DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix J Agency Comments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix J Agency Comments Appendix J Agency Comments Summary of Agency Comments Stakeholder List Transmittals to Stakeholders Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Attorney General Conservation Halton (CH) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Halton Region Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Transport Canada Table 1 Summary of Agency Comments Summary of Comments Response EA Report Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada E-mail A. Berman dated July 24, 2013 I have received your request for Aboriginal consultation information from Aboriginal Affairs and Noted. Northern Development Canada. In the past, the Consultation Information Service (CIS) has provided responses with a 100 km buffer around the specific site of activity. Our updated Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) now triggers a wider range of First Nation communities via self-government agreements and treaty affiliation. Therefore, a 100 km buffer may provide you with a great deal more information that you would normally require. As you are best placed to determine what the overall "footprint" of the project is, and how that should be represented geographically, I request that you send me the size of buffer you would like around the site of activity. Once I have this information from you, I can begin a consultation information response. Letter A. Berman dated August 1, 2013 Information for the following First Nations is provided in alphabetical order: Mississaugas of the Noted. Credit, Six Nations of the Grand River. Other Considerations – Aboriginal Rights Assertions: the Métis (AANDC provided information regarding key features of the project area, aboriginal community information, treaties, claims, legal proceedings, self-government agreements and other considerations. Please see letter for details.) Ministry of the Attorney General Letter C. Chan dated September 18, 2014 Inquiries and communications such as yours are handled by Aboriginal and Ministry Relationships Noted. Branch of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Your letter has been forwarded to that Branch…direct further questions to that office. Summary of Comments Response EA Report Conservation Halton Letter September 9, 2014 1. Natural Environment Assessment See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Items While staff appreciate that the study area has been historically culturally impacted, staff expected 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 that the terrestrial habitat assessment would have included a discussion of the role that the vegetation here play for the bird species. This location has been identified as an important Bird Area Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat and Section (IBA) by BirdLife International, which is supported by Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada. This 3.6 Aquatic Habitat have been revised specific location contains the “West End of Lake Ontario ON022”, which is defined by the annual congregation of waterfowl, primarily in late winter and early spring. Given the known importance of Lake Ontario shoreline for waterfowl and migratory birds and butterflies, it is concerning that no discussion regarding on this aspect is included in the report, rather Section 3.5 provides a discussion regarding the fish habitat present. Please revise this section to reflect the significance the current habitat plays for the wildlife in the area both during migration and for breeding. Further, based on the discussion during the April 24, 2014 meeting with the town, their Consultants and Conservation Halton, it appears that the majority of the vegetation located along the shoreline will be removed. A tree inventory of the larger trees in this area has been completed, however a vegetation inventory of all levels of species is warranted to ensure that no rare species are present and so that a comprehensive understanding of the existing species. As per the discussions with the Towns Consultant at the April 24th meeting, the study should include a discussion of the vegetation communities present as per the Ecological Impact Study Guidelines, pleas provide all field data Sheets for the project. 2. Section 5: Summary of Alternative Design Options See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.4 Staff do not agree that removing 2-4 m of vegetation along the shoreline should be considered a small impact, given the limited amount of vegetation present currently and as a thorough assessment Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat was revised. of these species present has not occurred to date. We recommend that this impact be looked at in terms of the overall vegetation in the study area, any rare species present and the habitat that it provides. Please revise. 3. Draft ESR See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.5 Table 6.1 Alternatives for Reaches 1 and 2 Staff do not agree that creating additional manicured green space, i.e., grass should be considered a benefit to the terrestrial habitat as specified in the Table 6.1 includes both naturally vegetated proposed alternatives. Rather we would counter that creating habitat for Canada geese, which would and passive green space. Section 6.1.7 not be a benefit to the area. We recommend that consideration be given to creating less grassed and includes a mitigation measures under manicured areas, and that more naturalized areas be made. potential impacts to water quality to reduce lawn area to be less attractive to Canada geese. 4. Meeting Minutes See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.6 Item 3.2 indicates that Lesley Matich report that she recently saw a turtle swimming in 16 Mile Creek…” This should be revised to state a “northern map turtle, which is a Species at Special Section 3.7 Species At Risk notes the Concern in Ontario, swimming in 16 Mile Creek. observed northern map turtle. Summary of Comments Response EA Report 5. Summary See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.7 As staff do not have complete background data with respect to the natural environment on the site, we are unable to provide full comments on the alternatives presented. Once this information is Staff is provided a final draft of the ESR provided , staff will be in a much better position to assess the proposed alternatives report for review. 6. Section 1.0 Introduction See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.8 At our last meeting in April 2014, staff raised a concern regarding the status of the Master Plan. Staff was not involved in the review of the master plan. Teresa Labuda (CH staff) attend a site meeting Noted. once and was informed of the Master Plane was completed earlier inn 2008, and at that time Teresa advised that the town of Oakville submit the Master Plan to the Conservation Halton and DFO for review, however the document was never submitted. 7. Section 1.3 Class Environmental Assessment See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.9 It would be helpful reference for the reviewers to have Class EA Schedule “C” (MEA, 2011. Appendix I page 1-19) attached to this Environmental Study Report Appendix B includes Schedule “C” 8. Figure 1.2 See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.10 Site Plan is referred to as well as a bathymetry map. Conservation Halton requests digital copy of bathymetry survey Town will provide CH with digital bathymetry when the project is completed. 9. 2. Problem Statement See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.11 Staff feel that this is a very general statement lacking specifics e.g. what exactly is meant by “an overall enhancement of the environmental condition”. Is this listed in any specific order, for example of importance? 10. Section 3.4.4 Recession Rates See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.12 Referred to CSC 2002 is not accurate as that study area was very general and designed for a different purpose other than to establish the erosion rates. Furthermore, the Purpose of the Section 3.4.4 has been revised. Undertaking as indicated on Page 9 is to “stabilize and rehabilitate Tannery and Waterworks Parks shorelines to mitigate flooding during storm events at high lake levels and erosion of the land adjacent to Lake Ontario.” The statements shoe lake of consistency. Please clarify. 11. Section 4.0 Evaluation Criteria See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.13 The evaluation criteria are general and do not have a weighting or scoring system. The evaluation process is not well defined; Some impacts of the proposed alternatives are missing e.g. impact of See section 3.4.3. and Section 6.1.7. During wave refraction/diffraction and reflection on entrance to the harbour and within the harbour. The design, wave reflection will be considered. rationale relating to a preference appears to be subjective and does not justify how the preferred alternatives were chosen. CH staff would be available to discuss further the evaluation criteria. CH evaluated the alternatives and provided a follow-up letter on November 21, 2014. Summary of Comments Response EA Report Letter dated October 17, 2014. 1. Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.1 Contrary to Section 3.5 (Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat) pg.42, river mouth habitats are not generally well-understood and little research to date has specifically focused on Great Lakes river mouth ecosystems (Larson et al, 2013). Tarandus and Associates are correct in their estimation that data for this specific location do not exist, however data within Sixteen Mile Creek and for sites adjacent to this location are abundant. In addition, lack of fauna should not be inferred from lack of data. While staff can only speak for the sampling (or lack of) completed by our staff, it is the opinion of staff that this location has not been adequately sampled to accurately summarize that "no spawning habitat or other significant habitat for such fish exists at this location". 2. CH Staff are in favour of the goal of the Master Plan to provide a naturalized shoreline and agree See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.2 that the options of concrete walls and steel sheet pile walls will not help achieve this goal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The “Nanfan Treaty” – Legal Considerations
    Part 3 The “Nanfan Treaty” – Legal Considerations Is the “Nanfan Treaty” legally valid? Does the 1701 “Conveyance of lands by the Native American Chiefs of the Five Nations ” constitute a valid treaty between the Crown and the Indians? Do the Haudenosaunee have a valid case to claim hunting rights in the Dundas Valley Conservation Area? Does the Hamilton Conservation Authority have the right to enter into relevant Protocol Agreements with the Haudenosaunee, based on alleged “treaty rights”? Were the Ontario learned justices in R. v. Ireland and Jamieson [1990] and R. v. Barberstock [2003] wrong? Is the Ontario government wrong? On June 6, 2011, the Hamilton Spectator published an article, “Treaty covers HCA lands: Bentley”, in which it reported: “Ontario's attorney general and minister of aboriginal affairs says Six Nations' hunting and fishing treaty rights apply in lands owned by the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA).” “In a letter received by the authority last month, Chris Bentley said the 1701 Treaty of Albany (or Nanfan Treaty) provides for the continuation of Six Nations “hunting and fishing activities on the lands subject to the treaty. The lands owned by the Hamilton Conservation Authority are within this treaty territory. /…/ "HCA general manager Steve Miazga said the letter, which was accepted at the board of directors' annual general meeting Thursday, “builds on” the recommendations they received from police and the Ministry of Natural Resources' enforcement branch to “build the relationship with the Haudenosaunee regarding environment matters. /…/ “Bentley wrote that he “fully support(s)” an agreement that was reached to respect the treaty rights of Six Nations people to hunt deer in the area for food.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Has No History!’
    ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY By Victoria Jane Freeman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto ©Copyright by Victoria Jane Freeman 2010 ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Victoria Jane Freeman Graduate Department of History University of Toronto The Indigenous past is largely absent from settler representations of the history of the city of Toronto, Canada. Nineteenth and twentieth century historical chroniclers often downplayed the historic presence of the Mississaugas and their Indigenous predecessors by drawing on doctrines of terra nullius , ignoring the significance of the Toronto Purchase, and changing the city’s foundational story from the establishment of York in 1793 to the incorporation of the City of Toronto in 1834. These chroniclers usually assumed that “real Indians” and urban life were inimical. Often their representations implied that local Indigenous peoples had no significant history and thus the region had little or no history before the arrival of Europeans. Alternatively, narratives of ethical settler indigenization positioned the Indigenous past as the uncivilized starting point in a monological European theory of historical development. i i iii In many civic discourses, the city stood in for the nation as a symbol of its future, and national history stood in for the region’s local history. The national replaced ‘the Indigenous’ in an ideological process that peaked between the 1880s and the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Duty': the City of Toronto, a Stretch of the Humber River, and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2020 Rethinking 'Duty': The City of Toronto, a Stretch of the Humber River, and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships Doug Anderson Alexandra Flynn Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons Citation Details Doug Anderson & Alexandra Flynn, "Rethinking ‘Duty’: The City of Toronto, A Stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships" (2020) 58:1 Alta L Rev 107. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Citation: Doug Anderson & Alexandra Flynn, “Rethinking ‘Duty’: The City of Toronto, A Stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships” (2020) 58:1 Alberta Law Review 107 RETHINKING ‘DUTY’: THE CITY OF TORONTO, A STRETCH OF THE HUMBER RIVER, AND INDIGENOUS-MUNICIPAL RELATIONSHIPS Doug Anderson1 and Alexandra Flynn2 The nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous peoples and cities remains largely unexplored in the Canadian context.3 This oversight is especially problematic in light of the significant percentage of Indigenous people who live in urban areas, and the many concerns that Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples share. These shared concerns include the environment, land use, housing, social services, and much more, and modern municipalities do make attempts to address Indigenous-specific needs in these areas; but Indigenous-municipal relationships have implications that far exceed the technocratic and siloed ways in which Canadian systems generally approach these broad areas of concern - implications not only with regard for Indigenous people, but for all people.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Court Grants Injunction to Prevent Interference with Pipeline Maintenance Work: Enbridge Pipelines INC
    April 12, 2017 ARTICLE Ontario Court Grants Injunction To Prevent Interference With Pipeline Maintenance Work: Enbridge Pipelines INC. V. Williams And Hill, 2017 ONSC 1642, Ontario Superior Court Of Justice (Broad J.), 15 March 2017 The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed an injunction application by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. to prohibit the Aboriginal defendants from interfering with its maintenance work on two pipelines in the Hamilton, Ontario area. The Court rejected the defendants' argument that it must consider whether the duty to consult and accommodate had been fully discharged before granting an injunction to a private party. Enbridge owns and operates an interprovincial pipeline system extending across Canada and the USA. Line 10 is a 143-km long stretch of pipeline running between North Westover, Ontario to Buffalo, New York. Line 11 runs between Westover, Ontario and Nanticoke, Ontario. The easements for these pipelines had been granted to Enbridge's predecessor. Enbridge has a comprehensive pipeline preventative maintenance program for its pipeline network. Under this program, it is sometimes necessary for an excavation around the pipeline segment, known as a "Maintenance Dig". Such work usually lasts 15 days. The Court referred to evidence that Enbridge had written to the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the New Credit, as well as the Haudenosaunee Development Institute ("HDI"), well in advance of the maintenance. No objections were raised by the HDI or the two First Nations. The defendants Williams and Hill identify themselves as representatives and "enforcers" of HDI. Enbridge asserted that the defendants Williams and Hill have regularly interfered with its work crews at a Maintenance Dig since January 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Summerhaven Notice of Final Public Meeting, Appendix F
    ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION REPORT FOR: PROPOSED SUMMERHAVEN WIND ENERGY CENTRE NextEra Energy Canada, ULC Report Updated as of: January 22, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................................................! 3 1. NextEra Energy Canada"s Approach to Aboriginal Consultation and Engagement....! 7 1.1 Identification of Aboriginal Communities and Potential Interests!.................................... 7 1.2 Project Consultation as a Proponent!............................................................................ 13 1.3 Broader Engagement!....................................................................................................14 1.4 Aboriginal Relations Canadian Project Framework!.......................................................14 2. Information Provided to Communities...........................................................................! 15 2.1 Aboriginal Communities with Potential Interests in the Project!..................................... 15 2.2 Distribution of Required Information.............................................................................! 16 2.3 Additional Information Made Available..........................................................................! 18 3. Information Received From Aboriginal Communities..................................................! 19 3.1 Information Received About Aboriginal or Treaty Rights Pursuant to s. 17 of O/Reg 359/09...........................................................................................................................!
    [Show full text]
  • Haudensaunee Deer Hunting in Dundas Valley – a “Treaty Right” Or a Fraud?
    Part 1 Haudensaunee deer hunting in Dundas Valley – a “treaty right” or a fraud? “Nanfan Treaty” is a hoax. It is not a “treaty.” It is a fraudalent interpretation of historical facts and a legally invalid claim of “treaty rights.” Nanfan Treaty does not exist. Historically, the deed of land to the English King, made by the Five Nations’ sachems in Albany on 19 July 1701, was never intended, recognized or confirmed by the Crown as a valid treaty. 1 Nanfan “Treaty” was a one-sided narrative, a one-sided deed of land with a wishlist attached to it – (an expectation to hunt in the area in question), made unilaterally by the native sachems who signed the document. This point is clearly demonstrated by the actual text of this document. In May 1784 – (83 years after the “Nanfan Treaty”) – a tract of land along the Grand River valley, being part of the lands “deeded” to the Crown in the “Nanfan Treaty”, was purchased from the Mississaugas, on behalf of the Crown, by the Governor of the Province of Quebec Frederick Haldimand. In October 1784, Haldimand granted this land to the Iroquois who had served on the British side during the American Revolution. If the Crown believed that the land was earlier “deeded”, it would not have to purchase it from the Mississaugas. During the Conference in Albany (12-19 July, 1701), that produced the so called “ Nanfan Treaty “, several speeches were made by the native leaders and by Governor Nanfan. Nanfan mainly talked about “protection” from the French and from the tribes allied with the French.
    [Show full text]
  • London (Ontario) Area Treaties: an Introductory Guide Stephen D'arcy
    Western University From the SelectedWorks of Stephen D'Arcy Fall September 7, 2018 London (Ontario) Area Treaties: An Introductory Guide Stephen D'Arcy This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC_BY-NC-SA International License. Available at: https://works.bepress.com/sdarcy/19/ LONDON-AREA TREATIES An Introductory Guide Prepared by S. D’Arcy (Department of Philosophy, Huron University College) This introductory guide is intended for use by students in Philosophy 3820f (2018-19), at Huron University College. It is not for wider distribution. Version 1.0 (7 September 2018) [email protected] LONDON-AREA TREATIES: An Introductory Guide Part One: Treating-Making – Background and Context…………………………………………………………………………p. 2 . The Attawandaron Era . Early Impacts of Colonialism: Disease, Warfare, and the Dispersal of the Attawandaron . The Deshkan Ziibiing Anishinaabeg, the Minisink Lunaape, and the Onyota’a:ka . Distinguishing Indigenous Rights and Treaty Rights . The Wider Treaty Context . The London-Area Treaties . A Clash of Two Understandings: Property Law versus Regional Coexistence . Some Notable Treaty Violations: o Big Bear Creek o Muncey Claim o Clench Defalcation o Line 9 Reversal . The Deshkan Ziibiing Consultation Protocol . Conclusion Part Two: Maps of Treaty Boundaries in London, Southern and Southwestern Ontario…………………….p. 26 . Treaty Map, City of London, ON . Treaty Map, London Area . Treaty Map, Hamilton-Toronto Area . Treaty Map, Southern Ontario Part Three: The Texts of London-Area ‘Pre-Confederation’ Treaties, Nos. 2, 3, 6, 25, 29………………………p. 29 . Treaty No. 2: McKee Purchase Treaty, 1790 o Appendix: The Memorial of 1794 (Anishinaabe Chiefs) . Treaty No. 3: Between the Lakes Treaty, 1792 . Treaty No.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for Working with Indigenous Students Interdisciplinary Development Initiative (Idi) in Applied Indigenous Scholarship Acknowledgments
    GUIDE FOR WORKING WITH INDIGENOUS STUDENTS INTERDISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (IDI) IN APPLIED INDIGENOUS SCHOLARSHIP ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Western University is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lunaapewak, and Attawandaron peoples, who have long-standing relationships to the land and region of southwestern Ontario and the city of London. The local First Nations communities are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, the Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Munsee Delaware Nation. Contributors This Guide was made possible through the collaborative vision, effort and support of Western University’s Interdisciplinary Development Initiative (IDI) in Applied Indigenous Scholarship. This IDI is composed of an interdisciplinary team of faculty, staff and students who represent eight of Western’s Academic Faculties, as well as Student Experience, Indigenous Services and the Centre for Teaching and Learning. We would also like to thank Western’s Indigenous Postsecondary Education Council (IPEC) members and other community partners who provided valuable input in the development of this Guide. Leads: Candace Brunette Faculty of Education Chantelle Richmond Faculty of Social Science Contributors: Robert Andersen Faculty of Social Science Jamie Baxter Faculty of Social Science Brian Branfireun Faculty of Science Deborah Coward Office of the Registrar / Student Experience Michael Coyle Faculty of Law Brent Debassige Faculty of Education Rick Ezekiel Student Experience Janice Forsyth Faculty of Social Science Aisha
    [Show full text]
  • Mohawk Nation News News : Calendar : Subscriptions : Store
    http://74.6.239.84/search/srpcache?ei=UTF- 8&p=Ron+Williamson+licensed+archaeologist&fr=yfp-t- 715&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Ron+Williamson+licensed+arch aeologist&d=4829695183750729&mkt=en-CA&setlang=en- CA&w=83c1e179,1faf339b&icp=1&.intl=ca&sig=sjO7jjxoHsU_lPpzJKDFYA-- Mohawk Nation News News : Calendar : Subscriptions : Store 16.05.2008 01:20:47 OTTAWA & ONTARIO SETTING UP “NO’GONQUINS” LAND SALES FRAUD MNN. April 28, 2008. These colonists are floating over us trying to land, like a ship from outer space. They hover trying to gobble us out of existence. This is about a vast tract of Haudenosaunee land in eastern Ontario. How do we know there were any Indigenous people here? Archaeologists have found evidence of longhouses and burial mounds. Guess what? “No’gonquins” [Algonquins] did not build longhouses or burial mounds. The evidence shows that the pre-historic people who lived here were Iroquois, just like the people who live here today. That’s why Ottawa and Ontario are trying to take control of the burial sites so that no one can see the evidence that proves they’re Haudenosaunee/Iroquois. Ron “Boner” Williamson , the archaeologist hired by Ontario [Archaeological Services Inc.] states that “All “Archaic peoples are forerunners of the Algonquin people”. Is this a joke! Is he saying that all pre-historic people eventually turn into Algonquins? The colonial governments, corporate investors, mining companies, developers, bankers, military, academics, archaeologists , historians, churches and fake “Indian” communities want our resources. So they’ve set up a huge “twisted history” scam.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming Nêhiyaw Governance in the Territory of Maskwacîs Through Wâhkôtowin (Kinship)
    Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 4-24-2017 12:00 AM E-kawôtiniket 1876: Reclaiming Nêhiyaw Governance in the Territory of Maskwacîs through Wâhkôtowin (Kinship) Paulina R. Johnson The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Regna Darnell The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Anthropology A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Paulina R. Johnson 2017 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Recommended Citation Johnson, Paulina R., "E-kawôtiniket 1876: Reclaiming Nêhiyaw Governance in the Territory of Maskwacîs through Wâhkôtowin (Kinship)" (2017). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 4492. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4492 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract The Nêhiyawak, Four-Body People, known as the Plains Cree, reside in the territory of Maskwacîs. Of the Four Nations that encompass Maskwacis, this study focuses on Nipisihkopahk, also known as Samson Cree Nation and is located 70km south of the city of Edmonton in Alberta. Governance for the Nêhiyawak lies in the philosophical and spiritual teachings passed down through generations of ancestral knowledge especially in discussions relating to wâhkôtowin, kinship, ohtaskanesowin, origin, and the teachings from Wîsahêcâhk, Elder Brother, who taught the Nêhiyawak about morality and self through oral narratives. As relationships between the settler state of Canada and Indigenous Nations create dialogue concerning authority and autonomy, this study discusses the methods utilized through community collaboration for the process of enacting traditional governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Nations Land Rights – Financial Justice – Creative Solutions
    L A N D RIGHT S • F I NANCI A L JU S T I C E • CREATIVE SOLUTIONS MOHAWK ONEIDA Haldimand Treaty, October 25, 1784 ONONDAGA CAYUGA SENECA TUSCARORA LEGEN D Granted by Haldimand Treaty Approximately 950,000 acres granted on October 25, 1784 Current Six Nations Reserve Approximately 46,500 acres or 4.9% remaining (as of March 2010) Land Rights, Financial Justice, Creative Solutions 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction – Six Nations Lands and Resources Department 4 2. Land Research Unit 4 a) Land Claims Process – Crown Canada 5 b) Inadequacy of Crown Canada’s Claims Policy and Process 5 c) Crown Trusteeship – Fiduciary Responsibility of the Crown and Six Nations Trust Funds Management 6 d) Outstanding Lawful Obligations – Development of Six Nations Land Rights 7 e) Submitted Claims of Six Nations – Basis & Allegations 7 f) Classifying Crown’s Injustices 36 g) Creative Solutions 37 h) Litigation (Six Nations of the Grand River v. Canada and Ontario) 38 i) Exploration 39 j) Negotiations 40 k) Exploratory Discussions – Land Rights Framework 41 3. Land Use Unit 41 a) Consultation and Accommodation Policy 41 b) Projects 42 4. Wildlife Management Office 43 5. Additions to Reserve Process (ATR) 45 6. Six Nations of the Grand River Map 46 For more detailed information, please visit: www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources Revised: August 2020 Land Rights, Financial Justice, Creative Solutions 3 Six Nations of the Grand River Lands and Resources Department Main Office Wildlife Management Office 2498 Chiefswood Rd. 1721 Chiefswood Rd. Phone: 519-753-0665 Phone: 519-445-0330 1. Introduction – Six Nations Lands & Resources Department The Six Nations Land Claims Research Office was established in 1974 and later became the Six Nations Lands and Resources Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Autochtone
    published by the canadian institute of planners | publié par l’institut canadien des urbanistes winter/ hiver 2016 vol. 56 no. 4 vol.no. 56 Indigenous Planning Urbanisme autochtone publication agreement 40064978 cip-icu.ca FACILITIES ENVIRONMENT INFRASTRUCTURE COMMUNITIES 822502_Dillon.indd 1 18/07/16 9:52 pm Community Planning WE SEE Land Development THRIVING Urban Design Community Engagement COMMUNITIES Geospatial Analysis & Web Design 798253_WSP.indd 1 05/04/16 3:45 am CONTENTS SOMMAIRE Indigenous Urbanisme Planning autochtone plan canada | winter · Hiver 2016 vol. 56 no. 4 COLUMNS ARTICLES 41 FROM REACTIVE TO PROACTIVE IN FIRST NATIONS PLANNING: A 4 WORD FROM THE 16 PRIVILEGING INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE CASE STUDY OF THE METLAKATLA PRESIDENT | MESSAGE Q&A from the participants of EXPERIENCE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA DE LA PRÉSIDENTE RAIC’s Indigenous Task Force By Katerina Kwon MCIP, By Patrick Stewart, Luugigyoo (Nisga`a), Thomas Gunton MCIP, RPP, PLANNER UPDATE | 6 PhD, Architect AIBC, MRAIC, LEED®AP Murray Rutherford MCIP, RPP, and L’ACTUALITÉ DES and Eladia Smoke, KaaSheGaaBaaWeak Taylor Zeeg MCIP, RPP URBANISTES (Anishinaabe), OAA, MRAIC, LEED®AP 46 A ROADMAP TO INDEPENDENCE: 12 FROM THE EDITORIAL 18 (RE)IMAGINING OUR COMMUNITY: THE K’ÓMOKS FIRST NATION’S BOARD | MESSAGE DU CHANGING THE PLANNER AND PROACTIVE APPROACH TO COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION PLANNING WITH FIRST NATIONS YOUTH SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT By Shelagh McCartney D.Des. OAA, MRAIC, By Alanna Mitchell, 70 FELLOWS’ CORNER | Elizabeth Atlookan, Louie Sugarhead, Pamela Shaw PhD, MCIP, RPP, FRCGS, DU CÔTES DES FELLOWS Jeffrey Herskovits, Kathryn Trnavsky and Devon Miller, MSc, LEED AP ND 73 PLANNER’S BOOKSHELF 22 TREATY PRINCIPLES ARE PLANNING 49 WAYS OF KNOWING: ENGAGING IN PRINCIPLES: LEARNING FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FOR INDIGENOUS 74 ADVERTISER.COM EXPERIENCES OF MANITOBAN PLANNING EDUCATION PLANNING PRACTITIONERS By Leonie Sandercock PhD, By Madeleine Koch MCP, MCIP Candidate Leona M.
    [Show full text]