Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
Why Appeals Court Supports Ardoch Algonquins, Jeff Green, July 10, 2008
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  1 message - Collapse all
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Steev  
View profile
 More options Jul 12, 9:20 am
From: Steev <steev.mor...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sat, Jul 12 2008 9:20 am
Subject: Why Appeals Court Supports Ardoch Algonquins, Jeff Green, July 10, 2008
Why Appeals Court Supports Ardoch Algonquins
By Jeff Green
http://www.newsweb.ca/2008/08-27_jul_10/uranium_08-27.html

Ardoch Algonquin First Nations’ lawyer Chris Reid may well have felt
his legal arguments fell on deaf ears on February 18 in Kingston
Superior Court when Justice Cunningham sentenced his clients Bob
Lovelace and Paula Sherman to six months jail time and levied a total
of $50,000 in fines as well.

Reid was also denied access to Cunningham’s court as long as Sherman
and Lovelace refused to enter into undertakings not to impede
Frontenac Ventures Corporation as they carry out uranium exploration
in North Frontenac.

On May 28 the court of appeal in Toronto released Lovelace on time
served, and this week their reasons were made public. The arguments
that Chris Reid has been making unsucessfuly for the past year to
Justices Cunninghan and Thomson seem to have swayed the judges in
Toronto.

Reid has argued that the Government of Ontario had a duty to consult
the Ardoch Algonquins before accepting the Frontenac Ventures mining
claims under the Ontario Mining Act because the land in question is
part of a land claim.

“In my view, and with great respect to a judge trying conscientiously
to resolve a difficult, bordering on intractable problem, the
sentences he imposed are too harsh,” wrote Justice JC MacPherson on
behalf of the three appeal court justices in overturning Cunningham's
sentencing decision. “I say this for several reasons.”

Among those reasons were the fact this was a first offence by two
“well respected individuals who had led lives characterized by
leadership in their community, including leadership in demonstrating
respect for Canadian law.”

Later Justice MacPherson asked the question, “What then are the unique
systemic or background factors that played a part in bringing the AAFN
and two of its leaders before the courts to be sentenced for contempt?
The first background factor is that there is an existing land claim
negotiation between the Algonquin Nation and Ontario.”

Then MacPherson addressed the Mining Act and its relationship to
aboriginal rights.

“The second background factor that played a part in bringing the
appellants before the courts is the nature and content of Ontario's
Mining Act. It is a remarkably sweeping law. It establishes a ‘free
entry’ system whereby all Crown lands, including those subject to
aboriginal land claims, are open for prospecting and staking, without
any consultation or permitting required.

“Anyone with a prospector's licence may stake claims and prospect for
minerals on any Crown land.  Once a claim has been staked, in
accordance with the Act, the Mining Recorder must record the claim.
There is nothing in the Mining Act about considering aboriginal land
claims or interests. The intersection of these two background
circumstances creates an obvious problem, indeed the problem that lies
at the heart of this case.

“ What Frontenac Ventures wants to do on Crown land - staking and
exploration - is legal under the Mining Act.  However, the appellants'
response, although in contempt of two court orders, is grounded, at a
minimum, in a respectable interpretation of s. 35 of the Constitution
Act, 1982 and several recent decisions of the Supreme Court of
Canada.”

In the end Justice MacPherson said a fine of $1,000 would have been
the appropriate sentence. “However, having regard to the time he has
spent in custody, I refrain from imposing any penalty on him
[Lovelace]. I would not fine Chief Sherman or the community who have
no ability to pay the fines.”

In a press release Bob Lovelace, who is just now returning home after
a sojourn in Wyoming with his family, said, "We feel fully vindicated
in the position we have taken and remain committed to our position
that there will be no mineral exploration within the territories of
Ardoch without our consent. Our laws, which require respect for the
land, are entitled to at least as much respect as Ontario's Mining
Act. We remain open to dialogue, but Ontario has never responded to
our proposals for negotiations. We want negotiations, not conflict,
but we will enforce our laws and protect our land."

The statement by the appeal court was released a few days after it was
announced that the Shabot Obadjiwaan First Nation, Frontenac Ventures
Corporation, and the Government of Ontario “have developed a
consultation plan to address mining exploration activities in northern
Frontenac County.”

The announcement did not make reference to any time frame for the
commencement of a test drilling program by Frontenac Ventures
Corporation, a matter that has been central to a dispute that is now
entering its second year.

It does, however, quote Shabot Obadjiwaan Chief Doreen Davis as
saying, “We appreciate the good will gesture of Frontenac Ventures to
suspend drilling for a period of time while consultations are
underway”.

A first consultation meeting took place on July 4. Members of the
Shabot Obadjiwaan as well as two non-aboriginal “settlers” were
invited to attend as observers.

One of them, Helen Forsey of Ompah, later wrote that ministry staff
began by explaining that the current consultation process is geared
towards developing a “mitigation and accomodation” plan that would
take into account “Algonquin values and interests”. In response to
this, she said, “the audience maintained a healthy skepticism about
what was being presented.”

The consultation plan does not make reference to the Ardoch Algonquin
First Nation, although according to Ardoch lawyer Chris Reid an
invitation to join the process was sent to Ardoch Honourary Chief
Harold Perry about two weeks ago.

“Ardoch is not interested in joining a process where the agenda is
decided in advance. They have no interest in a sham process,” he said.
“It was also clear last year that the territory where Frontenac
Ventures is active is traditional Ardoch territory and the Shabot
Obadjiwaan were initially involved in support of Ardoch, their
neighbouring community. This is what the early court documents say.”

The leadership of the Ardoch Algonquins have said they will release an
official response to the consultation process that has begun and will
be outlining their future political plans in the coming days and
weeks.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2008 Google