted in the cancellation of major hydro electric projects, such a red-green dynamic which combines native rights with the protection of the environment through social democratic activism is tragically weak in Quebec.

Nowhere else in Canada are such few areas off limits to hydro electrical development and logging.

From the defeat of James Bay Two in November 1994 right up to secret negotiations with Coon Come and Landry in September 2002 following a major Cree court victory, the Cree Nation of Northern Quebec displayed, co-operating with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an exemplary single minded determination to use publicity and court battles to protect their old growth boreal forests from industrial exploitation.

This was fiercely contested with Quebec, at one point in the year 2000, involving the cutting off of funds owed to the Cree for education. These payments were authorized under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, (JBNQA) signed in 1973 by the Cree in exchange for dropping their legal challenges to the James Bay One project.

The last dispute was a September 6, 2001 Court of Appeal victory by the Cree of Northern Quebec against the Quebec government’s refusal to make such payments. This victory was shortly followed by Quebec’s invitation to make a compromise after it lost the ability to blackmail the Crees by the threat of an arbitrary cut off of JBNQA money.

The issue that led to the “Peace of the Brave” was originally the Cree opposition to clear cut logging. This was still at the time subject to intense conflict, involving a Cree complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, to obtain the re-accusation of Justice Corteau.

This was the first time that a judge had been removed from hearing a constitutional case in Canadian history, a decision that emerged from a $700 million lawsuit by the Cree Nation and an individual trapper, Mario Lord.
The Cree campaign, which included advertisements in American newspapers against government subsidized clear cutting, was done in co-operation with native communities suffering from clear cutting both British Columbia and Ontario.

In June 2002, the Grand Council of the Cree, met with the Ontario Nishnawbe Aski Nation, to develop a joint strategy to, in the words of a joint press release, “investigate the allegations of illegal subsidies provided by Canada and its provinces to the forest industry.” [8]

In the October 23rd agreement, the Cree took a disturbing comprehensive approach to be joint exploiters, rather than protectors of their traditional territories.

In defending the agreement, both Grand Chief Ted Moses and Bill Namagoose, the Executive Director of the Grand Council, stressed on a number of occasions that the Cree were the “owners”, rather than the mere “janitors”, of their traditional territory.

The term janitor is a harsher version of the word, “custodian”, which is close to traditional native concepts of a nation being a trustee for the protection of nature and future generations, rather than a short-term exploiter of the land. [9]

In addition to approving the diversion of the Rupert River, the AIP committed the Cree to drop litigation to protect forests. In exchange to dropping litigation, the Cree agreed to the creation of a joint advisory forestry board, to which the Quebec government will appoint the majority of members.

The Cree were also promised a greater share of revenues from logging, being promised a 350,000 meter wood allocation over the next five years.

Although the Cree leadership that supported the deal initially stressed the proposed project involved only one eighth of the flooding proposed by the much larger James Bay Two project, such arguments stopped being used after the Quebec government signed a similar AIP with the Inuit.

It proposes to conduct environmental assessments for other projects on their territory to the north of the Cree, which could possibly involve an effort to build dams on the Great Whale River, which straddles the lands of the two nations.

The wide scope of the studies to be undertaken with the Inuit, indicate that the Quebec government has not abandoned plans, heralded by former Quebec Premier, Robert Bourassa, to undertake major power projects on every northern Quebec river.

Native activists and environmentalists will have their work cut out for them as long as there are developers like Matthew Coon Come and Ted Moses.

AIP Financial incentives
The AIP was drafted in a number of ways to give financial incentives for the Cree to favour resource exploitation over conservation in their fragile boreal forest homeland, creating a framework of co-exploitation.

The Cree agreed to pay more of the costs of environmental regulatory enforcement. Payments to the Cree under the agreement, unlike the previous 1975 deal, which was not tied to such considerations, are intended, “to reflect the evolution of the activity in the James Bay territory in the hydroelectricity, forestry and mining sectors.”[10]

Since the AIP was signed on October 23rd, 2001, there has been a growing opposition in Northern Quebec Cree communities, to the approach of co-exploitation. Support for this approach by the majority of the Cree elected leadership, has resulted in the emergence of growing counter political forces, which challenge plans for the diversion of the Rupert River.

This political mobilization of Cree grass roots against their elected leadership is a new and growing movement, which is assisted in co-operation with Cree communities in Ontario, natives from around North America and environmentalists who earlier helped defeat the James Bay Two project.

When the Cree agreed to drop litigation to prevent the completion of James Bay One there was intense opposition from this compromise within their nation.

A court challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada, based on upholding the Cree’s initial court victory, which stopped construction for eight days, had the possibility of preventing the water from being diverted into empty reservoirs although most of the project was constructed.

Although politically difficult, this was not a physical impossibility as the ultimately successful Austrian opposition to nuclear power would display. Through a referendum, Austrian environmentalists prevented a plant from being opened, which was already built, despite the expenditure of billions in pubic funds.

The elected Cree leadership and their legal team had to persuade unhappy communities to accept the JBNQA as a palliative to giving up judicial action against James Bay One.

The AIP debate became the first time that an overt Cree strategy of co-exploitation became subject to political challenge.

Much of the elected Cree leadership and their paid staff had earlier privately agreed with such an approach. This was not openly expressed to their electorate because the 1975 signing of the JBNQA and withdrawal of the Supreme Court of Canada appeal against James Bay One was presented as simply salvaging the best deal possible in the face of inevitable defeat.

Only with the AIP would they defend an overt strategy of participation in industrial scale resource exploitation to generate Cree revenues. This has generated substantial opposition and debate.

Although the AIP was approved in a referendum with 69.7 percent support, the deal was not approved by the majority of Cree voters. Only 38 percent participated in the referendum. This meant that the deal had only the support of fewer than 25 percent of eligible Cree voters.

There were many irregularities with the approval of the AIP. The referendum was conducted separately by different voting days in eight Cree communities. The results were announced between the votes. The wording of the question varied in each of the communities.

Chisasibi votes against AIP
One Cree community, Chisasibi, did vote against the AIP. It sits at the foot of the La Grande river reservoir whose waters are projected to rise at least six feet if the Rupert River diversion is completed.

The community of 3,000 people was earlier moved forty-four miles inland from the James Bay coast from the original James Bay One project. It has one of the world’s highest rates of mercury contamination among its residents, which since 1985 have been found to be above safe limits established by the United Nation’s World Health Organization.

These high mercury levels came about as a result of eating fish contaminated by the release of mercury from flooded soils into surface waters. Before James Bay One destroyed the La Grande rapids, 20 per cent of this community’s diet came from whitefish taken from this source [11].

Opposition is still growing in Cree communities to the diversion of the Rupert River. This was vividly indicated in the summer 2001 elections for Grand Chief. The diversion was challenged soon after the AIP was signed by the then Deputy Grand Chief, Matthew Mukash.

He denounced the deal as an ominous “wake up call to protect the earth and much more”.

On an August 28th election for Grand Chief, Ted Moses defeated Mukash by only 28 votes in a tight 2,139 to 2,111 race. Mukash had especially strong support in Chisasibi, winning by more than two to one, far higher than the narrow defeat of the AIP in this community.

This election, received a much greater turnout than the AIP referendum. Some 51% of eligible voters took part, although only 38% of eligible electors voted in the AIP referendum. This meant that Moses received 1,000 fewer votes than those who voted in favor of the AIP.

Divisions among the Cree were further intensified by the opposition to electoral irregularities.

Some 30 employees of the Chee-Bee Construction Company, which has done work for Hydro-Quebec, signed an official complaint that their employer did not allow them time to go to vote.

This construction company gave its employees time off to vote in previous Cree elections. The election result was also contested by the Mocreebec band council based in Moose Factory, Ontario, which complained that 500 potential voters were not given the opportunity to cast ballots [12].

In a recent letter to the editor of the Cree magazine The Nation, Ronkwetason has given one of the most eloquent pleas for the Cree to return to their traditions as protectors of rivers, noting that,

“Short-term jobs that kill life, jobs that kill rivers, lakes or fish are genocidal jobs. To displace people and animals is against natural law. We are natural people, we must remain natural people. We must follow natural law. We cannot sleep when the earth is destroyed.” [13].

Author’s Footnotes
1. Media comments are based on an intensive reading of the Montreal Gazette, the Toronto Star, and the Toronto Globe & Mail, and listening to television and radio coverage on the CBC for two weeks after the AIP signing on October 23. None of this coverage indicated what parts of the proposed hydroelectric development could be canceled through environmental assessment.

For details of this important issue and information describing likely environmental impacts I have had to rely on the web site of Rupert Reverence.

2. Winona Laduke, “All our Relations”, (Cambridge: South End Press, 1999), p. 64; Assaults by dams on the land base of native Americans in the US stopped after US President Jimmy Carter in 1977 canceled the Orme Dam, which would have caused the relocation of the Fort McDowell Yavapai. See, Joy Bilharz, “The Allegany Senecas and Kinzua Dam”, ( Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), p. 29.

3. For a sense of how the subsidized contracts work see, Sean McCutcheon, “Electric Rivers”, (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1991), p.139. The remarkable courage of Kanetioo and his newspaper Indian Times, is detailed in, Bruce Johansen, “Life and Death in Mohawk Country”, (Golden, Colorado: North American Press, 1993) passim.

4. At the fall 2002 meeting of the Ontario Environment Network when I asked about the position of the Council of Canadians concerning the soft wood lumber dispute by representatives of an Ontario Environmental group, I was told that this was a delicate subject which should be discussed, “after the meeting.

5. Michael Bedford, “Saving a Refuge”, “Cultural Survival Quarterly”, Spring, 1992, pp. 38-42.

6. Danny Beaton, “Letter to the Editor”, “Nation”, October 4, 2002, p.6.

7. Stan Persky edited, “Delgamuukw : The Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Aboriginal Title”, (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1998), p. 93.

8. “Joint Press Release, July 5, 2002 : Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Grand Council of Crees Support Each Other in Softwood Lumber Dispute”

9. Moses used the term “janitors” in a derogatory fashion during the Agreement signing ceremony, which I watched while it was briefly broadcast on CBC national television. This also featured a Cree opponent of the being beaten by Cree police. Namagoose was earlier quoted in this approach in a Radio Netherlands Documentary, “The Battle for the River.”

He said that, “However, the Cree are a nation and as such we have the right to benefit from our own resources. Under this agreement there will be revenue sharing with Hydro Quebec. Europeans have a romantic notion of us as being stewards of the land. But we’re the owners of the land. Not the janitors.”

10. For details of the extensive debate on the AIP, see the “AIP package”. This was provided to me electronically by the environmentally concerned editor of “The Nation”, Will Nichools. The content of this debate was never covered by the mainstream press in Canada. Even more dramatically, there was a virtual blackout on the near defeat of Moses by Mukash and the intense arguments over election irregularities.

For earlier support of certain elements of Cree leadership for massive power dams on their territories providing they obtained sufficient revenue, see, Roy MacGregor, “Chief: The Fearless Vision of Billy Diamond” Harmondsworth: Peneguin, 1989), p.281. Based on his interviews with Cree leaders, MacGregor concluded that some, considered the possibility of “building the dams themselves, and selling the energy directly to the Americans. Nation to Nation.”

11. Boyce Richardson, “Strangers Devour the Land”, (Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre, 1991), pp. 345-360.

12. Don’t Touch That Dial: Split Result and Irregularities Leads Mukash to Challenge Election Results”, “The Nation”, pp. 5, 8.

13. Beaton, loc.cit.

By Lloyd Dolha

A 13-year legal battle to establish an aboriginal right for cross-border immunity to taxation ended on May 24, 2001 when the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its unanimous ruling in Mitchell that declared the Mohawks of Akwesasne must pay duty on goods brought across the Canada-US border.

Citing a lack of evidence to support their claim, the Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that the aboriginal right claimed had not been established and ordered Akwesasne Grand Chief Mike Mitchell to pay $361.64 in duty on items he brought into Canada from New York in a symbolic border-crossing to initiate the test case.

“While appellate courts grant considerable deference to findings of fact made by trial judges, the finding of a cross-border trading right in this case represents, in view of the paucity of evidence, a “clear and palpable error.” Evidentiary principles must be sensitively applied to aboriginal claims but they cannot be strained beyond reason.” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

Grand Chief Mike Mitchell of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne expressed bitter disappointment at the ruling of the court suggesting that the ruling was, in part, the Supreme Court’s response to the furor ignited on the east coast by the court’s September ruling in Marshall of September 1999, which found a treaty right for increased access to the fisheries for the Mi’kmaq of the east coast. Mitchell, who grew up watching Customs agents confiscating goods at the checkpoint near his home, said he “just lost faith in the Canadian system.”

The decision overturned earlier rulings of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal which found that the Mohawks have a historical right to immunity from paying duty taxes on goods brought over the Canada-US border.

The Mohawks of Akwesasne number over 5200. They straddle the Canada-US border living on reserves located on Cornwall Island as well as several other islands on the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall and in the St. Regis village and islands in Quebec.

The Mohawks argued the right as a right to bring goods into Canada from the United States for: personal use; community use; and, non-commercial scale trade with other First Nations. They say that, in its decision, the Supreme Court re-characterized the aboriginal right claimed in the case.

“Rather than examine the question of bringing goods for personal and community use, the Supreme Court concentrated only on the trading component of our aboriginal rights. There is nothing in the majority of the court’s reasons rejecting the views expressed by the trial judge and the court of appeal on goods for personal use and community consumption at Akwesasne.” stated the Mohawk Council press release of that day.

In emphasizing the need to establish trade to the north as a central and defining feature of Mohawk society at the time, the court ruled that the evidence showed that the Mohawks engaged in east-west trade before European settlers arrived, but not a north-south relationship because Mohawks on either side of the St Lawrence River were constantly at war.

“In the present case, the evidence indicates that the Mohawks traveled north on occasion and trade was a distinguishing feature of their society. The evidence does not show, however, an ancestral practice of trading north of the St. Lawrence River … Even if the trial judge’s generous interpretation of the evidence was accepted, it discloses negligible transportation and trade of goods by the Mohawks north of the St. Lawrence River prior to contact. This trade was not vital to the Mohawk’s collective identity. It follows that no aboriginal right to bring goods across the border for the purposes of trade has been established.” ruled the court.

AFN National Chief Matthew Coon Come was also extremely critical of the Supreme Court ruling, charging that the ruling is grounded in a colonial mentality that perpetuates poverty among First Nations.

“The Supreme Court seems to be moving in a further direction, recalling Marshall Two, of narrowing the trade and commercial rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. Our socio-economic conditions are terrible; as observed by the Royal Commission, First Nations peoples have been marginalized and locked out. The Supreme Court ruling perpetuates this disturbing trend.” said Coon Come.

Aboriginal rights advocates now argue that the courts are rendering such rights impotent against the political and economic demands of non-aboriginal Canada. Indeed, the ruling states:
“The enactment of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 accorded constitutional status to existing aboriginal and treaty rights, including aboriginal rights recognized at common law. However, the government retained the jurisdiction to limit aboriginal rights for justifiable reasons in the pursuit of substantial and compelling public objectives.”

That statement is drawn from the second Marshall decision of November 1999, when the Supreme Court issued a rare clarification of its earlier ruling, in which the same court ruled that the federal government’s power to regulate the Mi’kmaq treaty right to an extended fishery “extends to other compelling and substantial public objectives which may include economic and regional fairness, and recognition of the historical reliance upon, and participation in, the fishery by non-aboriginal groups.” It’s a direct quote from Gladstone (1996) which argued an aboriginal right for the commercial sale of herring roe-on-kelp and similar wording is found in Delgamuukw (1997).

Nevertheless, the Mohawks of Akwesane are determined to move forward on this issue through negotiation.

“The Mohawk people, through the past three and a half centuries have survived between colonizing nations. First the English and the French. Then between the British and the United States. Then between Canada and the United States. We are determined that our nation and our rights will continue to survive. The Supreme Court’s decision has not, in our view, resolved the border crossing issue. We prefer the court’s conclusion four years ago in Delagamuukw, that these issues are best left to negotiation.”

By Rick Mofina

At least 20,000 survivors of Indian residential schools who are not involved in legal action will be quietly pressing the government for compensation, according to Canada’s top native leader.

Matthew Coon Come, chief of the Assembly of First Nations, says the AFN has been researching the issue and is confident that 20,000 to 60,000 people not involved in court actions have unsettled issues arising from the residential school system.

These concerns include such things as the damage done to families, identities and native culture that have yet to be addressed, Mr. Coon Come said yesterday before AFN officials met privately with Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray.

Mr. Gray was appointed last year by Prime Minister Jean Chretien to address critical issues on residential school litigation, in particular, concerns by some leading churches, which face financial ruin over lawsuits from school survivors. The most recent figures show that more than 6,200 individuals who claim to have been victimized within the residential system have unsettled lawsuits. That number could near 10,000 should several class-action suits now pending be accepted by the courts.

Mr. Coon Come said those cases deal with “criminal aspects like sexual abuse.” But for others, “there’s the whole question of loss of language, loss of culture. How do you put that into the picture in order for one to feel that their issues are addressed?” Mr. Coon Come said.

At its Confederacy of Nations meeting last month, the AFN, which represents some 630 First Nations, set out a plan to present the government with a comprehensive settlement strategy on residential schools.

Mr. Coon Come said the government’s Japanese-Canadian compensation model is one that could be adapted and used for residential schools.

During the Second World War, 22,000 Japanese-Canadians were rounded up and detained, victims of racial paranoia following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. In 1988, the federal government apologized for its actions and promised $21,000 to 12,000 of the surviving internees.

Mr. Coon Come sees some parallels with that action and how native children were taken from their homes and placed in residential schools.

Pressure has been growing on several fronts over how best to resolve the controversial issue of abuse suffered by native children in residential schools, which were established more than a century ago by the federal government and administered by church groups.

The aim of the system, which was phased out in the 1960s, was to assimilate aboriginal children into mainstream culture. After the closures, stories of students being subjected to physical and sexual abuse in the schools began emerging.

By Lloyd Dohla

Gordon Campbell has declared that he will not tolerate any civil disobedience.

If he and his party persist in the stupidity of a referendum he will have to learn tolerance. The battle of the hustings is over.

The long struggle to protect our rights and our identity from yet another government will continue. The hill will simply be steeper and the obstacles higher. The battle will be fought on the streets and in the media as the political party that has control of the legislative assembly will not, can not understand the very nature of treaty rights and negotiations. The battle will be fought with the traditional methods of civil disobedience.

I hope that it will be confined to sit-ins, peaceful protests, marches etc. but expectations were raised and the frustration level is being elevated. No matter, I think that Mr. Campbell will be a very tolerate man by the time he leaves office.

The call for treaties in BC is the recognition that the lack of a treaty between two nations is an intolerable and unworkable situation. Consider the extensive and complex treaty web that exists between the Government of Canada and the United States. These treaties are essential, for no two nations can live side by side without agreements on how each is to be treated and how it will treat the other.

We might also note that the BC Liberals are not calling for a referendum to settle the Soft Wood Treaty dispute. The first step in the treaty process is the recognition that The First Nations are what the title says, here first and a nation. It is therefore impossible to put the treaty process to a referendum.

A referendum can only take place within the same political entity. The First Nations may have been smothered by the Whiteman but they have never given up their unique culture and political identity.

The approach taken by the BC Liberals reminds of a sales technique I was taught when I sold encyclopedias. It was called sale by assumption. From the time I entered the home I assumed that the occupants were going to buy. The BC Liberals assume that they are dealing with a minority group of Canadians and that we can be treated as such under the laws of Canada. I myself take umbrage with our acceptance of being called Canadians.

The Duke of Wellington once said that simply because a man is born in a stall does not make him a horse. Our being born in what the white power structure calls Canada does not make us Canadians. I am Dene.

They speak of bringing the First Nations in line with the rest of Canadians. Therefore they can decry the provisions that release us from income tax and other treaty rights that give us “free services”.

There was a leader from Northern Saskatchewan, whose name I am sorry to say I cannot recall, who said “We gave them the land, how much more do they want us to pay.” The BC Liberals fail to see that the treaties process is to set up the rules and framework the First Nations are to live by as a nation within the nation of Canada.

We have no choice but to work out treaties that allow us to take advantage of this country’s economic possibilities without losing our cultural and political identities. We must then make sure that the foundations of the treaty process are laid with the recognition that the First Nations are nations that were here first and must be dealt with from that perspective and not as a minority group of Canadians.

A second class minority group of Canadians The BC Liberal attitude is racist in the extreme. We should not listen to the measured tones of the party leadership for the real opinion of the party but the strident and ugly tones and statements of the rank and file.

The rank and file the conciliatory sounding leaders have sworn to listen to. The majority opinion was best expressed in a letter published by The Province whose writer stated that the Indians weren’t using the land when the Whiteman arrived and didn’t fight for it when they had a chance.

The writer didn’t see any need for treaty talks because everyone was Canadian now anyway. This is the real voice and thoughts of the ruling party. This is the attitude the struggle is against.

By Joseph O’Connor

Slippery was now on his back. Someone kicked him in the head. Above him and all around him were forms that didn’t look human; they were just dark shapes raining blows down on his body. He had no idea how many there were, just that they were everywhere, swarming him.

He was beaten and yet soon he could no longer feel any pain. He felt only an odd, dull sensation, before everything went black. He lay face down, his mouth full of sound, and the blows kept coming.

Cecil Bernard “Slippery” George would survive the violent beating he took at the hands of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) riot squad Tactical and Rescue Unit (TRU), on September 4, 1995 at Ipperwash. Unfortunately his cousin Dudley wasn’t so lucky. He was killed on that fatal night and for six years his family have lobbied for an inquiry into his death and the role played by Premier Mike Harris.

One Dead Indian, written by investigative journalist Peter Edwards tells the history of the Dudley George murder, a well-chronicled expose on the unwarranted brutality of the OPP against peaceful protesters.

“The natives first saw the phalanx of officers when the police rounded a corner just outside the park entrance. It was an eerie sight. Under the three-quarter moon more than 30 officers in dark gray were marching upon them in tight ranks known as a “box formation.””

The incident could have been avoided if the OPP had listened to AFN National Chief Ovide Mercredi who requested the police postpone their raid until the next day, which would have given him more time to speak to the protesters. Mercredi was convinced that a confrontation in full daylight had less chance of escalating to violence. The OPP had their own agenda and refused to speak to the AFN chief on the night of Sept. 4, 1995. They had been given orders from the highest office in the province.

Premier Mike Harris denied he was in Toronto on September 4, the first of many lies. He was attending his own benefit party celebrating his election. He also had a meeting that same day with OPP superintendent Ron Fox, a liaison with the Solicitor-General’s office and Sergeant Scott Patrick. It was at this meeting that Harris made it clear to the police that the protest at Ipperwash was to be crushed at the cost of whatever action was warranted.

The premier later admitted he was at the meeting but couldn’t recall who else attended, and in between memory lapses, he hasn’t allowed an inquiry into the incident, which cost the Ontario taxpayers $500,000 in legal fees to keep the case out of court.

The crucial evidence that would either clear Premier Harris or incriminate him was on the files on the meeting of Sept. 4, which should have remained in OPP superintendent Ron Fox’s computer, files were requested by the Globe and Mail, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, by G & M writer Martin Mittelstaedt, who was informed that they had “vanished.”

“Efforts by the stall of the Information and Technology division of OPP to retrieve any records which may have been located in the folders were unsuccessful,” said deputy Soliciter-General Tim Millard, at the time.

Not only was Millard’s department missing files the OPP (claims not to have) had no Polaroid or video record of the arrests that night. There was no audio of Sergeant Ken Deane or any other members of the paramilitary unit responsible for the violence and death at Ipperwash.

This should have been enough to force an inquiry into the shooting death of Dudley George, but the Harris legal team was able to keep Premier Harris a safe distance from the court. Sgt. Ken Deane, the OPP officer in charge on the fatal night went on trial for the murder of Dudley George instead. A veteran police officer, Deane was a senior member of TRU and was highly respected in the OPP force.

Deane testified that the information police had on the protesters was that they were highly armed and when he saw Dudley George, on the road that night “he thought that Dudley had s rifle.

“He was scanning our position with the rifle. I discharged approximately three rounds at the individual. He faltered, fell to the ground, got up, threw his weapon back to the ditch area,” said Deane.

Sgt. Hebblethwaite’s testimony not only contradicted Deane’s, it left the judge doubting any of Deane’s story, Constable Cris Crossitt’s testimony was in the judge’s words “clearly fabricated and plausible.”

Sgt. Deane was found guilty and, for the George family, there was a small sense of retribution which only lasted until the sentencing.

Justice Hugh Fraser handed down a conditional two years less a day, to community service and he could possess a firearm once the sentence is completed.

Sgt. Deane will not even suffer the inconvience of house arrest.

“My brother’s life comes too cheap to these people. My brother gets laid in his grave and this guy gets sent home?” said Dudley’s brother Pierre.

A Call For Answers is one of the chapters in One Dead Indian and author Peter Edwards has done an excellent job in showing in great detail both the First Nation and police account of what actually happened.

The fact remains that the OPP did use excessive force that was not only uncalled for, and resulted in Dudley George’s death and Mike Harris walks away without even an inquiry.

With the passing of Squamish Elder, Chief Simon Baker, British Columbia lost one of its greatest cultural figures. In Khot-La-Cha : The autobiography of Chief Simon Baker, author and educator Verna Kirkness, described Baker as “an ambassador of his own culture and the human spirit.” Simon Baker was indeed these things and much more. He was the last of the great “North Shore Indians,” famed for their achievements in Canadian lacrosse during his youth of the 1930’s. A dedicated husband and family man, Baker worked as a longshoreman for forty-one years, eventually rising to the position of superintendent of Canadian Stevadoring. He was a prime mover in organizing the first public pow wows and sporting events for Canadian First Nations. A tireless volunteer, Simon Baker served as spokesperson for countless community projects and organizations.

Chief Baker served as councillor to the Squamish Nation for over 30 years, ten of which he served as chairman. So revered by his people, he was the only Squamish member designated “Chief for Lifetime.” He is the recipient of numerous of numerous awards and special recognitions. He was a two-time recipient of the British Columbia Centennial Award of Merit for 1958 and 1971. He was named to the Order of Canada in 1977 and was granted an Honourary Doctorate of Laws from the University of BC in 1990. He was a revered elder for the First Nations House of Learning and the Native Indian Teacher Education Program (NITEP) at UBC for many years, sharing his wisdom through stories and songs. He assisted in fundraising for the UBC First Nations Longhouse through his extensive network of contacts.

In May 1999, Chief Baker was inducted into the BC Sports Hall of Fame as the only surviving member of the celebrated ‘North Shore Indians’ of 1936 for recognition of his achievements as “Cannonball Baker,” star lacrosse player of the team. In March 2000, Chief Baker received the National Aboriginal Achievement Award for Heritage and Spirituality.

As an ambassador of West Coast aboriginal culture, Baker travelled across western Europe, New Zealand and Japan throughout the 1970’s and 80’s, promoting aboriginal culture and heritage to the world. In his autobiography, Simon explained the importance of family and home in the retention of his cultural heritage.

” In order for me to keep the teachings of our elders, I had to keep coming home. After I left school , I had to accept the things that my grandmothers keep reminding me of, my grass roots. I tried to practice what they taught me, keeping up my culture from the teachings of my elders. I was glad to listen, to obey and practice our way. I still have the knowledge, wisdom and philosophies of our elders. I had to keep learning my own culture, my language.”

Khot-La-Cha, his Squamish name for ” Man with a Kind Heart”, is survived by his wife of 71 years Emily, one sister, nine children, 38 great grandchildren and one great, great grandchild. He passed away on Wednesday, May 23, 2001.

As I sit at my desk with my mighty pen in hand, I have to remind myself that I’m a humorist and to keep it light. Because what I’ve chosen to write about, is all the in-fighting amongst natives. The title almost read “You Blankity Blank, Back Stabbing, Blankity Blank!”

As you can probably tell, I’m a victim of the one thing that keeps a lot of natives down on the rez. The major reason you rarely see the words successful, happy and native in the same sentence. If you’re a native, you know of the affliction I’m talking about. Even if you’ve never done it yourself, you’re probably a carrier. Because I’ve seen it infect every generation I can remember.

If you’re a young native that wants to do something with your life, I suggest you get fitted for a Hatchet proof vest because, unfortunately, there are those who will want to stick it to you! If you’re strong willed, some will call you bossy. If you’re clever, you’re a smart ass, witty – mouthy, quiet – stuck up, sociable – show off. I won’t even write what would be said about you, if you’re kind to your mother.

It’s a no-win situation. So what’s a poor little rez boy (or gal) to do move to the big city? Reservation Brain Drain! (He writes, then looks out his window at the brightly lit skyscrapers.) But in my own defense, the city was the only place I could ply my trade. I used to paint windows for car dealerships. I no longer paint sale, sale, sale‚ on windows. So why do I stay in the city? Love, I suppose, is the main reason. You see, many moons ago when I first arrived in the city, I bumped into the most beautiful girl in the world and she introduced me to my wife. (I’m just kidding keep it light remember).

Let’s say that you don’t give a damn what people say. You don’t like city life and you’re determined to start your own business on the rez. Here’s a few things you should consider for your business plan.

Let’s say, you raise chickens and sell the eggs. Then one day Mrs. Runs With Deer walks in, demands credit. After all (she thinks), this is our business, because it’s on our reservation. But you know this woman and you know the odds of getting paid are slim to none. You also know she carries a lot of clout with her family, which just happens to be the dominant clan on the rez. (Representing fifty five percent of your total egg sales).

What do you do? Give her the eggs, or flip her the bird? It’s the age old question what comes first, the egg or the bird?

I hope I haven’t scared off any young native entrepreneurs. If you work hard and smart, you will succeed. And, as they say . . . success breeds success. Who knows, maybe we can tame the green eyed monster (jealousy) and make it work for us. Because, for every native that makes it, there’ll be another native saying “Ah, hell! If he can do it, I can do it too!”

If I may, I’d like to pass along a personal bit of advice, it may help you achieve a successful business on your rez. Don’t punch the future Chief in the nose!

By Chris Connors

First Nations communities in Cape Breton will no longer be policed by their own. Membertou Chief Terry Paul, who also serves as commissioner of Unama’ki Tribal Police, said the cash-strapped force is winding down and will fold when a five-year funding agreement expires April 1.

The federal and provincial governments had been covering the cost of the native force under a 51-49 per cent agreement.

Paul said that agreement has been extended by three months, enough time for Membertou, Eskasoni, Waycobah and Chapel Island band officials to consider proposals from other police agencies. Wagmatcook, the island’s other Mi’kmaq band, was originally included in the agreement but pulled out after the second year.

He expects final agreements will be in place by June.

“We’re looking at the demise of the Unama’ki Tribal Police as it’s set up now,” Paul said Monday.

The RCMP have been patrolling Membertou cost-free for the past few months because the band lost its complement of three Unama’ki members to other forces. Each of the native communities will negotiate its own police contracts.

“We’ve had several discussions with both the RCMP and the (Cape Breton) regional police,” said Paul. “We’re just waiting for their proposals right now.” Paul said the current funding arrangement never adequately covered the Unama’ki Tribal Police budget.

The government agreement offered just under $1 million in 1995 before ramping up to about $1.3 million this year.

Paul said $1.9 million would provide a “good, sizable force,” of 25 people, including civilian dispatchers and staff.

“It comes down to money and I guess the geographical area,” he said. “We need the bodies in order for it to be patrolled and serviced correctly.

“It shows in the police officers being very stressed out and the amount of overtime they have to do to make sure our communities have at least the basic protection services.”

But he said Ottawa and Halifax haven’t been willing to increase funding.

“They feel what they’re giving now is enough. I’m not even going there anymore. After many meetings I think one kind of accepts the fact that they’re not going to give any more money. So why keep conking your head against the wall when nothing is going to happen?”

While he said giving up on native self-policing, something outlined by the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Jr. Prosecution, was “very, very sad,” Paul said emphasis will still fall on natives policing natives.

“I think things are a little better today. I think we have a better chance of getting our people into the police forces and we’re still going to continue to do whatever we can to make sure our people are involved in policing our people.”

By Jim West

On behalf of the chiefs of the Atlantic region, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs are demanding a meeting with DFO minister Herb Dhaliwal to discuss their concerns over the newly proposed fisheries Template Agreements.

“If Minister Dhaliwal is serious about negotiating with us in good faith, then he should look at alternatives to his template agreements. That’s what negotiating in good faith is all about,” said APC co-chair Chief Lawrence Paul.

The template agreements are detailed agreements between DFO and the Atlantic Chiefs that will replace the one-year interim fishing agreements negotiated in the aftermath of the 1999 Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Atlantic Chiefs are united in the paramountcy of the treaty rights of the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy in any dealings with DFO in regards to the proposed agreements. The chiefs argue that the only way to protect their treaty rights, broadly defined as the right to make a moderate living, is to:

• make agreements consist with our rights
• make agreements that are fully “without prejudice”
• fish without agreements, but with due regard to the legitimate concerns such as conservation, safety and non-aboriginal dependencies.

The chiefs are extremely concerned about the new agreements and the heavy-handed tactics with the Atlantic First nations by federal negotiator James Mackenzie. Mackenzie, who successfully negotiated 30 one-year agreements in the 2000 fishing season, is proposing that DFO virtually assume all control on how First nations are to exercise their constitutionally protected treaty rights. The Atlantic chiefs want Mackenzie to review their proposed template agreements before proceeding further in any discussions.

” It’s more a case where they are telling us how we’re going to exercise our rights with no consideration of our management plans,” said Chief Paul.

The Atlantic chiefs are concerned that the legal implications of the new agreements are not in the best interests of their people because DFO has stipulated in the new agreements that they are honouring federal obligations under the treaties and the Supreme Court’s Marshall decision.

On February 9, 2001, Minister Dhaliwal publicly stated that neither he nor federal negotiator James Mackenzie had the mandate to negotiate or define treaty rights. Yet in a letter from DFO of March 16, 2001, he stated that the agreements are ” providing increased access … in response to the Marshall decision.

” If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans doesn’t have the mandate to define these rights, why is Minister Dhaliwal stating that if we sign the agreements, we are agreeing that he is living up to his obligations under the treaties and the Marshall decision?” said APC co-chair Second Peter Barlow.

The APC has still not received a response from DFO regarding the proposed meeting between DFO and APC legal representatives to address their concerns with the new interim agreements, The Atlantic chiefs say they are under a great deal of pressure from their members to sign agreements.

A letter received from DFO minister Herb Dhaliwal on April 2, 2001, the minister stated that federal negotiator James Mackenzie will continue to negotiate James Mackenzie will continue to negotiate band by band with the new agreements without consideration for the collective concerns.

The Atlantic chiefs say that DFO has expressed a total unwillingness to change any of the wording in the agreements to protect their treaty rights. They characterize the approach of DFO and the federal negotiator as “economic and social blackmail” or “money and access in exchange for treaty rights.”

“It is our view that negotiations have reached a dead-end and now Mr. Mackenzie will attempt to approach each First Nation individually and use poverty and poor unemployment statistics as leverage to get agreements,” said Chief Paul.