DOCSLIB.ORG

Restoule V. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701 COURT FILE NO.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A and COURT FILE NO.: 2001-0673 DATE: 20181221

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restoule V. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701 COURT FILE NO.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A and COURT FILE NO.: 2001-0673 DATE: 20181221 CITATION: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701 COURT FILE NO.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A and COURT FILE NO.: 2001-0673 DATE: 20181221 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) ) Court File No.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A ) ) MIKE RESTOULE, PATSY CORBIERE, ) DUKE PELTIER, PETER RECOLLET, ) Joseph J. Arvay Q.C., David C. DEAN SAYERS and ROGER ) Nahwegahbow, Catherine Boies Parker DAYBUTCH, on their own behalf and on ) Q.C., Dianne G. Corbiere, Christopher behalf of ALL MEMBERS OF THE ) Albinati, Donald L. Worme Q.C., Scott OJIBEWA (ANISHINAABE) NATION ) Robertson and Jim Ratis, for the Plaintiffs. WHO ARE BENEFICIARIES OF THE ) ROBINSON HURON TREATY OF 1850 ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) – and – ) Owen Young, Michael McCulloch, Barry ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Ennis and Scott Warwick, for the Defendant ) CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Attorney General of Canada. ) OF ONTARIO and HER MAJESTY THE ) QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Michael R. Stephenson, Peter Lemmond, ) Sarah Valair and Christine Perruzza for the Defendants ) Defendant The Attorney General of Ontario. ) ) THE RED ROCK FIRST NATION and ) THE WHITESAND FIRST NATION ) Harley Schachter and Kaitlyn Lewis, for the ) Third Parties. Third Parties ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -AND- ) ) Page: 2 ) Court File No.: 2001-0673 ) ) THE CHIEF and COUNCIL OF RED ) ROCK FIRST NATION, on behalf of the ) RED ROCKFIRST NATION BAND OF ) Harley Schachter and Kaitlyn Lewis, for the INDIANS, THE CHIEF and COUNCIL of ) Plaintiffs. the WITHESAND FIRST NATION on ) behalf of the WHITESAND FIRST ) NATION BAND OF INDIANS ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) – and – ) ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ) Owen Young, Michael McCulloch, Barry CANADA, and HER MAJESTY THE ) Ennis and Scott Warwick, for the Defendant QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO and the ) The Attorney General of Canada. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO as ) representing HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Michael R. Stephenson, Peter Lemmond, IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO ) Sarah Valair and Christine Perruzza for the ) Defendant The Attorney General of Ontario Defendants ) ) HEARD: September 25, 26, 27, October 2, ) 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, ) 27, 30, 31, November 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ) 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, December 11, ) 12, 13, 14, 2017, January 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, ) 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, February 5, 6, 7, 8, ) 13, 14, March 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, ) June 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, ) 2018. P.C. HENNESSY, J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT – STAGE ONE Page: 3 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT – STAGE ONE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Procedure of the Trial and Nature of the Evidence......................................................... 8 II. WHO WERE THE ANISHINAABE OF THE UPPER GREAT LAKES REGION? 11 A. 1700 – 1850................................................................................................................... 12 i. Governance .............................................................................................................. 12 ii. Who was Chief Shingwaukonse? ............................................................................ 14 iii. Kinship and Doodem Identity .................................................................................. 15 a. Fictive Kinship and Alliances with Colonial Actors .......................................... 16 iv. Gift Giving, Presents, and the Principle of Reciprocity .......................................... 17 v. The Anishinaabe’s Perspective on Creation and Relationship to Land ................... 18 III. THE WRITTEN RECORD 1763 – 1849: FROM THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION TO THE VIDAL-ANDERSON COMMISSION...................................................................... 19 A. Pre-1763: The Covenant Chain Alliance ...................................................................... 20 i. 1756 – 1763: Extending the Covenant Chain to the Western Nations .................... 20 B. 1763: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 – Setting Out the Principles for Treaty Making 21 C. 1764: Council at Niagara .............................................................................................. 23 i. Presentation of Wampum Belts and Speech at Niagara .......................................... 23 ii. Diplomatic Discourse and Shared Metaphors ......................................................... 24 D. 1794: Dorchester Regulations – Operationalizing the Royal Proclamation ................. 25 E. 1812 – 1815: War of 1812 ............................................................................................ 25 i. The Shift from Military Alliance to Civilization Policy .......................................... 26 F. 1818: The Treaty-Making Process Incorporates Annuities .......................................... 26 i. 1830: The Colborne Policy and the Change in Annuities ....................................... 27 ii. Anishinaabe Awareness of Colonial Government Treaty-Making Activities in the Province .............................................................................................................................. 28 G. 1830s – 1840s: Life in the Upper Great Lakes Region ................................................. 28 H. 1840s: Mining Activity in the Upper Great Lakes Region ........................................... 28 I. 1845 – 1850: The Pre-Treaty Dialogue Between the Anishinaabe and the Crown ...... 29 i. The Crown’s Evolving View Pre-Treaty ................................................................. 29 ii. The Anishinaabe Assert Jurisdiction and Demand a Treaty .................................... 31 Page: 4 a. Summary of the Pre-Treaty Anishinaabe Complaints........................................ 34 iii. Anderson’s Visit and Report in 1848 ...................................................................... 34 IV. THE VIDAL-ANDERSON COMMISSION .................................................................. 37 A. Fall 1849: The Vidal-Anderson Commission ............................................................... 37 B. December 5, 1849: Report of the Vidal-Anderson Commission .................................. 39 i. Title .......................................................................................................................... 39 ii. The Anishinaabe’s Willingness to Treat ................................................................. 40 iii. Observations and Recommendations ....................................................................... 40 iv. Anishinaabe Use and Understanding of Money and the Concept of Value ............ 42 a. Use and Understanding of Money ...................................................................... 42 b. What did the Commissioners Mean by “Value of the Land”? ........................... 43 v. The Recommendation to Consider a Provision to Increase the Annuities .............. 44 C. Conclusion to the Vidal-Anderson Commission .......................................................... 45 V. THE MICA BAY INCIDENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO ROBINSON ................... 45 A. The Involvement of William B. Robinson .................................................................... 46 B. Instructions to Robinson ............................................................................................... 48 VI. THE TREATY COUNCIL OF 1850: AN ACCOUNT ................................................. 50 A. Chronology of the Treaty Council ................................................................................ 50 i. August 18, 1850 – September 4, 1850: Pre-Treaty Meetings with Anishinaabe Chiefs and Leaders ............................................................................................................. 51 ii. The Opening Offer ................................................................................................... 52 iii. September 6, 1850: Different Responses to the Opening Offer .............................. 54 iv. September 7, 1850: Chief Peau de Chat Signs and Chief Shingwaukonse Repeats His Demands ...................................................................................................................... 55 v. September 9, 1850: The Huron Delegation Signs the Treaty .................................. 56 vi. September 10 – 24, 1850: Making the First Payments ............................................ 56 B. The Treaties’ Terms ...................................................................................................... 56 i. The Surrender and Compensation Term .................................................................. 56 ii. The Augmentation Clause ....................................................................................... 58 a. Did Chief Shingwaukonse Give Up His Demand for Revenue-Based Compensation? .............................................................................................................. 58 b. How did Robinson Explain the Augmentation Clause in His Official Report? . 59 c. Is it Reasonable to Conclude that Governor General Lord Elgin Approved of Robinson’s Intention to Offer an Augmentation Clause? ............................................. 60 d. When was the Concept of the Augmentation Clause Introduced or Proposed?. 62 Page: 5 VII. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POST-TREATY HISTORICAL RECORD? ................................................................................................................................... 64 A. The Post-Treaty Context: The Historical and Cultural
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Who Is on Trial? Teme-Augama Anishnabai Land Rights and George Ironside, Junior: Re-Considering Oral Tradition
    RESEARCH NOTE WHO IS ON TRIAL? TEME-AUGAMA ANISHNABAI LAND RIGHTS AND GEORGE IRONSIDE, JUNIOR: RE-CONSIDERING ORAL TRADITION David T. McNab 14 Howland Road Toronto, Ontario Canada, M4K 2Z6 Abstract/Resume The Teme-Augama Anishnabai have maintained from their oral tradition for almost 150 years that they never signed or participated in the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850. The Crown has always claimed they did sign, and has produced documents showing that annuities were paid for them. New evidence clearly suggests that the Teme-Augama Anishnabai did not sign or participate in the Treaty, and the annuities may have been pocketed by an Agent ofthe Crown. The author discusses the implications ofthis for the significance of First Nations' oral traditions and land rights in general. Sur la base de leur tradition orale, les Teme-Augama Anishnabai soutien­ nent depuis pres de 150 ans qu'ils n'ont jamais participe au Traite Huron Robinson de 1850 ni ne I'ont signe. La Couronne a toujours pretendu qu'ils I'ont signe et a presente des documents montrant que des indemnites compensatoires leur avaient ete verses. De nouvelles preuves suggerent clairement que les Teme-Augama Anishnabai n'ont ni participe au Traite ni ne I'ont signet et qu'un agent de la Couronne aurait empoche les indem­ nites. L'auteur discute des implications de cette situation en ce qui touche les traditions orales des premieres nations et les droits territoriaux en general. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies XVIII, 1(1998):117-133. 118 David T. McNab In the course of my research I recently found a significant document in the federal Department of Indian Affairs records, which are located in the National Archives ofCanada.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Peoples in the Superior-Greenstone Region: an Informational Handbook for Staff and Parents
    Aboriginal Peoples in the Superior-Greenstone Region: An Informational Handbook for Staff and Parents Superior-Greenstone District School Board 2014 2 Aboriginal Peoples in the Superior-Greenstone Region Acknowledgements Superior-Greenstone District School Board David Tamblyn, Director of Education Nancy Petrick, Superintendent of Education Barb Willcocks, Aboriginal Education Student Success Lead The Native Education Advisory Committee Rachel A. Mishenene Consulting Curriculum Developer ~ Rachel Mishenene, Ph.D. Student, M.Ed. Edited by Christy Radbourne, Ph.D. Student and M.Ed. I would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their contribution in the development of this resource. Miigwetch. Dr. Cyndy Baskin, Ph.D. Heather Cameron, M.A. Christy Radbourne, Ph.D. Student, M.Ed. Martha Moon, Ph.D. Student, M.Ed. Brian Tucker and Cameron Burgess, The Métis Nation of Ontario Deb St. Amant, B.Ed., B.A. Photo Credits Ruthless Images © All photos (with the exception of two) were taken in the First Nations communities of the Superior-Greenstone region. Additional images that are referenced at the end of the book. © Copyright 2014 Superior-Greenstone District School Board All correspondence and inquiries should be directed to: Superior-Greenstone District School Board Office 12 Hemlo Drive, Postal Bag ‘A’, Marathon, ON P0T 2E0 Telephone: 807.229.0436 / Facsimile: 807.229.1471 / Webpage: www.sgdsb.on.ca Aboriginal Peoples in the Superior-Greenstone Region 3 Contents What’s Inside? Page Indian Power by Judy Wawia 6 About the Handbook 7
    [Show full text]
  • Restoule V. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701 COURT FILE NO.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A and COURT FILE NO.: 2001-0673 DATE: 20181221
    CITATION: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701 COURT FILE NO.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A and COURT FILE NO.: 2001-0673 DATE: 20181221 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) ) Court File No.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A ) ) MIKE RESTOULE, PATSY CORBIERE, ) DUKE PELTIER, PETER RECOLLET, ) Joseph J. Arvay Q.C., David C. DEAN SAYERS and ROGER ) Nahwegahbow, Catherine Boies Parker DAYBUTCH, on their own behalf and on ) Q.C., Dianne G. Corbiere, Christopher behalf of ALL MEMBERS OF THE ) Albinati, Donald L. Worme Q.C., Scott OJIBEWA (ANISHINAABE) NATION ) Robertson and Jim Ratis, for the Plaintiffs. WHO ARE BENEFICIARIES OF THE ) ROBINSON HURON TREATY OF 1850 ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) – and – ) Owen Young, Michael McCulloch, Barry ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Ennis and Scott Warwick, for the Defendant ) CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Attorney General of Canada. ) OF ONTARIO and HER MAJESTY THE ) QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Michael R. Stephenson, Peter Lemmond, ) Sarah Valair and Christine Perruzza for the Defendants ) Defendant The Attorney General of Ontario. ) ) THE RED ROCK FIRST NATION and ) THE WHITESAND FIRST NATION ) Harley Schachter and Kaitlyn Lewis, for the ) Third Parties. Third Parties ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -AND- ) ) Page: 2 ) Court File No.: 2001-0673 ) ) THE CHIEF and COUNCIL OF RED ) ROCK FIRST NATION, on behalf of the ) RED ROCKFIRST NATION BAND OF ) Harley Schachter and Kaitlyn Lewis, for the INDIANS, THE CHIEF and COUNCIL of ) Plaintiffs. the WITHESAND FIRST NATION on ) behalf of the WHITESAND FIRST ) NATION BAND OF INDIANS ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) – and – ) ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ) Owen Young, Michael McCulloch, Barry CANADA, and HER MAJESTY THE ) Ennis and Scott Warwick, for the Defendant QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO and the ) The Attorney General of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephanie Maclaurin. the Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1850
    Stephanie MacLaurin. The Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1850. Fort William First Nation Stephanie talks about the history of the development of Fort William First Nation’s (FWFN) treaty agreement with the Crown (federal government of Canada). Length: 5:51 minutes Summary: Stephanie introduces herself, she is the Governance Coordinator for FWFN. It is important to look at what led to the Robinson-Superior Treaty (1850). That was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 made by King George III. When he got acquisition of all the French territory, in what is now North America, Canada, specifically, King George wanted to stop the Ojibwe from selling land to whoever and the complications that arose from it, such as selling to more than one person or getting ripped off by the people to whom they were selling. The Royal Proclamation outlined Indian Territory and in Indian Territory, the settlers wouldn’t be able to settle until the land was sold properly to the Crown. The Robinson-Superior Treaty was an agreement made between the Ojibways of Lake Superior (including Stephanie’s ancestors from FWFN) and the Crown who was represented by William B. Robinson, which is why the treaty is called the Robinson-Superior Treaty. There were two Robinson treaties: the Robinson-Superior Treaty and the Robinson-Huron treaty, down by Lake Huron. FWFN was the community who pushed for the Robinson-Superior Treaty. The Canadian government was giving out mining certificates without settling the treaty with FWFN, which was in direct violation of the Royal Proclamation. FWFN representatives understood that and started to push for the treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada
    Canada-United States Law Journal Volume 39 Issue Article 5 January 2014 The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada Guy Charlton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj Part of the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Guy Charlton, The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada, 39 Can.-U.S. L.J. 69 (2015) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol39/iss/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE LAW OF NATIVE AMERICAN HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF RESERVATION BOUNDARIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Guy Charlton* ABSTRACT: This article examines and compares the law of Native American/Aboriginal hunting, fishing and gathering rights in those areas which are located outside of reserved land area in Canada and the United States. The article argues that despite the differing statutory and constitutional traditions, both states’ law and policy towards the Native American continues to reflect the underlying premises of the colonial project. While indigenous peoples have significant use rights, national, state and provincial power remains the primary locus of regulatory authority. However, there may be opportunities to extend use and co-management rights to allow tribes to be involved in land use and environmental regulatory decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Snowmobiling Page F12.Indd
    Page 8 - ALMAGUIN NEWS, Thursday, February 12, 2009 Trail Conditions North Bay as of February 11, 2009 Hwy #11 A Parry Sound - www.pssd.ca Muskoka - www.msrsnowtrails.com Near North - www.nnta.net Callander Bay D Almaguin/Burk’s Falls – OPEN All ADSC trails are open and groomed, one short piece of ADSC trail 304 is closed for the season (ATV land owner issue). 703 102D The piece closed is from D123 south to the Lookout on the 710 304. Lookout is open and groomed. 709 102C Callander/Restoule/Powassan/Astorville – OPEN Callander D trail is open from NN440 to North Bay. SSR 700 from Trout 102C Creek to Powassan - 23 km of road. Lake Nosbonsing and Lake D D Nipissing have been staked. D102C, SSR601, SSR603, SSR604, 700 SSR706, NB309, C110D, SSR700m SSR702, SSR703, SSR710 Nipissing 511 Powassan and A102D are all open. D trail from NN440 to Trout Creek 106 Lake Nipissing is temporarily closed this year. C106 from D102C to Dokis is 706 5 102C temporarily closed this year. C106 south from D102C has a 102C detour at SSR603 to AR505 to AR507. Restoule 700 Loring Area – OPEN Trout All “Tops trails” are open and groomed. The AR500 between 102C 601 605 110D 504 7 Creek AR501 and AR510 is still closed as well as the AR509 from 603 106 D the AR510 to Arnstein where it joins the D102C / C105D. The 105D 105D 503 505 AR501 from Port Loring to the AR500 is now staked and ready 503 to use. Trail C106 is closed between SSR603 and AR507.
    [Show full text]
  • North Lake Superior Métis
    The Historical Roots of Métis Communities North of Lake Superior Gwynneth C. D. Jones Vancouver, B. C. 31 March 2015. Prepared for the Métis Nation of Ontario Table of Contents Introduction 3 Section I: The Early Fur Trade and Populations to 1821 The Fur Trade on Lakes Superior and Nipigon, 1600 – 1763 8 Post-Conquest Organization of the Fur Trade, 1761 – 1784 14 Nipigon, Michipicoten, Grand Portage, and Mixed-Ancestry Fur Trade Employees, 1789 - 1804 21 Grand Portage, Kaministiquia, and North West Company families, 1799 – 1805 29 Posts and Settlements, 1807 – 1817 33 Long Lake, 1815 – 1818 40 Michipicoten, 1817 – 1821 44 Fort William/Point Meuron, 1817 – 1821 49 The HBC, NWC and Mixed-Ancestry Populations to 1821 57 Fur Trade Culture to 1821 60 Section II: From the Merger to the Treaty: 1821 - 1850 After the Merger: Restructuring the Fur Trade and Associated Populations, 1821 - 1826 67 Fort William, 1823 - 1836 73 Nipigon, Pic, Long Lake and Michipicoten, 1823 - 1836 79 Families in the Lake Superior District, 1825 - 1835 81 Fur Trade People and Work, 1825 - 1841 85 "Half-breed Indians", 1823 - 1849 92 Fur Trade Culture, 1821 - 1850 95 Section III: The Robinson Treaties, 1850 Preparations for Treaty, 1845 - 1850 111 The Robinson Treaty and the Métis, 1850 - 1856 117 Fur Trade Culture on Lake Superior in the 1850s 128 After the Treaty, 1856 - 1859 138 2 Section IV: Persistence of Fur Trade Families on Lakes Superior and Nipigon, 1855 - 1901 Infrastructure Changes in the Lake Superior District, 1863 - 1921 158 Investigations into Robinson-Superior Treaty paylists, 1879 - 1899 160 The Dominion Census of 1901 169 Section V: The Twentieth Century Lake Nipigon Fisheries, 1884 - 1973 172 Métis Organizations in Lake Nipigon and Lake Superior, 1971 - 1973 180 Appendix: Maps and Illustrations Watercolour, “Miss Le Ronde, Hudson Bay Post, Lake Nipigon”, 1867?/1901 Map of Lake Nipigon in T.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Curriculum
    2018 REVISED The Ontario Curriculum Social Studies Grades 1 to 6 History and Geography Grades 7 and 8 The Ontario Public Service endeavours to demonstrate leadership with respect to accessibility in Ontario. Our goal is to ensure that Ontario government services, products, and facilities are accessible to all our employees and to all members of the public we serve. This document, or the information that it contains, is available, on request, in alternative formats. Please forward all requests for alternative formats to ServiceOntario at 1-800-668-9938 (TTY: 1-800-268-7095). CONTENTS PREFACE 3 Elementary Schools for the Twenty-First Century . 3 Supporting Students’ Well-Being and Ability to Learn . 3 INTRODUCTION 6 The Vision and Goals of the Social Studies, History, and Geography Curriculum . 6 The Importance of Social Studies, History, and Geography in the Curriculum . 9 Citizenship Education Framework . 10 Social Studies . 10 History . 11 Geography . 12 Concepts Underlying the Social Studies, History, and Geography Curriculum . 13 Indigenous Education in Ontario . 14 Roles and Responsibilities in Social Studies, History, and Geography . 15 THE PROGRAM IN SOCIAL STUDIES, HISTORY, AND GEOGRAPHY 19 Curriculum Expectations . 19 The Strands in the Social Studies, History, and Geography Curriculum . 22 The Inquiry Process in Social Studies, History, and Geography . 23 Spatial Skills: Using Maps, Globes, and Graphs . 25 ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 27 Basic Considerations . 27 The Achievement Chart for Social Studies, History, and Geography . 31 SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROGRAM PLANNING IN SOCIAL STUDIES, HISTORY, AND GEOGRAPHY 36 Instructional Approaches . 36 Cross-Curricular and Integrated Learning . 39 Planning Social Studies, History, and Geography Programs for Students with Special Education Needs .
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Consultation for the Ontario Mining Act Modernization Process: Varying Perceptive on Whether the Consultation Process Works
    Lakehead University Knowledge Commons,http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca Electronic Theses and Dissertations Electronic Theses and Dissertations from 2009 2012-11-10 Aboriginal Consultation for the Ontario Mining Act Modernization Process: Varying Perceptive on Whether the Consultation Process Works Petrone Reitberger, Elysia http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca/handle/2453/222 Downloaded from Lakehead University, KnowledgeCommons Aboriginal Consultation fo r the Ontario Mining Act ModernizationProcess: Varying Perceptive on Whether the Consultation Process Works By Elysia Petrone Reitberger A Graduate Thesis Submitted in the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements fo r a Master of Environmental Studies in Northern Environments & Cultures Departments of Geography and Anthropology Lakehead University May 201 1 LakeheadUNIVERSITY OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES NAME OF STUDENT: Elysia Petrone-Reitberger DEGREE AWARDED: MES- NECU ACADEMIC UNIT: Geography TITLE OF THESIS: Aboriginal Consultation for the Ontario Mining Act Modernization Process: Varying Perspectives on Whether the Consultation Process Works This thesis has been prepared under my supervision and the candidate has complied with the Master's regulations. Signature of Supervisor /"t�\(� 2-v1 \ Date ABSTRACT Attempts to engage Aboriginal peoples in resource and environmental management decision-making process, fo r the most part, have been characterized as tokenism (Bowie 2007). This has left Aboriginal peoples frustrated and disillusioned. This thesis uses a theory of civil engagement, Arnstein's (1969) ladder of citizen participation, as a framework to interpret the level of Aboriginal consultation conducted during the Ontario Mining Act Modernization (MAM) process. This case study gauged the current state of public participation practices by examining Aboriginal peoples' participation and influence in decision making. In August 2008 the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development Mines and Forests (MNDMF) initiated a consultation process to modernizethe Mining Act.
    [Show full text]
  • B. Whose Rights Are Environmental Aboriginal and Environmental Treaty Rights?
    MOLESTED AND DISTURBED: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLES THROUGH SECTION 35 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 Brief No. 376 ISBN # 1-894158-35-0 Prepared by: Theresa McClenaghan CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION 517 College Street, Suite 401 Toronto, Ontario M6G 4A2 Tel: 416-960-2284 Fax: 416-960-9392 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.web.net/cela September 1999 MOLESTED AND DISTURBED: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLES THROUGH SECTION 35 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982. And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories, as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds . (Royal Proclamation of 1763.) ABSTRACT The author reviews the jurisprudence and academic commentary as to the protection provided by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with a view to determining whether aboriginal peoples in Canada can use section 35 as an environmental protection tool. She concludes that section 35 offers promising potential for environmental protection in specific circumstances. The author recommends that aboriginal peoples consider exercise of environmental governance. This recommendation arises out of the conclusion that there are existing environmental aboriginal and treaty rights. Environmental governance would also help with the recognition and protection of those rights under section 35. SECTION 35, CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: (1)The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Study Area’S Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community
    Historical Profile of the Lake Superior Study Area’s Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY FOR THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL INTERLOCUTOR SEPTEMBER 2007 Lake SuperiorMixed Ancestry Final Report Historical Profile of the Lake Superior Study Area’s Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community TABLE OF CONTENTS Map: The proposed Lake Superior NMCA 3 Executive Summary 4 Methodology/Introduction 5 Comments on Terminology 6 Chapter 1: Study Region from the 17th Century to the 1840s 8 Ojibway Indians residing on the North Shore of Lake Superior 8 Europeans and the Study Area 9 Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 12 Mention of Mixed-Ancestry people in the Study Region 15 Chapter 2: Aboriginal Pressure for a Treaty Relationship 25 Louis Agassiz and the Study Region, 1848 28 Treaty Exploratory Commission 28 Mica Bay, 1849 33 Vidal and Anderson Report 35 Government Instructions about Treaty Terms 37 Robinson Travels to Sault Ste. Marie 38 Request for Recognition of “Halfbreed” rights 40 Negotiation of the Robinson-Superior Treaty 40 Chapter 3: Post-Treaty Government Activity 44 “Halfbreed” inclusion in Robinson-Superior Treaty Annuity Paylists 44 Postal Service in the Study Region 46 Crown Activity between 1853 and 1867 46 Chapter 4: Settlement, Resource Development, and Government Administration within the Study Region, 1864-1901 51 Policing 53 Post Office and Railroad 55 Census Information and the Study Region 58 1871, 1881, and 1891 Censuses – Nipigon 59 1881 Census – Silver Islet 61 1901 Census – Nipigon Township (including Dorion), Rossport (including Pays Plat), and Schreiber 62 Small townships not included in early Censuses 63 Joan Holmes and Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • ICECAP) Meeting Minutes
    Integrated Community Energy & Climate Action Plans (ICECAP) Meeting Minutes held on Tuesday, February 4th, 2020 at 10:00 AM in the Township of The Archipelago Council Chambers, 9 James Street Parry Sound ON P2A 1T4 ICECAP Corporate Stakeholder Present: Susan Murphy, Councillor, Carling Township Ryan Snowball, Planner, Carling Township Steven Kell, Species at Risk Biologist & Project Coordinator, Shawanaga First Nation Dalton Newman, Community Energy Champion, Shawanaga First Nation Peter Koetsier, Mayor, Township of Georgian Bay Dana Suddaby, Planner, Township of Georgian Bay Anthony Laforge, Director of Lands & Resources, Magnetawan First Nation Cory Kozmik, Species at Risk Biologist, Magnetawan First Nation Peter Hopkins, Mayor, Township of McKellar Tammy Wylie, Clerk Administrator, Township of McKellar Daryle Moffatt, Councillor, Seguin Township Dominique O’Brien, Director of Community Services, Seguin Township Forrest Pengra, Manager of Infrastructure and Technology, Town of Parry Sound Vanessa Backman, Councillor, Town of Parry Sound Alice Barton, Councillor, Township of the Archipelago Cale Henderson, Manager of Development and Environmental Services, Township of the Archipelago Randy Restoule, Dokis First Nation Monica Moore, Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve ICECAP Partners Present: Brian Elliott, Lakeland Power Marjorie MacDonald, Lakeland Holding Jennifer Monpetit, Advanced Planning and Communications, Lakeland Holding Joe Villeneuve, GIS Coordinator, West Parry Sound Geography Network Scott McCrindle, Georgian College Teryl Faulkner,
    [Show full text]