Topic: Today’s News

HAPPY VALLEY-GOOSE BAY, LABRADOR, NL 

The following is a statement issued by Gregory Rich, Grand Chief of the Innu Nation in anticipation of the conclusion of the Muskrat Falls Inquiry in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador NL. 

On the penultimate day of the Commission of Inquiry into the Muskrat Falls Project, the NunatuKavut Community Council (NCC) once again attempted to use public process to substantiate their efforts for recognition as an Indigenous “Rights holder” on Innu Nation constitutionally recognized land. Previous attempts by NCC to use public process to claim Indigenous rights on Innu territory related to the Muskrat Falls area occurred at the Joint Review Panel – Lower Churchill Hydro Generation Project in 2011. 

NCC submitted to the Commission that it was not consulted by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor Energy to the extent that Innu Nation was in the time leading up to project sanction at Muskrat Falls and following construction of the Muskrat Falls project. NCC told the Commission that it believes its consultation with respect to the Project was inadequate. 

Muskrat Falls is located on Innu traditional territory, Innu Nation are the constitutionally recognized Aboriginal rights holders to the land. NCC is accorded stakeholder status not Aboriginal or Rights holder status. 

Legally, NCC has no legitimate Aboriginal right to the Muskrat Falls area nor a right to expect equal rights to that of Innu Nation or equal consultation by the Province of NL or Nalcor or Canada on current or future resource development agreements. 

Innu Nation contends that the level of engagement by NL and Nalcor Energy with NCC regarding the project is a result of the reality of NCC’s legal standing and NCC’s own failure to prove that they are an Indigenous rights holder (whether Metis, Inuit-Metis or Inuit) with any such rights for consultation at the level afforded to Innu Nation. 

NCC stated to the Inquiry that protests that it organized and participated in caused project delays and overruns. Innu Nation asserts that it must be recognized that the increased costs and delays related to protests should rightly be attributed to actions taken by NCC. 

NCC’s objective participation in the Independent Expert Advisory Committee (IEAC) is also now questionable. NCC voted during the IEAC process for both targeted removal of soils and vegetation and wetland capping, measures not supported by 4 out of 6 western scientists. Only 2 of 6 scientists supported both these measures. Three out of six scientists supported wetland capping. Innu Nation considers NCC’s vote was a political tactic – NCC’s principles were discarded when it accepted the $10 million offered by Nalcor in lieu of wetland capping only. 

By contrast, while Innu accepted funds from Nalcor previously earmarked for wetland capping, unlike NCC, Innu Nation has remained steadfast with its position. 

Innu Nation participation in the IEAC was based on the need for further scientific study of predicted MeHg levels, an issue Innu Nation takes very seriously. 

As NCC and Innu Nation and all other participants had the same access to information through the IEAC, Innu Nation contends that NCC’s pivot on principle shows they were not as concerned with scientific results as they were with gaining political recognition for their involvement. 

NCC’s own appointee to the Independent Expert Committee of the IEAC, Mr. Stewart Michelin, stated in a July 29, 2019 interview with CBC Radio, “There were some intelligent people on that committee, and from everything I gathered and everything we talked about…I feel safe in eating fish”. Mr. Michelin’s statement is not consistent with his vote for Targeted Removal of Soils and Vegetation and Wetland Capping during the IEAC process, a vote that ignored available science, science that was not consistent with NCC’s political position. 

NCC’s acceptance of the $10m and recent statements by NCC’s expert contrary to NCC’s position on the IEAC is deeply concerning. The spirit and intent of the IEAC was weakened by the actions of the NCC, and NCC has also callously used public process for political recognition. 

Innu Nation recognizes that there are some members of NunatuKavut Community Council who are Indigenous but notes that NCC is not an Indigenous rights holder and is not under law a holder of Aboriginal rights. 

NCC does not have a recognized lands claim. Misuse of public process with calls for compensation and recognition as a land rights holder is insulting to Innu Nation as it should be to all legitimate Indigenous governments and peoples, including all people in Newfoundland and Labrador whose resources are misdirected to NCC. 

Innu Nation calls on the Governments of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to finalize Innu Nation’s land rights claim and to be prudent with any further funding and support for the NunatuKavut Community Council. 

The Innu Nation represents the Innu of Labrador and are the only recognized holders of constitutionally protected Aboriginal Rights in the Muskrat Falls Project Area and the only Indigenous people currently negotiating a treaty in Labrador with Canada and the Province. That recognition as a constitutional Aboriginal Rights holder in this area led to the legally binding Lower Churchill Impacts and Benefits Agreement (“IBA”) signed by Nalcor with the Innu Nation and the Sheshatshiu and Mushuau Innu First Nations in 2011. 

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner:

“I thank the Ethics Commissioner for his important work. Our independent Parliamentary officers play a key role to ensure transparency and accountability at the federal level, and to uphold the institutions Canadians rely on. We fully cooperated with the Commissioner on this matter.

“The Commissioner took the strong view that all contact with the Attorney General on this issue was improper. I disagree with that conclusion, especially when so many people’s jobs were at stake.

“My objective was, and always will be, to stand up for people’s jobs and livelihoods across the country, while upholding the rule of law and respecting the role of the Attorney General. When thousands of jobs are on the line and communities stand to suffer, it is the government’s responsibility to stand up for them.

“That said, the buck stops with me, and I take full responsibility for everything that happened, and accept the report.

“In March, I sought advice from former Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General Anne McLellan to clarify questions related to this matter. She held extensive consultations on the relationship between the federal government and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and her advice has been made public. We will carefully review her recommendations to determine how we can best move to implement them and ensure the openness, transparency, and accountability of the institutions Canadians rely on.

“Our government has made tremendous progress over the last few years, for seniors, students, workers, families, and newcomers. We have always fought to create and protect jobs, to invest in Canadians, and to strengthen the middle class at the heart of our country’s success. That priority will continue to guide everything we do.”

I welcome the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s Trudeau II Report issued today. 

I am grateful for Commissioner Mario Dion’s thorough Report. It represents a vindication of the independent role of the Attorney General and of the Director of Public Prosecutions in criminal prosecutions – and reinforces for Canadians how essential it is to our democracy to uphold the rule of law and prosecutorial independence. The Report confirms critical facts, consistent with what I shared with all Canadians, and affirms the position I have taken from the outset. The Commissioner was not distracted by inaccurate information about the events or about me personally – and drew conclusions based on the true facts of what occurred. 

I also have feelings of sadness. In a country as great as Canada, essential values and principles that are the foundation for our freedoms and system of government should be actively upheld by all, especially those in positions of public trust. We should not struggle to do this; and we should not struggle to acknowledge when we have acted in ways that do not meet these standards. I am also concerned by the government’s decision to deny even its Ethics Commissioner requested access to Cabinet confidences, as there were apparently constraints on a number of witnesses from telling the whole story. The Commissioner is correct in saying that decisions affecting his work should be made “transparently and democratically, not by the very same public office holders who are subject to the regime he administers.” 

The Report reminds us that we must all remain vigilant. Personally, I remain committed to doing politics differently and engaging in important discussions in a way that honours what is best about Canada, to work across party lines and to continue to do the best job I can as the independent Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. There remains more work to be done. 

The Commissioner’s important findings of fact include: 

• There were multiple attempts to improperly influence my decision as Attorney General whether to intervene in a criminal prosecution. These attempts persisted despite my “direct advice” to the Prime Minister. That warning “was discounted and ignored.” The Commissioner found all these tactics “troubling”, and these supported his conclusion that the Prime Minister had violated the Conflict of Interest Act. The Commissioner stated that “[t]he authority of the Prime Minister and his office was used to circumvent, undermine and ultimately attempt to discredit the decision of the DPP as well as [my] authority as chief law enforcement officer.” 

• Senior staff in the Prime Minister’s office “pressed [me] on the idea of seeking external advice on the matter – all the while knowing the advice that would be given and selectively withholding other material information from [me],” and this constituted a third attempt to “bend the will of the Attorney General.” 

• The most “flagrant” attempt to influence me occurred during my conversation with the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Commissioner reflected that it was difficult to imagine that the Clerk acted without a full and clear appreciation of the Prime Minister’s position on the matter.” The repeated interventions to have me “find a solution” were “tantamount to political direction.” 

• It was improper to raise partisan political interests with me, in the context of my role in evaluating this prosecutorial decision. This was done on at least four separate occasions. 

• It was “clearly improper” for one branch of government to be communicating with applicants to a judicial review challenging a decision made by another branch of government, without the knowledge or involvement of the Attorney General or her representative. 

• Contrary to a narrative that has been advanced by others, there was no evidence that I failed to consider “the public interest” in making my decision not to intervene. Indeed, the Commissioner confirms the steps I took, including consultations with several former attorneys general, to obtain guidance and advice. 

Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Vancouver, BC August 14, 2019 

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion today released the Trudeau II Report, an examination of the allegation that the Prime Minister sought to influence the Attorney General of Canada in her decision on whether to intervene in a criminal prosecution involving SNC‑Lavalin. 

After reviewing evidence and several fundamental legal and constitutional principles related to this matter, Commissioner Dion found that the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, contravened section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act (Act). 

Commissioner Dion determined that, as Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau was the only public office holder able to exert influence over the Attorney General in her decision whether to intervene in a matter relating to a criminal prosecution. He also found that other senior officials within the Prime Minister’s Office were directed, by the Prime Minister, to find a solution in a desire to use the newly adopted remediation agreement tool, also called a deferred prosecution agreement, in the criminal matter involving SNC-Lavalin. 

Mr. Trudeau’s stated position in the matter was that he was concerned about the issue of potential job losses and the repercussions to the company’s employees, pensioners and shareholders. The Prime Minister’s overall aim was to consult with the Attorney General to ensure that she had properly considered the option of negotiating a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin. The Prime Minister and his senior officials subsequently sought over a period of many months to have the Attorney General overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to not invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement. Commissioner Dion found that these senior officials, who included both senior ministerial staff and public officials, would not have acted without a full and clear appreciation of the Prime Minister’s position on the matter.

In the report findings, Commissioner Dion reviewed how private and public interests can take many forms, including financial or political. This led him to conclude that SNC-Lavalin’s considerable private financial interests would undoubtedly have been furthered had Mr. Trudeau successfully influenced the Attorney General in her decision to overturn the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision relating to the company. Commissioner Dion also found that partisan political interests were improperly put to the Attorney General for consideration in the matter, contrary to longstanding constitutional principles relating to prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

Distinctions-based program empowers Indigenous people to improve skills and find jobs

The Government of Canada is committed to advancing reconciliation and fostering a better future for Indigenous people by ensuring First Nations people have greater opportunities to find and keep good quality jobs.

Today, the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour announced funding of $16,947,730 over a period of 10 years for Anishinabek Employment and Training Services (AETS) in Thunder Bay. This funding is part of the First Nations Labour Market Strategy under the Indigenous Skills and Employment Training (ISET) Program. AETS will support their First Nation community to provide education, training and other relevant services which will assist their members from these communities in developing increased employment skills and pursuing training for higher-quality jobs. Further, AETS will work toward closing the employment, earning and skills gaps between First Nations and non-Indigenous people.

The Government of Canada and Indigenous partners co-developed the the ISET Program so that it better responds to the employment and training needs of Indigenous people across Canada. The First Nations Labour Market Strategy recognizes the unique needs of First Nations people and aims to improve employment outcomes and encourage skills training among First Nations people.

SUMMARY: Vancouver Island University’s Masters of Arts in Sustainable Leisure Management student Sara Fulla explores the Kwakwaka’wakw Potlatch as a form of Indigenous leisure. 

NANAIMO, BC: As an Indigenous woman and leisure scholar, VIU Master of Arts in Sustainable Leisure Management student Sara Fulla is merging her two worlds with her research project, which explores leisure in a cultural context.

A recipient of the $17,500 Canada Graduate Scholarships-Master’s award, Fulla has the financial support to continue exploring the Kwakwaka’wakw Potlatch as a form of Indigenous leisure. 

It seems only fitting that Fulla – whose traditional name is ‘Maxw’mawidzamga, which she has been told translates to “Potlatching Woman” – shares the story of her ancestors’ sacred ceremony.

“For many years, non-Indigenous people have been sharing their perspectives and perceptions on the Kwakwaka’wakw Potlatch, and I think it’s time that our own people share our cultural and traditional knowledge,” says Fulla. 

As one of the few Indigenous scholars in her field of study, Fulla recognizes that leisure is often represented through a Western context – but she says there are other ways of knowing.

“Although my people did not have a word for leisure, we practiced it every day in our culture,” she says.

Raised in ‘Yalis, Alert Bay, Fulla grew up immersed in her Kwakwaka’wakw culture. She strongly believes in the importance of continuing her ancestors’ traditions and preserving their language and culture. As a mother of a three-year-old daughter, she sees the value of raising her child with the knowledge of their people.

“I don’t want my culture or language to die. I want our traditions to be practised for another thousand years and more; for my people to continue to sing our melodies and dance our rhythms,” she says. 

Fulla says one way Indigenous communities can preserve and share their culture is through tourism. After completing her master’s degree, she hopes to start her own consulting firm to support Indigenous communities in sharing their stories with tourists in a sustainable and respectful way. 

“In sharing our stories – in whatever capacity and as much as communities feel comfortable with – we can promote understanding between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples,” she says. 

The English translation of the word potlatch means “to give.” Many people believe a wealthy person has a full life; however, through the sacred potlatch ceremony, the Kwakwaka’wakw people celebrate that the person who gives the most away. With Fulla’s research project she hopes to share the knowledge of her ancestors with others to create a more compassionate and understanding way of being for everyone. 

Permalink: https://news.viu.ca/leisure-cultural-context

Photo Caption: VIU Master of Arts in Sustainable Leisure Management student Sara Fulla Photo Credit: Vancouver Island University

The following statement was released today by Nunatsiavut President Johannes Lampe in response to the start of impoundment of the Muskrat Falls reservoir: 

Our many efforts to convince the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor Energy to take necessary measures to mitigate impacts of methylmercury on the Lake Melville ecosystem have all been in vain, and we are now at a point of no return where the health, culture and way of life of many Labrador Inuit hangs in the balance. Impoundment of the Muskrat Falls reservoir has begun, and with it the start of a chain of events that will have significant impacts on Labrador Inuit and, in particular, the community of Rigolet. 

The Nunatsiavut Government and independent research partners spent many years ensuring science, traditional Inuit knowledge and the Precautionary Principle were at the forefront of evidence-based policy and decision making with respect to the potential downstream effects of Muskrat Falls. That peer-reviewed research – which allowed us to expand our understanding of the unique Lake Melville ecosystem, the impacts of methylmercury, and the potential consequences on the health and wellbeing of our people, on our culture and way of life – was dismissed by Premier Dwight Ball, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor. 

When I stood with Labrador’s two other Indigenous leaders in June of 2016, in what has become known as the “Rally in the Valley”, I was moved by the overwhelming support we received from people from all walks of life. The message was clear that the status quo was not acceptable; that steps had to be taken to mitigate the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of methylmercury in the Lake Melville ecosystem. 

Pressured by the growing grassroots “Make Muskrat Right” movement, Premier Ball reached out to me and Labrador’s other two Indigenous leaders on October 20, 2016 to set up a meeting, just days before protestors entered the Muskrat Falls site and temporarily shut the project down. That meeting took place in St. John’s on October 25 and lasted for more than 11 hours, with the focus being on protecting health, culture and a way of life. The meeting resulted in a number of key commitments, made by the Premier, to address our concerns, including establishing an Independent Expert Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives of the Nunatsiavut Government, Innu Nation, NunatuKavut Community Council, and federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as an Independent Experts Committee that included ecosystem, health and Indigenous knowledge holders. Established in August 2017, the IEAC’s mandate was to seek an independent, evidence-based approach to determine and recommend options for mitigating human-health concerns related to methylmercury throughout the reservoir as well as in the Lake Melville ecosystem. The IEAC made seven key recommendations – five of which were not appropriately or publicly responded to by the Premier or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 

The Nunatsiavut Government firmly believes that the lack of response to the IEAC’s recommendations was intentional – essentially delaying a decision to guarantee no time would be left to ensure certain mitigation measures could be carried out prior to impoundment. This is unacceptable and very disappointing, as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has prioritized its point of view, disregarded independent peer- reviewed science and placed the health and wellbeing of Labrador Inuit at risk. 

On June 11 of this year, during a meeting in St. John’s, the Premier presented me and Labrador’s other two Indigenous leaders with a draft Terms of Reference for a proposed Monitoring and Health Management Oversight Committee. Upon reviewing the draft, we informed the Premier, in writing, that we were skeptical this proposed committee would carry any weight – given the recommendations of the IEAC had all but been ignored. We advised that we would participate in the process to establish this new committee, provided its work is taken seriously and its recommendations are not ignored, and that there is a formal public response to the recommendations of the IEAC. We have yet to receive a response. 

On June 26, Nalcor CEO Stan Marshall tried to contact me to provide an update and to advise that money had been set aside to carry out some mitigation measures, namely the capping of wetlands, but that time had run out. I was unavailable to speak with him at that time, but he informed two members of the Nunatsiavut Executive Council and staff that he would like to see the money that was budgeted for the work, some $30 million, be split three ways between the Nunatsiavut Government, Innu Nation and NunatuKavut Community Council. No commitments were made. Following that call, Mr. Marshall’s office made repeated attempts to reach out to me to arrange a face-to-face meeting to discuss his proposal. Before speaking with him, however, we felt we should first confer with the Premier. A telephone call took place on July 11, at which time the Premier confirmed that Nalcor was prepared to provide the $30 million – the deals of which, he said, would be disclosed by Mr. Marshall. 

At the insistence of the Premier, I met with Mr. Marshall on July 17, along with First Minister Kate Mitchell, Lands and Natural Resources Minister Tony Andersen, Health and Social Development Minister Gerald Asivak and Nunatsiavut Government officials. During that meeting, Mr. Marshall provided us with a draft Financial Contribution Agreement that would, if accepted, see $10 million transferred directly to the Nunatsiavut Government by Nalcor to fund social programs and activities related to the health and well-being of Labrador Inuit. We did not sign that agreement. 

We have said all along that compensation is not a form of mitigation. We advised Mr. Marshall, as well as the Premier, that offering Labrador’s three Indigenous groups a share of this $30 million would be perceived as a form of compensation, or “hush money”. We remain adamant this money should have been used for what it was intended – to cap wetlands. 

The Nunatsiavut Government is extremely disappointment with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with the way it has handled the whole Muskrat Falls fiasco. The Premier has repeated betrayed our trust by neglecting to respond, in writing or publicly, to our concerns and/or questions. If this is what reconciliation is all about, then we want no part of it. 

With reservoir impoundment under way, the time bomb is ticking on the future of those who depend on the Churchill River and Lake Melville for sustenance, and on the health, culture and way of life of many Labrador Inuit. 

The Nunatsiavut Government will continue to advocate on behalf of Labrador Inuit affected by this terrible tragedy, while ensuring rigorous and appropriate independent monitoring continues in order to identify impacts of the Muskrat Falls project on the Lake Melville ecosystem.

Saugeen First Nation, Ontario: Saugeen First Nation has served a summary judgment motion as part of a longstanding lawsuit to confirm Saugeen ownership of Sauble Beach. Both Saugeen First Nation and its treaty partner, the Government of Canada, recognize that Sauble Beach is part of Saugeen Indian Reserve #29, consistent with the terms of a treaty signed in 1854. 

“This is a significant step towards righting a wrong that is older than Canada,” said Saugeen Chief Lester Anoquot. “We are disappointed that it has come to this, but after almost 30 years of litigation, we are looking forward to finally having our day in court.” 

“Out of all our territory, this was the area our ancestors chose to reserve for their families— for us—when the Crown wanted our land for settlers,” said Chief Anoquot. “The 1854 treaty makes clear that this is, and always has been, Saugeen land. But we have so-called ‘landowners’ who were not around in 1854 and are not interested in our treaty who continue to make baseless claims about owning part of our beach. The mayor in South Bruce Peninsula is not interested in being neighbourly and is more concerned with politics than evidence. So we welcome the opportunity to confront the Town and the ‘landowners’ with the evidence and put the facts before a judge, which is what we have done today.” 

The federal government first began litigation on Saugeen First Nation’s behalf in 1990 to address false claims of ownership to parts of the reserve by settlers at the northern end of the Saugeen reserve. Saugeen First Nation filed its own claim in 1995. Both lawsuits state that Sauble Beach is and always has been part of the Saugeen reserve. 

“It is unfortunate in this day and age that some people still refuse to respect our treaty,” said Chief Anoquot. “It is even more disappointing when they refuse to work with us as neighbours. We have been sharing our land for centuries and we should all be interested in making our communities better, more prosperous, and more inviting. Since the Town has not been willing to work with us outside of court, we are bringing this motion to end the false claims to our beach. We never surrendered this land, and the Crown, our treaty partner, agrees. We are seeking recognition of what belongs to us and has, in fact, always been ours.” Traditional Saugeen territory spans over two-million acres and includes the entire Saugeen (Bruce) Peninsula. The lands subject to litigation include a strip of beach west of Lakeview Blvd that extends between 1^st St S and 6^th St N.

In Canada’s North, rising sea levels and thinning sea ice caused by climate change threaten the lives, cultures, and identities of Inuit – and the survival of the species their communities depend on. That is why the Government of Canada is taking action to address these threats, support new economic opportunities for Inuit, and exceed our goal to protect 10 per cent of Canada’s marine and coastal areas by 2020.

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, Premier of Nunavut, Joe Savikataaq, and President of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), P.J. Akeeagok, today announced the first step in the creation of a long term protected area in Canada’s High Arctic Basin – the new Tuvaijuittuq Marine Protected Area. They also announced the completion of the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area through an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement.

Together, these areas cover more than 427,000 square kilometres, which is larger than Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, nearly 14 per cent of Canada’s marine and coastal areas will be protected – exceeding our target of protecting 10 per cent of Canada’s marine and coastal areas by 2020.

The Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement supports Inuit stewardship of Tallurutiup Imanga and Tuvaijuittuq. It also creates economic development opportunities in local communities, including Inuit training and employment, through $55 million in Government of Canada funding.

In addition, the Government of Canada is investing in infrastructure for communities in the Tallurutiup Imanga area. These infrastructure investments – which include funding for the construction of harbours and a training centre – total approximately $190 million over seven years.

The Prime Minister also underlined that the government is committed to upholding Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. The government has made significant investments in the Canadian Coast Guard and Navy, so we have greater capabilities to defend Canada’s national interests.

The Government of Canada is working to support a healthy Arctic, fight climate change, and advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples by recognizing their unique relationship with traditional lands and waters and expertise in their management. We will continue to work closely with Inuit communities and Northern partners to determine how best to protect our Arctic marine areas for the benefit of all Canadians.