News
|
Empowering Indigenous Learners CPAWSB and AFOA Alberta Collaborate on Tailored CPA Certification Program OfferingsWe're excited to share that the CPA Western School of Business (CPAWSB) and the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Alberta (AFOA) have joined forces to create two courses for Indigenous learners. These courses are based on the regular CPA certification program but will be tailored to meet the unique preferences and expectations of Indigenous learners and incorporate Indigenous culture and context in the program.
|
|
|
|
|
Ontario says it doesn’t owe First Nations seeking compensation for broken treaty
Sean Fine Justice Writer
Indigenous communities are in court seeking billions of dollars in compensation after almost 150 years of receiving small annual payments in return for ceding an area the size of France. But the Ontario government is arguing they are owed nothing, or at most $34-million.
The wide divergence in claims was on display this week in an unprecedented court hearing in Sudbury, Ont., whose purpose is to determine how much the Crown owes for breaking a treaty promise to share wealth produced by the natural resources of a vast area in Northern Ontario.
A lawyer for several Anishinaabe communities collectively made up of about 15,000 people told Ontario Superior Court Justice Patricia Hennessy on Monday that they are owed at least $8-billion, and perhaps as much as $100-billion.
In 1850, Anishinaabe leaders signed two treaties with the Crown that gave over control of resource-rich lands stretching from the north shores of Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Hudson Bay, which today includes the communities of Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and North Bay.
But the Crown, after paying an initial lump sum of a few thousand dollars, has been making annuity payments capped at just $4 a person since 1875.
Justice Hennessy will be devising a revenue-sharing plan to compensate for the past resource wealth generated on these treaty lands. It will be the first such court-ordered plan in Canada, and it will have enormous practical consequences for thousands of Anishinaabe people in Northern Ontario, who courts have said were left impoverished by the Crown’s neglect of its treaty promise.
Five years ago, Justice Hennessey ruled that the Crown had broken a pledge, set out in two 1850 treaties, to augment the annuity payments as Crown resource revenues permitted. In 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal largely upheld her ruling.
The judge now has a monumental task: she must determine what revenues to count, what expenses to subtract from those revenues, what interest rate should apply to reflect growth over time and what share of the net revenues should be paid to the First Nations involved.
And on top of all that, she needs to decide which level of government – federal, or provincial – is on the hook for the money owed. On Tuesday, federal lawyer Glynis Evans told Justice Hennessy the vast majority is owed by Ontario. On Wednesday, Ontario’s lawyer, Tamara Barclay, said all of it is owed by the federal government. She added that Supreme Court rulings of the late 19th century had resolved the issue.
But the complications do not end there. Even as four months of hearings got under way this week in a large, makeshift courtroom in Sudbury, the province is still appealing the Ontario Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling on whether the Crown actually did break its treaty promise to share the wealth. That case is pending at the Supreme Court of Canada.
If the Supreme Court overturns that ruling, the entire exercise in Sudbury would be for naught. But given that the First Nations’ lawsuit over the treaty promise began in 1999, and that Anishinaabe elders knowledgeable in oral history and cultural matters are not getting any younger, the Supreme Court rejected Ontario’s request for a stay of the compensation hearings. So did Justice Hennessy.
The First Nations who are parties to the case have shifted. The Red Rock and Whitesand First Nations, who are part of the Robinson-Superior Treaty, have been joined by three other First Nations. Another seven First Nations say they never gave over title to their lands and are trying to win court recognition of that claim (though not as part of the current case). They are represented at the hearings in case they do not ultimately establish that they have title.
Another 21 First Nations are part of the Robinson-Huron Treaty, a territory also addressed by the initial court rulings. This group is now in negotiations with the two levels of government. Their compensation hearing has been adjourned indefinitely.
Harley Schachter, a lawyer representing Red Rock, Whitesand and three other First Nations, likened Ontario’s position that governments owe virtually nothing to that of a fox left in charge of the chickens.
“The fox turns to the judge – got egg all over his face – and in the most reassuring manner and calm tone he can muster says, ‘Look, judge, firstly, about the eggs, there are none, so I don’t know why the chickens are complaining,’” he told Justice Hennessy on Monday, the first day of the hearings.
His clients are claiming an 84-per-cent share of net Crown revenues in five areas, including mining and forestry. The 84 per cent is based on the share of economic risk the First Nations say they took on in the joint venture represented by the treaty.
The higher estimates in the tens of billions of dollars reflect not just what the Crown recouped in various fees, but the higher fees it could have charged if its aim had been to collect on their full value. (Mr. Schachter called this approach “economic rents.”)
On Friday, two-time Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economist, will testify in support of that approach.
“Yes, the final amounts claimed as payable are large,” Mr. Schachter told Justice Hennessy. “They are large because the Crowns did not honour the treaty obligation. They are large but they are not untoward.”
Ms. Barclay, representing Ontario, told Justice Hennessy the province lost $7.9-billion on resources in the territory.
That figure includes the costs of building roads and railways. An alternative approach to determining net revenues would mean $34-million is owed to the Anishinaabe, she said. The First Nations argue that road and railway costs are part of nation-building and should not be deducted from revenues.
Ms. Evans, representing the federal government, said Tuesday the Anishinaabe’s share of net Crown revenues should be roughly 10 per cent, reflecting the ratio of Indigenous to non-Indigenous people in the Robinson-Superior treaty territory. She did not put forward a precise dollar figure, but opposed the “economic rents” approach of the First Nations.
Sean Fine Justice Writer
Indigenous communities are in court seeking billions of dollars in compensation after almost 150 years of receiving small annual payments in return for ceding an area the size of France. But the Ontario government is arguing they are owed nothing, or at most $34-million.
The wide divergence in claims was on display this week in an unprecedented court hearing in Sudbury, Ont., whose purpose is to determine how much the Crown owes for breaking a treaty promise to share wealth produced by the natural resources of a vast area in Northern Ontario.
A lawyer for several Anishinaabe communities collectively made up of about 15,000 people told Ontario Superior Court Justice Patricia Hennessy on Monday that they are owed at least $8-billion, and perhaps as much as $100-billion.
In 1850, Anishinaabe leaders signed two treaties with the Crown that gave over control of resource-rich lands stretching from the north shores of Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Hudson Bay, which today includes the communities of Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and North Bay.
But the Crown, after paying an initial lump sum of a few thousand dollars, has been making annuity payments capped at just $4 a person since 1875.
Justice Hennessy will be devising a revenue-sharing plan to compensate for the past resource wealth generated on these treaty lands. It will be the first such court-ordered plan in Canada, and it will have enormous practical consequences for thousands of Anishinaabe people in Northern Ontario, who courts have said were left impoverished by the Crown’s neglect of its treaty promise.
Five years ago, Justice Hennessey ruled that the Crown had broken a pledge, set out in two 1850 treaties, to augment the annuity payments as Crown resource revenues permitted. In 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal largely upheld her ruling.
The judge now has a monumental task: she must determine what revenues to count, what expenses to subtract from those revenues, what interest rate should apply to reflect growth over time and what share of the net revenues should be paid to the First Nations involved.
And on top of all that, she needs to decide which level of government – federal, or provincial – is on the hook for the money owed. On Tuesday, federal lawyer Glynis Evans told Justice Hennessy the vast majority is owed by Ontario. On Wednesday, Ontario’s lawyer, Tamara Barclay, said all of it is owed by the federal government. She added that Supreme Court rulings of the late 19th century had resolved the issue.
But the complications do not end there. Even as four months of hearings got under way this week in a large, makeshift courtroom in Sudbury, the province is still appealing the Ontario Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling on whether the Crown actually did break its treaty promise to share the wealth. That case is pending at the Supreme Court of Canada.
If the Supreme Court overturns that ruling, the entire exercise in Sudbury would be for naught. But given that the First Nations’ lawsuit over the treaty promise began in 1999, and that Anishinaabe elders knowledgeable in oral history and cultural matters are not getting any younger, the Supreme Court rejected Ontario’s request for a stay of the compensation hearings. So did Justice Hennessy.
The First Nations who are parties to the case have shifted. The Red Rock and Whitesand First Nations, who are part of the Robinson-Superior Treaty, have been joined by three other First Nations. Another seven First Nations say they never gave over title to their lands and are trying to win court recognition of that claim (though not as part of the current case). They are represented at the hearings in case they do not ultimately establish that they have title.
Another 21 First Nations are part of the Robinson-Huron Treaty, a territory also addressed by the initial court rulings. This group is now in negotiations with the two levels of government. Their compensation hearing has been adjourned indefinitely.
Harley Schachter, a lawyer representing Red Rock, Whitesand and three other First Nations, likened Ontario’s position that governments owe virtually nothing to that of a fox left in charge of the chickens.
“The fox turns to the judge – got egg all over his face – and in the most reassuring manner and calm tone he can muster says, ‘Look, judge, firstly, about the eggs, there are none, so I don’t know why the chickens are complaining,’” he told Justice Hennessy on Monday, the first day of the hearings.
His clients are claiming an 84-per-cent share of net Crown revenues in five areas, including mining and forestry. The 84 per cent is based on the share of economic risk the First Nations say they took on in the joint venture represented by the treaty.
The higher estimates in the tens of billions of dollars reflect not just what the Crown recouped in various fees, but the higher fees it could have charged if its aim had been to collect on their full value. (Mr. Schachter called this approach “economic rents.”)
On Friday, two-time Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economist, will testify in support of that approach.
“Yes, the final amounts claimed as payable are large,” Mr. Schachter told Justice Hennessy. “They are large because the Crowns did not honour the treaty obligation. They are large but they are not untoward.”
Ms. Barclay, representing Ontario, told Justice Hennessy the province lost $7.9-billion on resources in the territory.
That figure includes the costs of building roads and railways. An alternative approach to determining net revenues would mean $34-million is owed to the Anishinaabe, she said. The First Nations argue that road and railway costs are part of nation-building and should not be deducted from revenues.
Ms. Evans, representing the federal government, said Tuesday the Anishinaabe’s share of net Crown revenues should be roughly 10 per cent, reflecting the ratio of Indigenous to non-Indigenous people in the Robinson-Superior treaty territory. She did not put forward a precise dollar figure, but opposed the “economic rents” approach of the First Nations.
|
|
|
|
Indigenous Hunting Rights and the NRTA: Case Comment on R. v. Green
|
By Kate Gunn and Nisha Sikka
The question of when and under what circumstances Indigenous people can hunt for food and cultural purposes outside of their province of residence has been a longstanding source of tension and uncertainty, particularly in Canada’s prairie provinces. In its recent decision in R. v. Green, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal highlighted the lack of clarity in the law on this issue. Below, we consider the implications of the decision for Indigenous hunting rights across Canada. |
|
Hunting, Treaties and the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements
In the decades leading up to and following Confederation, the Crown entered into a series of treaties with Indigenous Peoples across most of western Canada, including in the region now known as Saskatchewan. The written English versions of most of the treaties provide that the Indigenous treaty parties have the right to continue to hunt on lands throughout the treaty territory until such lands are "taken up" by the Crown for purposes such as non-Indigenous settlement and resource exploitation.
In the 1930s, Canada entered into a series of agreements (the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, or NRTAs) which transferred the administration and control of Crown lands and resources from the federal to the provincial governments in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Paragraph 12 of the Saskatchewan NRTA affirms that Indigenous Peoples in the province possess a right to hunt, trap and fish on all unoccupied Crown lands or on any other lands which they have a right to access. The Alberta and Manitoba NRTAs contain similar provisions.
Today, treaty hunting rights are recognized and protected pursuant to section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Courts have further held that the NRTAs are constitutional documents which must be interpreted in light of the Crown’s relationship with and obligations to Indigenous Peoples. For further background on treaties and the NRTAs, see our previous blog post on the Green decision.
The Green Litigation
In 2018 Blair Hill and Albert Green, both from the Six Nations First Nation in Ontario, were charged with unlawful hunting in a provincial park in Saskatchewan.
The trial judge held that Mr. Hill and Mr. Green should be acquitted of the charges because they were exercising a constitutionally protected right to hunt under paragraph 12 of the Saskatchewan NRTA, notwithstanding the fact that both men resided outside the province.
On appeal at the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, the Court reversed the trial decision and held that paragraph 12 of the NRTA applies only to Indigenous people who hold rights under the numbered treaties which apply to lands within Saskatchewan. Mr. Hill and Mr. Green appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
What the Court Said
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of Mr. Hill and Mr. Green.
The Court held that the question of whether the NRTA provides that all Indigenous people have a right to hunt on unoccupied lands in Saskatchewan, regardless of their province of residence, is an important constitutional issue that will affect Indigenous people residing within and outside the province.
However, the Court held that it was unable to determine the issue based on the evidentiary record before it and ordered that a trial be held with additional historical evidence regarding the negotiation and purpose of the NRTA.
Why It Matters
The Court of Appeal decision affirms that the question of whether the hunting rights set out in the NRTA apply to all Indigenous people, or only those who hold rights under numbered treaties in Saskatchewan, is an issue of significant public importance which must be clarified by the courts.
Rather than resolving the issue, the decision in Green leaves Indigenous people seeking to hunt outside their province of residence in a legal grey area. The ongoing lack of clarity in the law has the potential to foment further uncertainty and conflict regarding Indigenous Peoples’ right to hunt, particularly in provinces which are already grappling with the effects of racism and the Crown’s ongoing failure to honour and uphold its treaty promises.
At the same time, the decision also opens the door for a more robust interpretation of Indigenous hunting rights which takes into account the historical and cultural circumstances which underlie the issues in the litigation. As the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed, constitutional issues cannot be determined in a vacuum. Based on the direction of the Court of Appeal, the eventual second trial decision in Green could result in a more meaningful understanding of Indigenous Peoples’ rights based on a full evidentiary record.
Looking Ahead
Too often, the rights of Indigenous Peoples have been determined by Canadian courts in the absence of a proper understanding of both the underlying historical facts and the perspectives of the Indigenous Peoples whose rights are at issue.
In some jurisdictions there are signs that this approach is shifting. In recent litigation in Ontario, for example, the Court heard extensive historical evidence as well as evidence from both Anishinaabe and Euro-Canadian witnesses, including experts, Elders and Chiefs, regarding the Crown’s obligations to increase annuity payments to the Indigenous beneficiaries of the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties. The Court emphasized that the evidence of the Anishinaabe and Euro-Canadian perspectives were to be treated equally, and that evidence regarding the treaty parties’ understandings and intentions would not be discounted merely because it came from an unconventional source.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Green suggests a similar shift may be at least partially underway in Saskatchewan. On the one hand, the Court’s emphasis on the need for historical evidence is an important step towards ensuring the interpretation of the NRTA is informed by the historical circumstances in which it was negotiated. At the same time, however, the Court fails to highlight the importance of including evidence regarding Indigenous Peoples’ understandings of the rights guaranteed pursuant to the numbered treaties and affirmed by the NRTA.
As a result, there is still a risk that the issues in Green will be decided without adequate consideration of the Indigenous perspective.
Going forward, it will be for both the parties and the trial judge to ensure that such evidence is included and given weight if the Green litigation is to both clarify the law and advance reconciliation.
First Peoples Law LLP is a law firm dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We work exclusively with Indigenous Peoples to defend their inherent and constitutionally protected title, rights and Treaty rights, uphold their Indigenous laws and governance and ensure economic prosperity for their current and future generations.
Chat with us
Kate Gunn is partner at First Peoples Law LLP. Kate completed her Master's of Law at the University of British Columbia. Her most recent academic essay, "Agreeing to Share: Treaty 3, History & the Courts," was published in the UBC Law Review.
In the decades leading up to and following Confederation, the Crown entered into a series of treaties with Indigenous Peoples across most of western Canada, including in the region now known as Saskatchewan. The written English versions of most of the treaties provide that the Indigenous treaty parties have the right to continue to hunt on lands throughout the treaty territory until such lands are "taken up" by the Crown for purposes such as non-Indigenous settlement and resource exploitation.
In the 1930s, Canada entered into a series of agreements (the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, or NRTAs) which transferred the administration and control of Crown lands and resources from the federal to the provincial governments in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Paragraph 12 of the Saskatchewan NRTA affirms that Indigenous Peoples in the province possess a right to hunt, trap and fish on all unoccupied Crown lands or on any other lands which they have a right to access. The Alberta and Manitoba NRTAs contain similar provisions.
Today, treaty hunting rights are recognized and protected pursuant to section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Courts have further held that the NRTAs are constitutional documents which must be interpreted in light of the Crown’s relationship with and obligations to Indigenous Peoples. For further background on treaties and the NRTAs, see our previous blog post on the Green decision.
The Green Litigation
In 2018 Blair Hill and Albert Green, both from the Six Nations First Nation in Ontario, were charged with unlawful hunting in a provincial park in Saskatchewan.
The trial judge held that Mr. Hill and Mr. Green should be acquitted of the charges because they were exercising a constitutionally protected right to hunt under paragraph 12 of the Saskatchewan NRTA, notwithstanding the fact that both men resided outside the province.
On appeal at the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, the Court reversed the trial decision and held that paragraph 12 of the NRTA applies only to Indigenous people who hold rights under the numbered treaties which apply to lands within Saskatchewan. Mr. Hill and Mr. Green appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
What the Court Said
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of Mr. Hill and Mr. Green.
The Court held that the question of whether the NRTA provides that all Indigenous people have a right to hunt on unoccupied lands in Saskatchewan, regardless of their province of residence, is an important constitutional issue that will affect Indigenous people residing within and outside the province.
However, the Court held that it was unable to determine the issue based on the evidentiary record before it and ordered that a trial be held with additional historical evidence regarding the negotiation and purpose of the NRTA.
Why It Matters
The Court of Appeal decision affirms that the question of whether the hunting rights set out in the NRTA apply to all Indigenous people, or only those who hold rights under numbered treaties in Saskatchewan, is an issue of significant public importance which must be clarified by the courts.
Rather than resolving the issue, the decision in Green leaves Indigenous people seeking to hunt outside their province of residence in a legal grey area. The ongoing lack of clarity in the law has the potential to foment further uncertainty and conflict regarding Indigenous Peoples’ right to hunt, particularly in provinces which are already grappling with the effects of racism and the Crown’s ongoing failure to honour and uphold its treaty promises.
At the same time, the decision also opens the door for a more robust interpretation of Indigenous hunting rights which takes into account the historical and cultural circumstances which underlie the issues in the litigation. As the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed, constitutional issues cannot be determined in a vacuum. Based on the direction of the Court of Appeal, the eventual second trial decision in Green could result in a more meaningful understanding of Indigenous Peoples’ rights based on a full evidentiary record.
Looking Ahead
Too often, the rights of Indigenous Peoples have been determined by Canadian courts in the absence of a proper understanding of both the underlying historical facts and the perspectives of the Indigenous Peoples whose rights are at issue.
In some jurisdictions there are signs that this approach is shifting. In recent litigation in Ontario, for example, the Court heard extensive historical evidence as well as evidence from both Anishinaabe and Euro-Canadian witnesses, including experts, Elders and Chiefs, regarding the Crown’s obligations to increase annuity payments to the Indigenous beneficiaries of the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties. The Court emphasized that the evidence of the Anishinaabe and Euro-Canadian perspectives were to be treated equally, and that evidence regarding the treaty parties’ understandings and intentions would not be discounted merely because it came from an unconventional source.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Green suggests a similar shift may be at least partially underway in Saskatchewan. On the one hand, the Court’s emphasis on the need for historical evidence is an important step towards ensuring the interpretation of the NRTA is informed by the historical circumstances in which it was negotiated. At the same time, however, the Court fails to highlight the importance of including evidence regarding Indigenous Peoples’ understandings of the rights guaranteed pursuant to the numbered treaties and affirmed by the NRTA.
As a result, there is still a risk that the issues in Green will be decided without adequate consideration of the Indigenous perspective.
Going forward, it will be for both the parties and the trial judge to ensure that such evidence is included and given weight if the Green litigation is to both clarify the law and advance reconciliation.
First Peoples Law LLP is a law firm dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We work exclusively with Indigenous Peoples to defend their inherent and constitutionally protected title, rights and Treaty rights, uphold their Indigenous laws and governance and ensure economic prosperity for their current and future generations.
Chat with us
Kate Gunn is partner at First Peoples Law LLP. Kate completed her Master's of Law at the University of British Columbia. Her most recent academic essay, "Agreeing to Share: Treaty 3, History & the Courts," was published in the UBC Law Review.
|
|
National news included child welfare, Idle No More, education and more
November 16 - 21, 2022
By Bruce McIvor and Geneva Lloyd
AFN hasn't ruled out court challenge to tribunal's child welfare decision, regional chief says | CBC News
Proposed updates to child welfare legislation would require preservation of Indigenous identity | CBC News
How Indigenous institutes are reclaiming education | Maclean's Education
Legal advocacy group for First Nations people granted intervener status in Supreme Court case | CBC News
'Reactive' Indigenous Services failing to help First Nations manage emergencies, says auditor general | CBC News
Opinion: Six portraits of Indigenous resistance, from the Constitution Express to Idle No More
Métis and treaty rights topped Alberta headlines
Alberta First Nations leaders stand against premier’s sovereignty act | Global News
Constitution vote would allow Alberta Métis to self-govern; opponents feel under-consulted | Global News
BC headlines featured systemic racism and a decades-long fight for land
Status card report says First Nations people in B.C. feeling 'micro-aggressions' | APTN
25 years after the Delgamuukw case, the fight for land is more contentious than ever | CBC News
Water protection and sovereignty topped headlines in Manitoba
Indigenous guardians protect Manitoba’s last undammed river | The Narwhal
The Ring of Fire and Aboriginal title were back in the news in Ontario
Matawa chiefs push back against U.S. military agenda in the Ring of Fire - Northern Ontario Business
First Nations communities allowed to intervene in appeal raising Aboriginal issues: Ontario CA | Law Times
A ground-breaking First Nations water authority was in the spotlight on the east coast
Atlantic First Nations Water Authority signs deal to take over water services in 17 First Nations | CBC News
Duty to consult continues to top headlines in Saskatchewan
Kahkewistahaw First Nation says Mosaic has shirked duty to consult while operating potash mines in Sask. | CBC News
Nunavut news included a proposed mine expansion
Northern Affairs minister says no to Baffinland mine expansion | CBC News
November 16 - 21, 2022
By Bruce McIvor and Geneva Lloyd
AFN hasn't ruled out court challenge to tribunal's child welfare decision, regional chief says | CBC News
Proposed updates to child welfare legislation would require preservation of Indigenous identity | CBC News
How Indigenous institutes are reclaiming education | Maclean's Education
Legal advocacy group for First Nations people granted intervener status in Supreme Court case | CBC News
'Reactive' Indigenous Services failing to help First Nations manage emergencies, says auditor general | CBC News
Opinion: Six portraits of Indigenous resistance, from the Constitution Express to Idle No More
Métis and treaty rights topped Alberta headlines
Alberta First Nations leaders stand against premier’s sovereignty act | Global News
Constitution vote would allow Alberta Métis to self-govern; opponents feel under-consulted | Global News
BC headlines featured systemic racism and a decades-long fight for land
Status card report says First Nations people in B.C. feeling 'micro-aggressions' | APTN
25 years after the Delgamuukw case, the fight for land is more contentious than ever | CBC News
Water protection and sovereignty topped headlines in Manitoba
Indigenous guardians protect Manitoba’s last undammed river | The Narwhal
The Ring of Fire and Aboriginal title were back in the news in Ontario
Matawa chiefs push back against U.S. military agenda in the Ring of Fire - Northern Ontario Business
First Nations communities allowed to intervene in appeal raising Aboriginal issues: Ontario CA | Law Times
A ground-breaking First Nations water authority was in the spotlight on the east coast
Atlantic First Nations Water Authority signs deal to take over water services in 17 First Nations | CBC News
Duty to consult continues to top headlines in Saskatchewan
Kahkewistahaw First Nation says Mosaic has shirked duty to consult while operating potash mines in Sask. | CBC News
Nunavut news included a proposed mine expansion
Northern Affairs minister says no to Baffinland mine expansion | CBC News
Residential schools described as genocide by House of Commons | CTV News
Reminder! TCVI is hosting a Youth Charity Golf Tournament at the St Paul Golf Course on Thursday, August 25, 2022
|
|
|
|
Opinion: The problem with labelling people ‘Pretendians’ - The Globe and Mail
The recent trend of labelling people who fraudulently claim to have Indigenous ancestry “Pretendians” has spawned a particularly toxic, divisive and insidious interpretation of what it means to be Indigenous. Problematically, it also distracts from the tireless work that Indigenous nations are doing to rebuild their own citizenship laws and decolonize how Indigenous citizenship decisions are made, and who makes them.
Indigenous leaders question intentions behind new public safety advisory group | CTV News
|
Alberta Justice is in the process of creating an Indigenous advisory group that will lend voice to policing matters, including on peace officers, victims' services, restorative justice and crime prevention. “I think it's a good concept and I support it in principle,” said Cameron Alexis, CEO for Tribal Chiefs Venture Inc. and adviser to Treaty 6 chiefs on police matters, “as long as it's not largely created because they're trying to find full support for their provincial police force organization in Alberta.” |
|
Alberta government news and statements February 17, 2022
A summary of news releases and statements issued today.
News
Investing in women’s success in IT
Alberta’s government will invest $1.9 million to support skills development training for women’s success in the IT sector.
Helping live music thrive in Alberta | Contribution à l'essor de la musique en direct en Alberta
The Stabilize Live Music Grant is helping hundreds of venues, musicians and other music professionals get back to recording and performing.
Marking a milestone with First Nation health partners
Immunization records for First Nation members are now reliably accessible in real time, marking an important step to help reduce preventable disease.
New renal dialysis unit opens in High Prairie
A new renal dialysis unit in High Prairie gives area residents greater access to specialized treatments closer to home.
Statements
Manufacturing growth in Alberta: Minister Schweitzer
Minister of Jobs, Economy and Innovation Doug Schweitzer issued the following statement about Alberta’s manufacturing sector.
Investing in women’s success in IT
Alberta’s government will invest $1.9 million to support skills development training for women’s success in the IT sector.
Helping live music thrive in Alberta | Contribution à l'essor de la musique en direct en Alberta
The Stabilize Live Music Grant is helping hundreds of venues, musicians and other music professionals get back to recording and performing.
Marking a milestone with First Nation health partners
Immunization records for First Nation members are now reliably accessible in real time, marking an important step to help reduce preventable disease.
New renal dialysis unit opens in High Prairie
A new renal dialysis unit in High Prairie gives area residents greater access to specialized treatments closer to home.
Statements
Manufacturing growth in Alberta: Minister Schweitzer
Minister of Jobs, Economy and Innovation Doug Schweitzer issued the following statement about Alberta’s manufacturing sector.
Hello:
I am pleased to share that recruitment is now underway for the new Minister’s Advisory Council on Higher Education and Skills (MACHES). Following the recent proclamation of Bill 74, the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, MACHES can now be established.
The Ministry of Advanced Education is seeking applications from individuals who are interested in serving as the council chair or as a member. Informed by visionary thinking, stakeholder engagement, and global trends, this council will provide advice and recommendations to the Minister respecting:
Council chair and members will be appointments made through ministerial order for a term of up to three years. Please note that individuals are not eligible for appointment who are serving in the following capacities, or until after a period of at least one year has elapsed since serving as:
The posting, position profile, and application information are available online. Please direct any questions you may have to the contact provided on the Public Agency Secretariat website. Applications must be submitted by January 10, 2022.
We are committed to recruiting local, national, and international expertise, and we will therefore be advertising widely. Please join me in sharing this information with possible candidates who would make an excellent contribution. Together, we will transform Alberta’s post-secondary system to be more responsive to the needs of Albertans and our economy, ensuring current and future generations have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed.
I wish to thank all of you for your ongoing support of the Alberta 2030: Building Skills for Jobs strategy.
Best,
Demetrios Nicolaides
Minister of Advanced Education
I am pleased to share that recruitment is now underway for the new Minister’s Advisory Council on Higher Education and Skills (MACHES). Following the recent proclamation of Bill 74, the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, MACHES can now be established.
The Ministry of Advanced Education is seeking applications from individuals who are interested in serving as the council chair or as a member. Informed by visionary thinking, stakeholder engagement, and global trends, this council will provide advice and recommendations to the Minister respecting:
- the strategic goals and direction of post-secondary education in Alberta;
- metrics for measuring the performance of public post-secondary institutions and independent academic institutions in Alberta; and
- any other matters, as required.
Council chair and members will be appointments made through ministerial order for a term of up to three years. Please note that individuals are not eligible for appointment who are serving in the following capacities, or until after a period of at least one year has elapsed since serving as:
- a member of a board of a public post-secondary institution or of a board of a private post-secondary institution;
- a president or vice-president of a public post-secondary institution or of a private post-secondary institution; or
- an officer or voting member of the executive body of:
- an academic staff association,
- a non-academic staff association,
- a student organization, or
- a bargaining agent representing the employees of a public post-secondary institution or of a private post-secondary institution.
The posting, position profile, and application information are available online. Please direct any questions you may have to the contact provided on the Public Agency Secretariat website. Applications must be submitted by January 10, 2022.
We are committed to recruiting local, national, and international expertise, and we will therefore be advertising widely. Please join me in sharing this information with possible candidates who would make an excellent contribution. Together, we will transform Alberta’s post-secondary system to be more responsive to the needs of Albertans and our economy, ensuring current and future generations have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed.
I wish to thank all of you for your ongoing support of the Alberta 2030: Building Skills for Jobs strategy.
Best,
Demetrios Nicolaides
Minister of Advanced Education
Agreement aims to train more Indigenous physicians, improve health care for six northeastern Alberta First Nations
|
Six northeastern Alberta First Nations have formed a new partnership with the University of Alberta with the aim of training more Indigenous physicians and improving health care for their members.
The memorandum of relational understanding between the university and Tribal Chiefs Ventures Inc., which represents Beaver Lake Cree Nation, Cold Lake First Nation, Frog Lake First Nation, Heart Lake First Nation, Kehewin Cree Nation, and Whitefish Lake First Nation No. 128, was signed today during a virtual ceremony |
Historic memorandum of relational understanding signed between University of Alberta and Tribal Chiefs Ventures Inc.
|
DOORS OPEN TO NEW INDIGENOUS HOUSING IN EDMONTON |
|
BILL 64 2021 PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT
Alberta and Ottawa put $13M into Indigenous housing projects across the province
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/indigenous-housing-projects-alberta-1.5952253
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/indigenous-housing-projects-alberta-1.5952253
Funding for Indigenous-owned housing projects.
alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=7773259958809-BE79-34EC-EC93751F3A76D7E1
alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=7773259958809-BE79-34EC-EC93751F3A76D7E1
|
CONFEDERACY OF TREATY No. 6 FIRST NATIONS WELCOME NEW GRAND CHIEF OKIMAW VERNON WATCHMAKER
Treaty No. 6 Territory – January 7, 2021 The Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations have appointed Okimaw (Chief) Vernon Watchmaker of Kehewin Cree Nation as the next Grand Chief of the Confederacy, succeeding Chief Billy Morin. Watchmaker will continue the many successes under Chief Morin including his urban initiative, as well as, build upon the Protocol with the Province of Alberta. “The First Nations of Treaty No. 6 should be included in resource development so that our youth can gain meaningful employment and ensure prosperity for future generations.” said Okimaw Vernon Watchmaker. “When First Nations are at the table, we can ensure that development occurs respectfully with protections for our traditional lands and waters.” “Okimaw Watchmaker brings a wealth of experience and education. We look forward to working with him and ensuring that our shared visions are realized.” said Okimaw Greg Desjarlais, Chief of the Frog Lake First Nation. Throughout his career, Watchmaker has been Okimaw of the Kehewin Cree Nation and Council member. He has also worked as an analyst, technician and project lead for lands and resources, economic development, education, and the energy sector. He worked as a technician for the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, in lands and consultation. He served as a member of student council at the University of Alberta, and board member at the Bonnyville Friendship Centre. Having a keen interest in youth development, he has coached and organized several youth sports and recreational activities. Okimaw lives in Kehewin with his wife and has eight children and one grandchild. The Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations was created in the Spring of 1993 with the purpose of serving as the United political voice for those Treaty Nations who are signatories of Treaty No. 6 for the continued protection of the fundamental Treaty, Inherent and Human Rights of the Treaty peoples of those Nations. The Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations is dedicated to ensuring that the terms, spirit and intent of Treaty No. 6 are honored and respected. The inherent rights of the Treaty No. 6 First Nations must be honoured and respected. |
|
Spotlight on the Post COVID Indigenous Economy
