Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug

New York Times Take on Free Entry Battle

2008-09-06T10:54:00.001-07:00

Business/Financial Desk; SECTC
In Parts of Canada, Landowners Battle Prospectors
By IAN AUSTEN
1910 words
2 September 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
9
English
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.

SOUTH FRONTENAC, Ontario -- When Peter Griesbach discovered someone had
chopped down trees at his weekend house to make crude posts staking out
a mining claim, he assumed he could rid his land of the uninvited
prospector relatively quickly. He was wrong.

Indeed, seven years later Mr. Griesbach is still campaigning to change
the provincial law that allows anyone who pays the equivalent of $23.50
to dig for pretty much any mineral on private property in much of rural
Ontario.

Historically high mineral prices have set off a new wave of prospecting
in Canada, and with it new battles over mineral laws, some of which
date to the 19th century. Under the so-called free entry system,
effective in much of Ontario, prospectors and miners have had
relatively unfettered access to private land in many areas.

Now, after decades of promises to modify the law from successive
governments, Mr. Griesbach and other landowners may finally find some
measure of relief.

After a highly publicized clash between an Indian tribe and a mining
company this year, which led to the jailing of one native leader,
Ontario's government said it would alter the law by December. But
change is so controversial that even the broad details of any
modification will not be worked out for some time.

British Columbia has had a rise in conflicts between landowners and
prospectors, too, as it experiences a similar mining boom despite
recent legal reforms in that province that have made it harder to
invade private land.

But the controversy has been most intense in Ontario, where it has also
led to increased divisions along economic, regional and class lines.

Many owners of homes and ''cottages,'' as weekend or vacation homes are
known here, as well as farmers and ranchers in southeastern Ontario,
where Mr. Griesbach has his cottage, are not keen to have their trees
chopped down, land dynamited and soil turned over.

But in the vast, and relatively unpopulated, northern part of the
province (where summer homes are usually called ''camps''), many
residents see increased mining as one of the few ways to avoid economic
ruin from the collapse of the pulp and paper industry there. Anything
with the potential to curb mining's expansion will meet with
significant opposition in that region.

Still, even some mining companies have started to feel a bit
embarrassed by the controversy. ''There's a recognition from our
members that private property owners deserve more rights than exist
under the current act,'' said Chris Hodgson, president of the Ontario
Mining Association, which represents large mining companies. ''I have a
lot of empathy for a cottage owner that's discovered someone staking
their property.''

The large mining companies represented by Mr. Hodgson, a former mines
minister, do conduct some exploration work. But most prospecting and
nearly all land conflicts involve small prospectors working on their
own or for tiny mining companies. In Ontario, anyone can become a
prospector provided they are at least 18 years old and have 25 Canadian
dollars, plus tax, to acquire a license.

''Claim staking is actually a pretty lucrative way of putting money
into your pocket,'' said Garry Clark, the executive director of the
Ontario Prospectors Association. But most people in the industry
acknowledge that the chances of any particular claim becoming a mine
are remote.

The promise of becoming rich through a mining discovery is enough for
prospectors, or their clients, to raise money through Canada's venture
markets or private investments, even though such efforts usually end in
disappointment. ''The odds are really against people,'' Mr. Clark said
from his office in Thunder Bay, Ontario, the largest city in the north.
''All we do is take money, not all of it our own, and then we gamble it
on one in 10,000 prospects.''

There are about 5,000 licensed prospectors in Ontario, but Mr. Clark
estimates that only 2,000 people actively engage in the business, and
many spend some of their time plying other trades, such as trapping or
logging.

The one in 10,000 odds apply to staked claims that show evidence of
mineral deposits. Neither Mr. Clark nor anyone else in the industry
could quantify the overall number of staked claims that become mines,
although all agree that they are small.

Canada's constitution does not provide property rights like those under
most American laws. Unlike Canada and many other countries, original
land grants in the United States included both mineral and surface
rights, making the fictional tale of the Clampett family as told in
''The Beverly Hillbillies'' at least legally plausible. While the
mineral rights were sometimes sold by landowners over times, most state
laws place limitations on prospecting.

Over the years, the Canadian provinces have retained various rights to
land they granted to private property owners. On some private land, for
example, the government still owns white pine trees, a law dating from
the era when their timber was valued as naval ships' sailing masts. The
law is no longer enforced.

More commonly, particularly in the north, the government retained all
the mineral rights underneath privately owned land.

Some landowners, mostly in the populous southern and eastern parts of
Ontario, were given both the surface and mineral rights to their
properties, depending on when the land was settled. But in many cases,
the mining rights reverted back to the government after an owner at
some point over the last 150 years or so failed to pay mining as well
as property taxes.

What owners do once they find out the limitations of their rights
varies.

After learning that the prospector had the right to wander around his
cottage and chop down trees, Mr. Griesbach, a real estate appraiser who
lives near Kingston, Ontario, initially responded by taking out his own
prospector's license.

Metal tags on the stakes on his land indicated that they had been
placed of behalf of A. David Houston, the president and chief executive
of Graphite Mountain, a company that was actually controlled by another
of Mr. Houston's firms, Diamond Lake Minerals.

(While incorporated in Utah, Diamond Lake was headquartered at Mr.
Houston's home in Warkworth, a town in eastern Ontario.)

Believing that Mr. Houston had not properly followed all of the
government's staking rules, Mr. Griesbach used his prospector's license
to file a counter claim on his own land. That challenge set off what
became a series of seven hour drives to Sudbury, Ontario, to attend
hearings before the Provincial Mining Recorder.

To further dissuade prospectors, Mr. Griesbach had part of his land
registered as a private firearms range with the federal government and
posted suitably frightening signs saying, in effect, that anyone
wandering on his land was in danger of being shot.

Down the road from Mr. Griesbach, Donald T. Loucks and his wife, Mary,
had also discovered Graphite Mountain's stakes on the lands surrounding
Long Pond Lake which they had gradually acquired over several decades.
The private lake had originally been the couple's summer cottage site
but they built a house and became full-time residents after Mr.
Loucks's retirement from the insurance business in Toronto.

The mining stakes were just the beginning. A woodlands preservation
group backed away from an agreement with the Loucks when it learned
about the mining claim. Shortly afterwards, Graphite Mountain moved
heavy mining equipment onto a claim across the road from the Loucks's
land and began blasting and drilling. For two summers, aerial survey
planes buzzed overhead.

''It was like being under siege,'' said Mrs. Loucks, whose husband died
just over five yearsago.

The situation drew to a legal stalemate and the exploration stopped.
While Graphite Mountain still holds claims in the area, the company
became inactive last September after the death of Mr. Houston.

By contrast, the dispute over a uranium mining claim not far from the
Griesbach and Loucks properties in North Frontenac, Ontario, continues
to escalate.

Frank and Gloria Morrison mounted a different counterattack than Mr.
Griesbach, after stakes from Frontenac Ventures appeared in 2006 on 100
acres of land they had retired to from Ottawa.

Much of Eastern Ontario, including North Frontenac, is the subject of a
complex and longstanding land claim launched by the Algonquin Indian
tribe. The Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, the local branch of the
tribe, soon joined in protests against the uranium mining project after
being contacted by Mr. Morrison.

Frontenac Ventures, a privately held uranium mining company based in
Oakville, Ontario, eventually obtained a court injunction to keep
protesters out of the areas it was exploring. But Bob Lovelace, the
chief negotiator for the Ardoch Algonquins and a lecturer at Queen's
University in Kingston, defied the order. He argued that he was
governed by Algonquin law. That defiance led to a six month jail
sentence and a 25,000 Canadian dollar fine against Mr. Lovelace.

Ultimately Mr. Lovelace served only 102 days in prison before the jail
order and fine were both struck down by an appeals court in a decision,
released in July, that rebuked the trial court for ignoring earlier
rulings related to native land claims. The appeals court also
criticized the current mining act for being ''remarkably sweeping.''

The ruling has not ended the dispute. Nor has it reduced Mr. Morrison's
resolve to block the project, a crusade that, he acknowledged, has
divided him from neighbors, generally lifelong residents of the area,
who see the mine as a potential source of jobs.

''We've got our life savings right here in this land and now it's
worthless,'' said Mr. Morrison, a professional musician and former
employee of the Canadian Police Association. ''I now understand what
makes a person an anarchist and what makes a person break the law.''

Exactly how the government will keep both the prospectors and
landowners happy with its revised mining act is unclear.

Michael Gravelle, the minister of mines, said the bill will only be
drafted following another in a long series of consultations now
underway. Any legislation, he said, will have to contain ''an
appropriate balance'' between landowner and mining interests.

George S. White, the president of Frontenac Ventures, which has spent
about 4 million to 5 million Canadian dollars on its project to date,
said it would be a mistake to limit miners and prospectors,
particularly in the current buoyant minerals market.

''The mining business in Ontario has been the backbone of the economy,
it has served the province well for 150 years,'' he said. ''In a
situation like this, the responsibility is on the landowner to find out
what they bought. We shouldn't be held up to ransom by somebody who
doesn't want mining.''

And although Mr. White has little sympathy for Mr. Morrison in
particular, the two men do share one thing: frustration.

''Had I known that this kind of opposition would develop, I would not
have got involved in the project,'' Mr. White said. ''It's something I
don't think anyone foresaw.''

PHOTOS: Peter Griesbach found trees on his property chopped down to
stake a mining claim. Years later, he is still fighting the
prospector.; A claim stake on Mr. Griesbach's property in Ontario.;
Like Mr. Griesbach, Mary Loucks also found claim stakes on her land.
After a legal wrangle, the exploration stopped. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY IAN
AUSTEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)

CD’s Best of the Web / There Is No Honour in the Crown

2008-09-04T17:09:00.001-07:00

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2008/09/04/2021/

CD’s Best of the Web / Something Is Happening in Indian Country

2008-09-04T15:43:00.001-07:00

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2008/09/04/2018/

Media on Mining Act RdShow, Lovelace Confident Supreme Ct Will Vindicate Decision

2008-08-31T13:51:00.001-07:00

Mining Act

August 29, 2008

THE PROVINCIAL MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINING WAS IN KINGSTON LAST NIGHT TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE UPDATES TO ONTARIO'S MINING ACT.

IT IS THE FOURTH STOP ON A FIVE CITY TOUR.

PROTESTORS CONCERNED ABOUT URANIUM EXPLORATION WERE ALSO THERE.

NEWSWATCH'S DARRYN DAVIS REPORTS.

ONTARIO'S MINING ACT IS OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD AND IN THE OPINION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IT'S TIME TO UPDATE AN OUTDATED SYSTEM.

A LARGE GROUP OF RESIDENTS FROM SHARBOT LAKE ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF THE ARDOCH ALGONQUINS FIRST NATIONS GATHERED AT OUTSIDE THE RADISSON HOTEL WHERE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ON THE MINING ACT ARE BEING HELD.

THEY'RE PROTESTING URANIUM EXPLORATION THAT'S OCCURRING IN THEIR AREA.

BOB LOVELACE SPENT OVER THREE MONTHS IN JAIL FOR PROTESTING WHERE FRONTENAC VENTURES IS EXPLORING FOR URANIUM ON LAND THE ARDOCH ALGONQUINS HAVE AN UNSETTLED LAND DISPUTE ON.

THE MINING EXPLORATION COMPANY IS NOW APPEALING THE DECISION THAT SAW LOVELACE RELEASED FROM PRISON.

BOB LOVELACE

"FRANKLY WE'RE ACTUALLY PLEASED THAT IT'S GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THE APPELLANT COURT DECISIONS WERE SOUND AND THEY REMINDED PEOPLE THAT PUBLIC DECENT AND ABORIGINAL LAW IS A PART OF CANADA AND A PART OF THIS DEMOCRACY."

PROTESTORS SAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORATORIUM ON URANIUM MINING AND EXPLORATION.

WHILE THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKELY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINING SAY THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AS MUCH PUBLIC INPUT AS THEY CAN GET AT THEIR PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETING.

KATHY NOSSICH

"THE MINING ACT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TYPES OF MINERALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORATION SO IF PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT URANIUM EXPLORATION INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THEN WE WELCOME HEARING THOSE CONCERNS."

BUT WILL EXPRESSING THOSE CONCERNS AT THE MEETING HAVE ANY EFFECT?

ROB MATHESON A KINGSTON CITY COUNCILLOR RECENTLY MET WITH THE MINISTER FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINING AT A MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO.

ROB MATHESON

"THE PROVINCE IS GOING AHEAD WITH THEIR NUCLEAR AGENDA SO TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT WHICH I CERTAINLY HOPE THEY'LL RECONSIDER, GIVEN THE AVAILABLE RENEWABLES AVAILABLE THAT WE KNOW CAN WORK THAT IT WOULD BASICALLY BE HYPOCRITICAL TO PUT A MORATORIUM ON URANIUM MINING AT THIS POINT."

THE RESULTS OF OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WILL BECOME MORE CLEAR IN DECEMBER, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS EXPECTED TO TABLE IT'S MODERNIZED MINING ACT.

DARRYN DAVIS CKWS NEWXSWATCH KINGSTON.

Frontenac Applies for Leave to Appeal in S.Ct.

2008-08-27T08:03:00.000-07:00

wonders never cease, wonder who is financing this? Where there is a
junior there is a major in the background.

Proverbs 10:7

The memory of the righteous is a blessing,
but the name of the wicked will rot.

Former Harris MNR Minister Hodgson( of Ipperwash fame) Stakes out Industry Line on Mining Act Change

2008-08-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

((Existing mining tax revenue streams are a miniscule basis for First Nation revenue sharing.Let's hope NAN, tribal council and first nation brain trust has their eyes on the prize,

OMA hypes the 40 agreements with First nations but what do they say?

here's what they say( at the early exploration stage),
first we are sorry that we never thought to notify you( after all it is "free entry) when we flew those airborne surveys, disturbed your traplines and staked your lands,

but now that you have the internet and are even working with enviros and human rights activists and all matter of troublemakers and can read all our promotional nonsense and look at our maps and go online and check out mndm claimsmaps we better meet with you and offer to maybe( no firm promises) employ a few line cutters and drill helpers and an environmental monitor,

respect you if you say no to our project? see you in court.

Pay for your technical and legal advice to review our workplan? not on your life, if you have lawyers where would all the fun be?,

Archaeology? Maybe OK as long as it is not peer reviewed and we can use our tame consultants who write what we say,

Use your hotel and community cooks? better to make an exploration camp far from community view, outside of any oversight by MNR or health authorities and spill our fuel and human waste to our hearts content,

compensation for impacts on your treaty and aboriginal rights? are you kidding this is all low impact,maybe we won't work during the fall and spring hunt if you press us,

joint venture to act on all that partnership talk? what would you bring to the party? your land? We thought you surrendered your land. take up that jurisdiction matter with the government.

we will promise that if we ever find anything on your land we will make another agreement to maybe share some part of our pie
share in the huge run up in our stock values? no, that gravy is for our directors and brokers ))

COMMENTARY; OMA stakes out position on Ontario's boreal plan
Chris Hodgson
1186 words
11 August 2008
Northern Miner
4
English
Copyright 2008 Business Information Group. All Rights Reserved.

--In July, the Ontario government announced plans to bar development in about half of the province's boreal forest. The following is a letter from Ontario Mining Association President Chris Hodgson to OMA member companies that maps out the association's position on the plan.

Recently, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty made an announcement concerning the launch of the Far North Planning Process. A land-use plan for the Far North has been requested by various groups for years and the lead-up to this announcement has taken some time. A fundamental principle of the Ontario Mining Association since its inception in 1920 has been to workproductively with the government of the day and, in keeping with this, we have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue on this issue.

You may recall a memo that was sent on June 21, 2007, outlining the points of concern regarding a proposed Far North Planning Initiative that the OMA discussed with various ministers, members of the civil service and political staff. Since that memo was sent, our discussions with the government have taken on greater depth and, lately, more urgency. But the essentials remain the same. The government is faced with a large task, which requires management of many competing interests. Recent media reports have given rise to mounting expectations for a radical overhaul of the rules around access to land by resource companies. While the OMA supports changes to improve the systems in place, our concern has been that the scope of the initiative not become overwhelming. If that happens, the task would be drawn out and largely unmanageable, resulting in irrational decisions and regulatory uncertainty.

The OMA directors had an opportunity to discuss some of our concerns and proposed messaging at the most recent meeting of the board. Over the last weeks, I have taken this message to various ministers and deputy ministers, the premier's office, as well as members of the environmental community, including the Canadian Boreal Initiative. The purpose of the meetings was to find common ground on a way to approach the complex issues involved in land-use planning in a way that is manageable for the government, environmental non-governmental organizations and the industry. I believe that the premier's announcement reflects some measure of this consensus on key issues for our sector.

Until recently, political statements and media reports were calling for a significant overhaul of the Mining Act. The OMA argued that the inevitably prolonged legislative uncertainty would significantly undermine the investment climate in the province. To retain some sense of certainty, we asked that the re-view process be tightly scoped and conducted over a limited time-frame. The wording of the announcement, as well as follow-up conversations with senior policy advisers at the premier's office, have confirmed that the review process will be focused on dealing with private land issues and aboriginal participation.

The consultation process on the Mining Act review is set to begin in August and proceed on a tight schedule. Given prior discussions on the issues at hand with the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, the Ontario Prospectors Association, and a wide group of stakeholders involved on the Ministers Mining Act Advisory Council, we believe that workable solutions are in sight. Nonetheless, even with the limited scope, we foresee an intense consultation process and we ask that our members offer up their expertise, so that we have a strong presence at the discussion table.

In proposing to protect 50% of the Far North boreal forest, the government has stated that existing land tenure, claims and leases will not be affected. It is also recognizing the fundamental need to strike a balance between conservation and development for the future. This precludes arbitrary selection of protected areas and calls for a rational approach to planning, which is supported with substantive data on the region's biodiversity, carbon sequestration potential, aboriginal cultural heritage, natural resource and mineral potential. Both the OMA and leading environmental groups like the Canadian Boreal Initiative support a rational approach to land-use planning. This is reflected in the government's commitment to comprehensive mapping of the region, which is expected to take 10 to 15 years.

Meanwhile, I urge OMA members to take an active part in the multi-stakeholder discussions on creating a framework for the government plan. Mining has a miniscule footprint on the landscape, but it does depend on broad-based access to land to identify mineral potential at the early exploration stage. I believe that there are useful jurisdictional models, including the Yukon and Northwest Territories, which demonstrate how certain low-risk activities can take place with limited or no screening, while overall stringent environmental protections are maintained.

Modern mining practices stress environmental protection and ecological conservation. There are numerous examples of progressive practices to protect species at risk -- the De Beers Canada woodland caribou study in the Attawapiskat area comes to mind -- in addition to other measures to protect the environment, which we can bring to the table in the interest of working out the best possible land-use plan for the Far North.

The mining industry has done much to develop productive and respectful relationships with aboriginal communities. More than 40 impact benefit agreements have been signed between mining companies and First Nations, providing for employment, infrastructure and economic development. We welcome the move by the government to clarify the rules around consultation with the First Nations. We expect that this will take place as part of the Mining Act review and that a consultation template will be embedded in the revised Act.

The OMA believes that all those impacted by mining activity should benefit from the prosperity that the industry brings. For that reason, we have been recommending that the government create a system of revenue sharing with First Nations communities that support mining as an acceptable land use on their traditional lands and territories. We have proposed that a base fund be established and be supplemented annually from existing mining tax streams. We have stressed that these contributions come from the existing taxes and that no tax rates be increased and no new taxes be added, as this would undermine the competitiveness of the sector. A similar proposal, which takes the OMA position into consideration, has been endorsed by the Ontario Mineral Industry Cluster Council. We welcome the government's plans to provide a down-payment towards Resource Benefit Sharing this fall.

In all, the OMA appreciates the level of access to government decision- makers that we have been granted over an extended period of time and the openness with which our positions on land-use issues and the proposed Mining Act review have been received. Ultimately, I believe that the Ontario government is taking a measured approach to a complex set of issues and we look forward to participating fully in the consultations that will inform the government's decision- making. To be truly effective, we will need significant input by our members, and we welcome your comments, suggestions and participation.

Industry Lines in Mining Act Change Process

2008-08-13T12:48:00.000-07:00

1. Existing Mineral "tenures" will not be Disturbed( no matter the failure to discharge the duty to consult)

2. First Nation Land Use Planning will not Compromise Mineral Potential( consider govt expenditures on programs to map mineral potential and compare them to government programs for first nations)

3.Revenue Sharing Will Not Come out of Industry Profits( or we will take our money and run to some authoritarian state where the military can enforce industry property rights)

same as it ever was
advantaging the advantaged and disadvantaging the disadvantaged

It Happened in S Africa, why not First Nation economic empowerment?

2008-08-13T12:44:00.000-07:00

Black firm gains De Beers stake
South African miner
Black workers are too far down the job ladder, the government says
South Africa diamond giant De Beers has announced the sale of 26% of its mining operations to a black empowerment firm.

The deal represents the biggest change to De Beers' ownership since the company's foundation in 1888.

South Africa's government has embraced black economic empowerment (BEE) as a means of giving economic as well as political power to the black majority.

Critics say the policy has only benefited a small elite of wealthy people close to the ruling ANC.

The deal announced on Tuesday appears to have been designed at least partly to address these concerns.

Not the 'usual suspects'

Ponahalo Investment Holdings, which will acquire a 26% share in De Beers Consolidated Mines (DBCM), will be 50% owned by South African-based De Beers employees and pensioners.

The shareholders include three "broad-based trusts" benefiting disadvantaged women, people with disabilities, and the communities living around DCBM mines.

"Ponahalo wants a qualitative change and, in partnership with De Beers, to bring in the value to make a change in the lives of people," Ponahalo chairman Manne Dipico said.

Mr Dipico is a prominent figure in the governing ANC party, and was formerly premier of Northern Cape province, in which De Beers' flagship Kimberley mining operations are situated.

However, Mr Dipico has not been a prominent player in previous BEE deals.

Speaking after the announcement of the sale, Minerals and Energy Minister Lindiwe Hendricks expressed satisfaction at the plans to bring benefit to communities, and also that the "usual suspects" associated with many previous BEE deals were not involved.

The government has previously accused De Beers of being slow to change.

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is a program launched by the South African government to redress the inequalities of Apartheid by giving previously disadvantaged groups (black Africans, Coloureds and Indians who are SA citizens) economic opportunities previously not available to them. It includes measures such as Employment Equity, skills development, reverse racism, ownership, management, socio-economic development and preferential procurement.
Rationale

After the end of Apartheid in 1994 and with the advent of majority rule, control of big business in both the public and private sectors still rested primarily in the hands of white individuals. According to Statistics South Africa, Whites comprise just under 10% of the population, meaning that most of the country's economy was controlled by a very small minority. BEE is intended to transform the economy to be representative of the demographic make-up of the country.

Early reports from MNDM Consultation in timmins

2008-08-13T12:09:00.001-07:00

((looks like it is all happening too fast for industry, meaning they are afraid, meaning what industry fears is usually engos and first nations making gains, ))

Mining Act meeting held
Posted By KEITH LACEY, OSPREY NEWS NETWORK
Posted 7 hours ago

There were a lot of diverging opinions expressed, but one common theme agreed to by virtually everyone in attendance Monday night was the process to upgrade the province's Mining Act is taking place way too fast.

"We really need a lot more time ... our group was adamant about this," said Mike Gordon, who works for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. He acted as a spokesman following a roundtable discussion as Timmins hosted the first of several Mining Act public consultations Monday at the Howard Johnson Inn.

"This process is happening way too quickly."

The meeting - the only one planned near Timiskaming - was attended by 60 prospectors, developers, mining company representatives, private property owners and citizens at large.

60 Day Consultation for New Mining Act

2008-08-13T11:53:00.000-07:00

Comment Period: 60 days: submissions may be made between August 11, 2008 and October 10, 2008.

Description of Policy:

Ontario is modernizing its Mining Act to ensure that this legislation promotes fair, balanced, sustainable development that benefits all Ontarians.

Consultations will focus on five policy issues: the mineral tenure system, including free entry, and security of investment; Aboriginal rights and interests related to mining development; regulatory processes for exploration activities on Crown land; land use planning in Ontario’s Far North as it relates to mineral exploration and development; and private rights and interests relating to mineral development.
Purpose of Policy:

By modernizing the Mining Act, Ontario will ensure that it has up-to-date mining practices that support this important industrial sector. A modernized Mining Act would also address the need to ensure appropriate consultation and accommodation of First Nation and Métis communities.

Modernization will bring the Mining Act into harmony with the values of today’s society while maintaining a framework that supports the mineral industry’s contribution to Ontario’s economy.
Other Information:

This process supports Premier Dalton McGuinty’s July 14, 2008 Far North Planning announcement.

The modernization process will build on commitments outlined in Ontario’s Mineral Development Strategy, and on input and information received during previous consultations and dialogues – including ongoing discussions regarding an Aboriginal Consultation Approach for Mineral Sector Activities, the EBR-Environmental Registry posting on surface and mineral rights issues, consultations on Ontario’s Mineral Development Strategy and preliminary discussions toward the development of a Growth Plan for Northern Ontario.

Public Consultation:

This proposal has been posted for a 60 day public review and comment period starting August 11, 2008. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by October 10, 2008 to the individual listed under "Contact". Additionally, you may submit your comments on-line.

All comments received prior to October 10, 2008 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 010-4327.

Please Note: All comments and submissions received will become part of the public record. You will not receive a formal response to your comment, however, relevant comments received as part of the public participation process for this proposal will be considered by the decision maker for this proposal.

Other Public Consultation Opportunities:

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will host facilitated public discussion sessions in Timmins (August 11), Sudbury (August 13), Thunder Bay (August 18), Kingston (August 28) and Toronto (September 8). Please visit www.ontario.ca/miningact for more information about the public meetings.

The public may respond to this discussion paper through the Environmental Registry or by emailing MNDM at miningact@ontario.ca. Written submissions may be mailed to MNDM’s office at:

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
99 Wellesley Street West
Room 5630
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1W3

All comments should be sent by October 10. The ministry plans to introduce legislation in the upcoming session and, if it is passed, new rules would be in place for later next year.

The ministry will be reaching out to First Nation and Métis communities for their input through meetings with First Nation and Métis leaders and organizations. In addition, we will provide copies of this discussion paper to all First Nation communities and Aboriginal organizations in the province, then follow up with direct invitations for input. Focused meetings for mineral sector and other stakeholders will be held in appropriate locations throughout Ontario.

For further information on the review and modernization process, please call 1-888-415-9845 or email us at miningact@ontario.ca.

KI on CPAC August 16th

2008-08-13T11:52:00.000-07:00

http://cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3§ion_id=24&temp
late_id=1144&lang=e

Minister Bryant To Address NAN Chiefs Meeting in Constance Lake

2008-08-05T13:48:00.000-07:00

Will he apologize to KI? Tune in to live Wawatay broadcast.

And Mining Act Reform Process Finally Begins

2008-08-05T13:46:00.000-07:00

((First Nations need more than respect, they have have a right to say no and that right needs to be recognized by the Treaty Partner. Note the onus that is placed on companies. Companies didn't pull the trigger at Ipperwash.))

August 05, 2008

Ontario Launches Mining Act Consultations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McGuinty Government Aims To Ensure Balanced, Respectful Legislation

NEWS

The Ontario government is holding a series of public and stakeholder meetings about modernizing the Mining Act.

Facilitated public and stakeholder sessions will be held in Timmins (August 11), Sudbury (August 13), Thunder Bay (August 18), Kingston (August 28) and Toronto (September 8).

These sessions are the first step in a consultation approach that will also include focused discussions with the minerals industry, municipalities and other stakeholders, First Nations and Métis leaders, as well as input from First Nations communities across Ontario. On August 11, a discussion paper will be posted for comment on the Environmental Registry and the ministry's web site.

This process will help ensure that the proposed legislation promotes fair, balanced and sustainable development that benefits all Ontarians. It supports Premier Dalton McGuinty's July 14 announcement that Ontario is going to modernize the way mining companies stake and explore their claims to be more respectful of Aboriginal communities and private land holders.

QUOTES

"A vibrant mining industry adds wealth to our economy and offers tremendous benefits for our communities," said Northern Development and Mines Minister Michael Gravelle. "We want to support that industry with a Mining Act that reflects the values of today's society."

QUICK FACTS

a.. Toronto is the world's mine financing capital. In 2006, more than 80 per cent of the global mining industry's public financings were conducted through the Toronto Stock Exchange.
b.. According to Natural Resources Canada, there are about 1,200 Aboriginal communities within 200 km of 190 producing mines and 2,100 exploration properties across Canada.
c.. The Canadian mining industry was the only industrial sector with average weekly wages above $1,000 in 2006.
LEARN MORE

Read Ontario's Mining Act
Learn about Ontario's Mineral Development Strategy
The work of the ministry's Mines and Minerals Division

Laforme Defends Owen Young after AFN Calls for His Resignation

2008-08-05T13:43:00.000-07:00

THE WORLD AT SIX (EAST) (CBC-R), Toronto, 30 Jul 08, Reach: 528,000, Time: 18:14, Length: 00:02:21, Ref# 10556D0-8

Anchor/Reporters: BILL GILLESPIE / MAUREEN BROSNAN

CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION OF A LAWYER

BARBARA SMITH (CBC-R): Groups representing residential school survivors are calling for the resignation of a lawyer hired by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Assembly of First Nations, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the National Residential School Survivors' Society all say Owen Young is a bad choice.
In March, Young represented the Province of Ontario in a case against aboriginal people opposing mineral exploration. During their sentencing, he urged the judge to impose a financial penalty that hurts. That comment has First Nations leaders saying his presence will taint the work of the commission. Karen Pauls reports.

KAREN PAULS (CBC Reporter): Alvin Fiddler is the Deputy Grand Chief of a group which represents 49 First Nations in Ontario. He says the Truth and Reconciliation Commission should let Owen Young go, to protect its own mandate.

ALVIN FIDDLER (Deputy Grand Chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation): A lot of people, I think, have high hopes, especially those survivors who have waited a long time to tell their story. But I think, you know, based on what's happened, you know, there has to be some... some corrective action taken first.

PAULS: Mike Cachagee agrees. He represents the National Residential School Survivors' Society.

MIKE CACHAGEE (President, National Residential School Survivors' Society): I have a saying, you can't suck and blow at the same time. You can't call from the rooftops about crime and punishment and then say we're going to talk about reconciliation after the fact. I've got a lot of respect for Justice LaForme, you know. But I think of all the counsel that was available in Canada, he could have found someone else who is less contentious.

PAULS: Still, the head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is defending his decision to hire Young as a legal counsel. Justice Harry Laforme says Young's comment is being taken out of context unfairly because for much of his career he has defended aboriginal people.

HARRY LAFORME (Head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission): I would simply say trust my judgement and wait for the results of what we do as a commission because I fought long and hard about the right person for this job. And I believed it was Owen Young.

PAULS: Two weeks ago, the Assembly of First Nations unanimously passed a resolution urging the commission to reconsider its choice. LaForme says he's waiting for a formal request from the AFN before deciding how to respond. Alvin Fiddler hopes Young will take action before then.

FIDDLER: If he's an honourable man and by all accounts he is then do the right thing and step down from the commission.

PAULS: Owen Young could not be reached for comment. Karen Pauls, CBC News, Winnipeg.
*****

WORDS: 458 Transcript Order: 107561 Id: 10556D0-8 Sent: 01 Aug 08 09:24AM

Will Attawapiskat Chief and Council Attend De Beers Victor Mine Opening or Will Community Petition To Review IBA Give Them Pause

2008-07-25T05:02:00.000-07:00

And best wishes on his upcoming retirement to De Beers corporate
warrior Joanathan Fowler. Jonathan goes back to the Monopros( why be
upfront and call your exploration arm De Beers when you can use the
name Monopros) days when he headed up De Beers exploration office in
Thunder Bay. Talk about a hardship post in the city of failure. I
understand, this will be Jonathan's last Attawapiskat party. Jonathan
enjoyed a few happy meetings with KI folk back in the days when De
Beers and Platinex had a collaboration going on community consultation
in KI. De Beers sampled the KI lands but withdrew following the
declaration of the moratorium.

Insiders will recall that De Beers funded the October 2005 meeting
which resulted in Chief Donny Morris saying "what part of No doesn't
Ontario understand" and a moratorium declaration by a number of far
north communities. The De Beers meeting with Far North Chiefs back in
05 set the stage for what followed. Classic unintended consequence.

Conspiracy theorists have floated the idea that De Beers deliberately
provoked the moratorium to "sterilize" the area for competitors. De
Beers are smart ( the Microsoft of mining) but not that smart. Let's
remember a lunatic found the diamonds in the NWT while they were stuck
at Blackwater Lake. Too clever by half.

De Beers to Open Snap Lake, Victor Diamond Mines

De Beers Canada will open the Snap Lake diamond mine July 25, and the
Victor diamond mine July 26. Snap Lake will become the first De Beers
mine outside of southern Africa, employ 560 people, and will have an
annual production rate of 1.4 million carats. Victor will employee 400
people during production and will have an annual production rate of
600,000 carats.

Bad Barrel ( Mining Act/Indian Act) Bad Apples( MNDM, Mining Cos/INAC) and Barrel Makers( McGuinty/Bryant, Strahl and predecessors dating back to Treaty)

2008-07-24T17:50:00.001-07:00

April 06, 2007
Bad Apples, Bad Barrels, Bad Barrel Makers

By Mimikatz

If you know of Philip Zimbardo, it is probably in connection with the
Stanford Prison Experiment, undertaken in 1971. In that experiment,
Zimbardo and others took carefully screened, normal college students
and randomly assigned them to be guards or prisoners in a mock prison
set up in the basement of the Stanford Psych Department. Nothing
happened at first, but after 36 hours the prisoners revolted. The
guards asked Zimbardo what to do. He responded, "It's your prison," but
cautioned them against using violence. After 6 days the situation
became completely out of control, with brutality by the guards and
psychological breakdown among the prisoners. But only when one of his
former graduate students, after seeing what was happening, tearfully
told him she was not sure she wanted to have anything more to do with
him did he decide to stop the experiment.

Fast forward to 2004. Zimbardo became an expert witness in the trial
of Ivan "Chip" Frederick, one of the MPs accused of abuses at Abu
Ghraib, where the Stanford Prison Experiment was in effect replicated
in real life. This gave Zimbardo access to documents, photos and
reports about Abu Ghraib and caused him to ponder the lessons that were
not learned from the Stanford Experiment.

The result is The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn
Evil. In this long, difficult but very informative book Zimbardo
explains both how good people come to do incredibly evil acts but why.
The core of the book is a very detailed description of the Stanford
Experiment, but Zimbardo also looks at situations such as Rwanda and
the Holocaust, along with Abu Ghraib. In a nutshell, Zimbardo argues
that we do not have the stable personalities we often think we have;
our actions are in fact much more dependent on the situations we find
ourselves in. Under the "right" conditions, almost anyone can perform
evil acts. Contrary to the typical medical and legal model, such
things as Abu Ghraib are not the result of a few "bad apples," but
happen because of "bad barrels." As the Stanford Experiment had shown,
combining absolute power, secrecy, lack of clear rules and supervision,
and boredom could create a situation in which pacifists became brutal
guards.

But are "bad barrels" accidental happenings? Zimbardo pushes his
analysis further to ask questions about the "barrel makers" (himself
included) who allow such conditions to exist. Do certain types of
systems encourage "bad barrels?" In the next to last chapter he
essentially puts the Bush Administration on trial for the conditions at
Abu Ghraib.

But if commission of evil acts is at least as much situational as
dispositional (based on the individual personality), what can be done
to resist evil? As Zimbardo shows through his own and his colleagues'
avid participation in the Stanford Experiment until challenged by a
former student, this is a very complex issue. He and all of the other
researchers got sucked into the experiment, as it deteriorated slowly
over time, thrilled at the behavioral changes they were witnessing.
She came in as a substitute on Day 6 when another researcher had to
leave for a family emergency. Moreover, she had become romantically
involved with Zimbardo once she finished her PhD. Coming into the
experiment somewhat unwillingly, suddenly exposed to the degradation
that had built up over days, she was horrified both at what she saw and
at Zimbardo's reaction when she confronted him. (He told her she would
never make a good researcher if she got so emotional.) Ultimately he
realized that she was right, that he and the others had also
internalized the institutional values of the experiment to the
exclusion of their humanitarian values, and he called a halt to the
experiment. (Their relationship survived and they are evidently still
married.)

The implications of this book, especially his observations on what
makes and what prevents situations like Abu Ghraib, and how it relates
to our resistance to the Bush Administration and the evil in our
society, are considerable. Delineating the positive lessons will take
another post. Suffice it to say that no one can look at himself or
herself with quite the same smugness after reading this book.

Why Governmental Change is Slow and Hard

2008-07-24T17:43:00.001-07:00

There are also adverse selection effects; a notorious example is that
individuals who are particularly risk-averse often seek jobs in the
public sector. The result, as economists have long known, is that most
organizations (and especially public sector ones) are excessively
cautious; they take many fewer risks than a rational economic agent
would in similar circumstances.

Northern Miner, Climate Change Sceptics, First Nation Consultation Advocates and Revenue Sharing if Its Revenue Neutral to Industry

2008-07-23T11:13:00.000-07:00

Editorial: Miners need to be wary of Ontario Premier
630 words
23 July 2008
eSource Canada Business News Network
English
Copyright 2008 Business Information Group. All Rights Reserved.

Mid-July saw the surprise announcement by the Ontario government that it would "protect" at least 225,000 sq. km, or roughly half of the province's boreal forest.

The scope of the proposal is broad. It includes: banning economic activity within at least half the province's boreal forest; holding meetings across the province with every conceivable stakeholder to come up with new land-use plans; giving local aboriginal communities veto power over proposed economic activities; revamping the way resource businesses are taxed, including more taxes going to local aboriginal communities; and building up bureaucracies to create and implement land-use plans.

The government also restated its intention to rewrite the province's mining act before 2010, including changing the process for staking and exploration. It starts reviewing the act this August.

Given that you can't trust anything Premier "I-won't-cut-your-taxes-but-I-won't-raise-them-either" McGuinty says, and that his professed environmentalism is driven by pure political expediency, figuring out what this latest proposal means for miners in Ontario is tricky.

On the one hand, McGuinty's shabby treatment of De Beers as it developed Ontario's first diamond mine -- jacking up the royalty rate at the eleventh hour, after construction was well under way -- shows the premier he has no qualms about raiding a mining company's coffers when the political fallout is minimal (after all, few hearts bleed for De Beers).

Of more concern to the little guy, McGuinty's crushing of landowners and developers who tried to fend off his government's creation of the greenbelt around Toronto shows the premier has little regard for basic property rights.

Be forewarned: McGuinty holds the creation of the greenbelt as a model for his boreal forest plan.

On the other hand, it will takes years just to hold discussions with interested parties about how to establish a framework for more discussions.

McGuinty himself says the whole process could take up to 15 years. The thing may never happen.

It looks like much of the seeming haste to come out with this latest boreal-forest proposal is fuelled by the provincial government's larger agenda to boost taxes and increase the size and reach of government by using the global warming hoax as a pretext.

McGuinty is pitching Ontario's boreal forest as a major carbon sink that presumably could be used to the provincial government's benefit during upcoming rounds of carbon-emissions trading it is committing itself to.

It's remarkable that, as more people realize that there isn't a single bit of evidence that human activity is causing dangerous global warming, we see the rhetoric from the theory's proponents is getting more hysterical: in promoting this boreal forest plan, McGuinty is now saying with a straight face that we can expect Ontario to be 8 degrees Celsius warmer within a century.

This kind of foolish talk is another great argument for small government.

More pertinent to the mining industry is the very real revamping of the provincial mining act.

Now is the time for miners to keep up the lobbying for the maintenance of a sensible regulatory regime for mineral exploration and mining in the province.

In particular, the mining industry needs to keep pushing the government to live up to its obligation to consult with aboriginal communities prior to the granting of exploration rights to mining companies, as it so spectacularly failed to do in the messy case of Platinex and the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) First Nation.

We like the idea of local communities getting more of the taxes from resource industries active in the area, but only if it matches simultaneous reductions in provincial taxes.

Former Bryant Advisor Predicts Quiet Revolution in Indian Country, Let's Not Forget that Revolutions Are Made By Revolutionaries and Not Politicians

2008-07-23T11:06:00.000-07:00

Quiet revolution in relations with natives TheStar.com - Opinion - Quiet revolution in relations with natives
July 23, 2008
Douglas Sanderson

[Douglas Sanderson, BA (Hons) (Simon Fraser University) 1998, JD (Toronto) 2003, LLM (Columbia) 2004, hails from the Opaskwayak Cree Nation. In 2004-2005 he was the Senior Policy Advisor to Ontario's Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, the first Aboriginal person to hold that position. From 2005 to 2007, Douglas served as a Senior Policy Advisor, to the Attorney General of Ontario, the Hon. Michael Bryant. Douglas' work as a policy advisor included files on Aboriginal land claims, application of the Powley decision to Ontario's Métis, reform of Ontario's Human Rights complaints system (the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006), and issues related to self governing professions, victims of crime, and brownfields redevelopment. Douglas' current interests relate to the theoretical foundations of Aboriginal law, and a return to first principles as a way of righting historic injustices. In the 2003/2004 academic year, Douglas was a Canada-US Fulbright scholar at Columbia University in the City of New York. Contact: d.Sanderson@utoronto.ca]

On July 14, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced Ontario's intention to protect half of the great northern boreal forest.

At the same time, the premier also announced that any new mining in the North would require the consultation and consent of affected aboriginal people. This news was met with cautious optimism by First Nations, and a surprising degree of acceptance by the Ontario Prospectors Association.

In the past six months, Ontario's First Nations and the mining industry have gone head-to-head in court, with several First Nations leaders being sent to jail for protesting mining companies' attempts to prospect or to test drill on the traditional aboriginal lands.

First Nations people are asserting the right to be consulted – rights that have been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada – and which now require that aboriginal people be involved prior to any government action that could materially affect their aboriginal or treaty rights.

Ontario's Mining Act was passed into law in 1873, and the basic structure of the act remains unchanged. Under the act, prospectors can stake claims on Crown land, and then the prospector registers the claim, thereby earning the right to mine.

However, most crown land in Ontario is also in the traditional land base of First Nations, and so the Mining Act's outdated provisions have collided head-on with a developing jurisprudence on the duty to consult.

As it stands, the Mining Act grants rights to prospectors regardless of whether or not First Nations have been consulted, and the results have played out in Ontario's courts and in fevered protests pitting mining companies against First Nations.

McGuinty intends to change all that by announcing the province's intention to revise the Mining Act. Because the act will affect the aboriginal and treaty rights of Ontario's First Nations, First Nations will have to be consulted.

The act will have to require early consultation with affected First Nations, and so McGuinty's announcement is, essentially, that he intends to revise the Mining Act so it complies with decisions of the nation's highest court. The decision to revise the Act is neither revolutionary nor prescient – it is simply a matter of doing what the law already requires.

Lost in the announcement, however, was the province's intention to create a stream of revenue sharing that would accompany any mining in the North and that will be paid to affected First Nations. The revenue will be paid to First Nations by the province out of licensing and other fees, and not by mining companies themselves.

At the announcement, McGuinty said that the province is already beginning to set aside money for this revenue-sharing scheme – a sign that Ontario is serious.

This, combined with Impact Benefit Agreements – private contracts between resource companies and First Nations to mitigate the environmental impact of development, to require job creation for aboriginal communities, and sometimes oversight of the projects themselves – could provide a much needed influx of jobs, income and stability in Ontario's north country.

It is easy to pan small steps, but it's important to remember it was less than 15 years ago that disputes with Indians in the province were settled the old fashioned way: by the Tactical Response Unit which shot Dudley George to death.

The premier's announcement to revise the Mining Act is a small step forward, not a giant leap, but it is part of a pattern of small steps taken by the premier and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant which together signal that, as between First Nations and the province, we may already be in the midst of a quiet revolution.

Douglas Sanderson is a visiting scholar and fellow in aboriginal law at the University of Toronto.

Platinex remains in Bizarro World( see Superman comics) Platinex "rights" to 57, 400 acres on KI lands are imaginary.

2008-07-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

Platinex Supports Go Green Ontario Initiative

TORONTO, July 18 /CNW/ - Platinex Inc. (TSX.V:PTX) today announced its support for the Ontario Government initiative to create a protected area in the boreal forest north of 51 degrees latitude and provide local First Nations with more capacity to participate in exploration and development of the non-protected portion of the area, as part of Go Green Ontario (www.gogreenontario.ca).

James R Trusler, President and CEO of Platinex Inc. stated, "Platinex holds some 57,400 acres in the McFaulds Lake-Big Trout Lake Belt which is starting to look like a huge nickel, chromium, platinum group element bearing structure. We are one of the larger land holders in the area and providing an environment to allow parties to partner cooperatively is something that Platinex has advocated for a long time. This announcement appears to promise the first step."

About Platinex Inc.

Platinex is a Canadian exploration company based near Toronto. Platinex focuses on carefully selected Platinum Group Element targets in settings analogous to the JM reef (Stillwater Complex, Montana) and the Merensky and UG2 reefs (Bushveld Complex, RSA). Platinex is determined to find platinum sources to be used in the campaign to eliminate the threat of global warming. Shares of Platinex are listed for trading on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol PTX.

To receive Company press releases, please email shirley@chfir.com and mention "Platinex" on the subject line.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS:

Except for statements of historical fact, all statements in this news release - including, without limitation, statements regarding future plans and objectives, are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate; actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements.

THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE HAS NOT REVIEWED AND DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

%SEDAR: 00014019E
-30-

/For further information: Platinex Inc., James R. Trusler, President & CEO, Tel: (905) 727-9046, Email: jim@platinex.com; CHF Investor Relations, Cathy Hume, CEO, Tel: (416) 868-1079 ext. 231, Email: cathy@chfir.com/
,

In Ontario Prospector Fantasy Provincial Land Use Planning Dollars Used to Subsidize Industry Mapping of Mineral Potential

2008-07-21T10:20:00.000-07:00

Garry Clark appears to be suffering from a flashback brought on by follies in his long passed youth. If the OPA think that the Land Use Planning dollars will become yet another Operation Treasure hunt subsidy for the industry they will be sadly mistaken.There is a new reality out there Garry. Have another donut.

Ont. plan to save boreal forest could benefit mining industry
Peter Koven , Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, July 17, 2008

TORONTO - The Ontario government's move to block development of half the province's boreal forest ranks among the biggest land-protection initiatives in recent memory. But in a strange twist, it is also a potential positive for the mining industry.

The details are still hazy, but Premier Dalton McGuinty announced this week that 225,000 square kilometres of the forest would be set aside for tourism and aboriginal use. All industrial development, including logging and mineral exploration, will be banned on the designated land.

Over the next 10 to 15 years, the government will undergo a huge mapping and land-use planning process to identify the places that most need protection.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:

* *
* *
* *
* *

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

In so doing, prospectors are confident they will also find promising mining regions that no one knows about.

"Right now, there's no good mapping in the North outside of some rivers and tributaries," said Garry Clark, executive director of the Ontario Prospectors Association (OPA). "If the government feeds a bunch of data in there and can get us better (drilling) targets, then we're way better off."

He is confident that if the government puts enough money into the initiative, those targets should be found.

"We're not 100 per cent sure they're going to do it properly, so we've got to give it a chance," he said.

All the same, the premier's announcement made some of the mayors of northern mining towns nervous, as they fear any kind of slowdown in activity. Many of them witnessed first-hand the downturn in the forestry sector, which devastated some communities.

But Michael Gravelle, Ontario's minister of northern development and mines, said development should continue at full force. He said all previously approved activities will be allowed to continue, and the amount of land that will remain open for development is still massive.

"It's 225,000 square kilometres, which is one-and-a-half times the size of the Maritimes. It's almost like people don't understand how large the far north 1/8of Ontario 3/8 is," he said in an interview.

Currently, only about three per cent of the boreal area has been staked by prospectors and mining companies, said Chris Hodgson, president of the Ontario Mining Association.

That activity is concentrated in a few large mining camps, especially Sudbury, Timmins and Red Lake. McFauld's Lake (near James Bay) also emerged as a hot area after a discovery by Noront Resources Ltd. last year.

The government is not providing details of what areas will be off-limits to development until the land-use planning process gets underway, and it has a better idea of what needs to be protected.

"In essence, it hasn't been picked. It's 50 per cent, that's it," Gravelle said.

The boreal forest initiative will be introduced along with an overhaul of Ontario's Mining Act, which mining companies and First Nations groups alike have criticized for a lack of clarity.

Why KI Said No

2008-07-19T12:48:00.001-07:00

We nedd a new "development" model.

The Big Questions About Mining and "Resource" Extraction

2008-07-19T12:45:00.001-07:00

worth watching!

Time for Premier to Take A Boat Ride in the Boreal( at KI)

2008-07-19T04:03:00.001-07:00

During a round of disarmament negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, in
1982, American negotiator Paul Nitze and his Soviet counterpart, Yuli
A. Kvitsinsky, went for an informal stroll in the woods. That led to an
arms agreement between the negotiators.
I think it is time for the premier to take Chief Morris up on his offer
of dialogue.No need for fanfare, no press releases, no entourage, just
quietly fly in and get in a boat with the Chief and take a ride and
have a talk. Might be the best political move of his career.

Donny Morris on McGuinty Announcement-Invites Premier to Dialogue-Governent to Government

2008-07-18T15:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.kitchenuhmaykoosib.com/

compelling!

PLATINEX WELCOMES FIRST NATIONS' ADVISOR, CHIEF GLENN NOLAN

2008-07-18T07:39:00.001-07:00

>
>
> PLATINEX WELCOMES FIRST NATIONS' ADVISOR, CHIEF GLENN NOLAN
>
> TORONTO, ONTARIO, July 17, 2008- Platinex Inc. (TSX Venture: PTX)
> today announced that it has
> retained the services of Chief Glenn Nolan to facilitate contact with
> First Nations communities and
> provide a hands on aboriginal perspective for the Company. Chief Nolan
> brings a wealth of knowledge
> and experience to his role as Advisor. Interestingly, during the late
> 1970s and '80s, Chief Nolan worked
> extensively in exploration, conducting geophysical surveys throughout
> Canada, which gives him valuable
> insight into the programs and procedures Platinex aims to employ on
> its properties in cooperation with
> First Nations groups.
>
> Chief Nolan is the elected Chief of the Missanabie Cree First Nation;
> currently serves as the second Vice
> President of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada; and
> is President of Learning
> Together, a nonprofit organization sharing information and experience
> with Aboriginal communities
> across Canada and internationally.
>
> James Trusler, President and CEO of Platinex, stated, "Chief Nolan has
> demonstrated strong leadership in
> both the First Nations community and the mineral exploration industry;
> he is a distinguished addition to
> our Platinex team."
>
> About Platinex Inc.
> Platinex is a Canadian exploration company based near Toronto.
> Platinex focuses on carefully selected
> Platinum Group Element targets in settings analogous to the JM reef
> (Stillwater Complex, Montana) and
> the Merensky and UG2 reefs (Bushveld Complex, RSA). Platinex is
> determined to find platinum sources
> to be used in the campaign to eliminate the threat of global warming.
> Platinex also focuses on
> opportunistic acquisitions in non-PGE projects which show promise of
> near term improvement in value.
> Shares of Platinex are listed for trading on the TSX Venture Exchange
> under the symbol PTX.
>
> For further information please contact:
> Platinex Inc. CHF Investor Relations
> James R. Trusler Cathy Hume
> President & CEO CEO
> Tel: (905) 470-6400 Tel: (416) 868-1079 ext. 231
> Email: jim@platinex.com Email: cathy@chfir.com
>
> To receive Company press releases, please email shirley@chfir.com and
> mention "Platinex News" on the subject line.
> FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS:
> Except for statements of historical fact, all statements in this news
> release - including, without limitation, statements
> regarding future plans and objectives, are forward-looking statements
> that involve various risks and uncertainties.
> There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be
> accurate; actual results and future events could
> differ materially from those anticipated in such statements.
> THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE HAS NOT REVIEWED AND DOES NOT ACCEPT
> RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.
>
> Michael Heintzman
> Media Relations Officer
> Nishnawbe Aski Nation
> 710 Victoria Avenue East
> Thunder Bay, ON P7A 6Y3
> Telephone: (807) 625-4906
> Cell: (807) 621-2790
> Toll Free: (800) 465-9952
> Fax: (807) 623-7730
> Website: www.nan.on.ca
>

Is it Consent or Consultation? Time For Bryant to Be Clear

2008-07-16T10:46:00.000-07:00

Bryant, aka the Harvard Kreskin, knows very well the difference between consultation and consent. Yet he still can't speak to the issue clearly. Is it consent or consultation? And by definition your burials are in your territory.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/461007

Ontario First Nations demand firm right to say 'no' to mining developments

Government's pledge draws skepticism
Jul 16, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (2)
Kerry Gillespie
Queen's Park Bureau

On the day in May that native leader Bob Lovelace was released from jail after spending 100 days there for blocking mining exploration, he was asked if he'd do it again.

He replied: "If you don't have the right to say, 'No,' you have no right at all."

This week, the province has said it's giving First Nations that right through land protection for the Far North and changes to the outdated mining act.

"We think exploration and mine development should only happen when there's been early consultation and accommodation with local aboriginal communities," Premier Dalton McGuinty said Monday when he announced half the province's vast Northern Boreal region would be protected from development.

If native communities "permit" mining on the lands left open to development, they'll "get a piece of the action" under resource revenue sharing agreements that will be part of the reformed mining act, McGuinty said.

But the lawyer for Lovelace, an Ardoch Algonquin, and six members of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI), who were also jailed for opposing mining, isn't so sure the political language will turn into firm commitments when the legislation is introduced in the fall.

"Consultation and accommodation can take many forms," lawyer Chris Reid said in an interview. ``What we've said is make it very simple and clear: No staking, and no exploration without the consent of affected First Nations communities. Are they saying that? Not that I can see in the announcement."

The specific language hasn't been written yet. It will be worked out, in collaboration with First Nations, in the coming months, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant said.

But the intent is to ensure that native people don't go to jail to stop mining, he said.

"We want to avoid that from ever happening again," Bryant said in an interview yesterday. He is to address the Assembly of First Nations meeting today in Quebec City.

Under the Ontario Mining Act of 1873, anyone 18 or older can obtain a prospector's licence and stake mineral claims on land in Ontario. Companies can explore without consulting native communities.

Under the reformed act, "there will be no situation where exploration will take place on traditional territories or sacred burial grounds without the consent of First Nations, without the consultation of First Nations and that is a very, very significant shift," Bryant said.

New Look Chiefs of Ontario Refers to Colonialism and Bay Street Profits in Responding to McGuinty Mining Reform and Cloak of Green

2008-07-16T05:40:00.001-07:00

COO now sounding like 70s lefties.The release has a nice retro
feel.Reminds me of Ed Broadbent or using my way back machine David
Lewis and the corporate welfare bums campaign.

July 15, 2008

ONTARIO REGIONAL CHIEF SUPPORTS PROGRESS TO ADDRESS FIRST NATION
INTERESTS AND THE CONSERVATION OF BOREAL FOREST

July 15, 2008 - Following Premier McGuinty's announcement yesterday to
protect the Northern Boreal region, Ontario Regional Chief Angus
Toulouse stated, "reconciliation and conservation are imperatives for
all peoples of Ontario. I am pleased to see the Premier taking steps in
this direction."

Regional Chief Toulouse commented that the Ipperwash Inquiry report
tabled in May of 2007 continues to point the way forward towards a new
relationship -one that is just, fair and recognizes First Nation rights
and jurisdiction. As Justice Linden said "we are all Treaty people" -
action is required to make this a reality. Such action includes
fulfilling the original understanding of mutual respect and harmony in
the best interests of both First Nations and the newcomers.

Regional Chief Toulouse added "I take the Premier's words to mean that
the evolution of development in this province has to change. This
change must bring to an end development driven solely by colonial
interests and capital gain."

We must all recognize that environmental preservation as well as
justice and recognition are imperatives that must be satisfied prior to
development. We can no longer tolerate the protection of Mother Earth
or the livelihood and well-being of our people taking a back-seat to
profit-margins on Bay Street."

We have much work to do together. The First Nation leadership in
Ontario is ready and able to take on this work. We look forward to
clarifying the challenge and the steps ahead together with the
Government of Ontario.

First Nations have advanced our clear position on the duty to consult
and accommodate as directed by the courts. First Nation leadership have
also set out an agenda to engage with the Government of Ontario on
Treaty implementation, land rights including resource revenue sharing
and revising the Ontario Mining Act, and First Nation jurisdiction and
capacity building through joint governance of the New Relationship
Fund. The Premier's announcement is a positive response to this agenda
and an indication that we can begin this work in a respectful and
action-oriented fashion.

Regional Chief Toulouse concluded stating that "I believe that the
stakes are high for everyone right now. We simply can't afford to keep
going down the same old path. The signs in the environment are clear
and so too are they in our communities. Our people are tired and
frustrated with the lack of progress and of being ignored. We've all
seen that conflict is real and very possible. Only through a broad
commitment including engaging First Nation governments at every step of
the way will we be able to see progress. A commitment to land-use
planning and the requirement of First Nation consent in this process is
a critical first step."

Union of Ontario Indians Adopts Skeptical Tone in Responding To Boreal Protection and Mining Reform Announcement

2008-07-16T05:35:00.000-07:00

Union of Ontario Indians demand consultation with First Nations

Quebec City - First Nations within the Anishinabek Nation welcome the
Government of Ontario's plan to protect Ontario's north and to open up
economic opportunities to First Nations. However, we are greatly
concerned that it will be done in isolation of important treaty
relationships with Ontario First Peoples."

"We welcome any changes to the Ontario Mining Act, but change has to be
done in partnership with First Nations," says Anishinabek Nation Grand
Council Chief John Beaucage. "We want economic sustainability for all
First Nations and for all people in Ontario."

Last week, Grand Council Chief Beaucage met with the Northern
Development and Mines Minister Gravelle and discussed the development
of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) where government and First
Nations would agree on a process to jointly draft legislative changes,
agree upon a development of a joint consultation strategy, and enable
and engagement process with First Nations on a treaty-by-treaty basis.

"This would be the start to a comprehensive treaty-based discussion,"
says Beaucage. "This is a rights-based matter and it is important for
Government to work with our First Nations on a treaty-by-treaty basis."

"Our goal is to ensure these changes enhance the treaty relationships,
clarify the rules and environment for sustainable development," added
Beaucage.

The Grand Council Chief also welcomes a province-wide resource benefit
sharing agreement similar to the $3 billion over 25 years Ontario
Gaming and Lottery Commission agreement ratified in February. However,
there is also a need to develop a resource benefit framework based on
the treaties.

"We cannot continue to be lumped into one homogenous group, even as
First Nations. Our people have unique relationships when it comes to
treaties. The government has unique obligations when it comes to
implementing the treaties. First Nations also have unique needs and
goals when it comes to resource development," said Grand Council Chief
Beaucage. "We strongly encourage the government to come to the table
and work with us on a new, modern treaty implementation framework."

The Anishinabek Nation incorporated the Union of Ontario Indians as its
secretariat in 1949. The UOI is a political advocate for 42 member
First Nations across Ontario.

Blakes Law Firm On Ct. Of Appeal reasons

2008-07-15T15:18:00.001-07:00

August Law Firm Blakes on Implications of Ct of Appeal Frontenac Decision-No More $10 Billion SLAPP Suits by Mining Cos.

2008-07-15T14:31:00.001-07:00

The Court of Appeal made a clear statement in Frontenac that it would
no longer be acceptable for private parties to seek injunctions as a
first response to prevent protest action by First Nations with
legitimate aboriginal rights or land claims and then institute contempt
proceedings against protestors for failure to comply. The Court of
Appeal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's established jurisprudence
and held that there is a duty on the Crown, as well as private parties,
to negotiate with indigenous communities in order to resolve
conflicting interests. Following these decisions, it will be
increasingly important for private stakeholders in Ontario with an
interest in property over which an aboriginal rights claim has been
asserted to be cognizant of, and sensitive to, those indigenous
interests.

Why the Ontario Prospector Association and Mining Industry are Not Worried About the Boreal Announcement

2008-07-15T05:30:00.000-07:00

Garry Clark, Ontario Prospectors chief apple shiner for the junior mining sector says they have staked up all the good ground up North.Sure pal.Enjoy your negotiations with International Nickel Ventures.It's a new day with the hammers McGuinty and co have given Neskantaga.Chris Hodgson of Majors lobby group Ont. Mining Assoc. was not so sanguine.

From todays Toronto Star

" A rush on staking in the Far North won't be a problem, said Garry Clark, executive director of the Ontario Prospectors Association.

"There's no road access. It's either float plane or helicopter access. It would cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to go and randomly stake, and if you don't do any work on it in two years you lose the claims," he said. Besides, the industry has been in a boom in recent years, he said. "If it's good looking rock, we've already staked it."

There are about 6,000 mining stakes in the Northern Boreal region, according to ForestEthics.

Reading the Tea Leaves of the McGuinty Announcement- my comments in ( ) No Protected Areas without First Nation Consent

2008-07-15T04:01:00.001-07:00

1. Ontario will protect at least 225,000 square kilometres of the Far
North Boreal region under its Far North Planning initiative.(this is
more than simply an aspirational goal it is an endpoint).

2. Scientist, First Nation and Métis communities will collaborate to
map and permanently protect an interconnected network of conservation
lands across the Far North. ( As a matter of protocol I would have put
First Nations first to send the right message that this process will be
community led. Metis in the Far North?Huh?)

3.The McGuinty government will work with all northern communities and
resource industries to create a broad plan for sustainable development.
( Key phrase is broad plan, signals a framework agreement with NAN.)

4.As well, local plans will be developed in agreement with First
Nations. ( NAN communities either sign or opt in to larger framework
agreement [referenced above as the broad plan} and then individual
First Nations or groups of First Nations develop local/regional land
use plans. The key phrase here is "in agreement with First Nations". I
read this as with First Nation consent.

5. And new mining development in the Far North would require early
consultation and accommodation with local Aboriginal communities.
( I assume this means beginning at the early exploration stage, likely
post staking. Wondering how this interim measure will be regulated.
MNDM officials in the NAN bilateral could not figure a way to make this
so under current Mining Legislation. I guess Court of Appeal gave them
new insights. If Ontario continues with the positions they have taken
in their policy docs and in court and negotiations with KI on meaning
of consultation and accommodation we could be in for some tough
times.Not all First Nations want simply consultation and accommodation
, many want the right to say no, especially while planning is taking
place.

Comment on Ontario Backgrounder.

A, The Framework Agreement with Scientists, First Nations and Industry.
Later this year, we'll engage with First Nation and Métis communities,
northerners, the resource sector and scientists to create a broad
framework for our plan, which will be completed by the spring of 2009.
( Again Scientists first in the list signaling that scientists will
represent the larger public interest and perhaps be the stalking horses
of the environmentalists. Very ambitious time frame-spring 2009.
Industry( since it is the far North read mining) now gets a seat at the
table.A significant departure from the Ontario-NAN bilateral approach.
First Nations are no longer in a government to government set of
negotiations.

Land Use Planning Process.
B. Each year, a number of communities will complete these local plans.
To ensure proper planning and community input, new forestry and the
opening of new mines in the Far North would require community land use
plans supported by local Aboriginal communities.(Each Year? Pikanagikum
took 5 years I think to complete their plan. The key phrase is "land
use plans supported by local Aboriginal communities." I read this as
requiring community consent. Ontario may read differently.

C. Do the following phrases add up to First Nation consent? I report, you decide.

"a much greater say on the future of their communities and traditional
land"
"Planning at the community level will be a true partnership. Because
any decision on development has the greatest affect on communities,
local planning will only be done in agreement with First Nations."

( Very close. Might be too close to tell the difference given the
phrase "only done in agreement". My only concern is the phrase "a much
greater say". A say is not the right to say no.I give my kid a say, but
then Dad decides.

Comment. It looks very close to a First Nation veto on land use
planning/protection decisions, but no veto on mining exploration simply
consultation and accommodation.Of course there will be a First Nation
veto on a mine. But mines once found by exploration are hard to stop in
the poorest region in Canada.

D. Resource Benefits Sharing

D. We will create a new system of Resource Benefits Sharing and we will
consult with Aboriginal communities immediately on ways to provide
greater economic benefit to Aboriginal communities from resource
development. This fall, we will provide details on a down payment to be
made by the Ontario government towards Resource Benefits Sharing. ( I'm
not too keen on resource benefits as a phrase. But maybe First Nations
get resource revenues, an economic development fund and guaranteed
training and jobs[benefits].The idea of a "down payment" is simply an
act of early good will to get buy in.Once again we have no agreement on
the definition of how much pie will be shared and where the streams of
pie will originate.Government?Industry? Combination of both?
Immediately is a good time frame.Don't want to derail Ontario's last
best economic hope of mining in the face of S.Ontario
deindustrialization and the collapse of the forest industry in Northern
Ontario.

E.Reforming And Modernizing Ontario's Mining Act

Our plan will ensure that mining potential across the province is
developed in a sustainable way that benefits and respects communities.

We will ensure that our mining industry remains strong — but we also
need to modernize the way mining companies stake and explore their
claims to be more respectful of private land owners and Aboriginal
communities. The Ontario government believes exploration and mine
development should only take place following early consultation and
accommodation of Aboriginal communities.

To ensure that mining practices are up to date in the far North and
across the province, we will review the Mining Act.

Consultations will begin early next month. We will introduce
legislation in the upcoming session and new rules would be in place for
later next year.

(Modernize likely means phased in map staking( beginning in S Ont. and
consultation and accommodation with First Nations post staking.I would
say that infringements that trigger aboriginal and treaty rights and
hence legal obligations re consultation and accommodation begin
pre-staking at airborne, but Ontario sees it differently.And as we all
know the legal right to accommodation is not the right to say no and/or
a moratorium while land use planning is ongoing. The problem will be
how to reconcile disputes when no accommodation agreement is arrived at
with the First Nation. Likely Ontario will stay the course and put the
onus on the companies re consultation(only companies understand their
projects and can explain them to communities is the rationale for
making industry the pointy end of the consultation spear). Ontario will
try to make industry pay for the cost of consultation and compel them
to deliver the jobs, training and benefits of accommodation to
communities. And all this needs to get done by December 2009.Time to
start those First Nation line cutting companies.

NAN, Give Us Right Revenue Sharing Deal, Community Planning and Compulsory IBAs and Were In

2008-07-14T14:01:00.000-07:00

The ONLY Measuring Stick of the Land Use Planning and Mining Reform Announcement-First Nation Consent

2008-07-14T13:46:00.001-07:00

We need ask ourselves only one question: Do activities on the land (
mining exploration, land use planning, mines, hydro corridors) require
the free, prior and informed consent of the First Nations?

If yes under the McGuinty offer then all is well.If no, no justice and
no peace in Treaty No. 9.

Nothing less will do. Jurisdiction and Self government.

First Nations must be masters in their own house. And until then they
will not rest.

NAN-uvut!

BackGrounder on McGuinty Land Use Planning Mining Reform Announcement

2008-07-14T12:26:00.001-07:00

BACKGROUNDER
Office of the Premier

PROTECTING A NORTHERN BOREAL REGION ONE-AND-A-HALF TIMES THE SIZE OF THE MARITIMES

Ontario Fights Climate Change By Protecting Carbon-Absorbing Forests
July 14, 2008

Ontario’s Far North Boreal Forest is one of the last, great, undeveloped spaces on the planet and a vital carbon sink. The forests and peat lands in the Far North store about 97 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and absorb around 12.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
It is also one of the world’s largest intact ecosystems. The Northern Boreal region contains more than 200 sensitive species of animals — including polar bears, wolverines and caribou — as well as many species of migratory birds.
Although it is 43 per cent of Ontario’s landmass, the region is home to just 24,000 people living in 36 communities. Most of these people are First Nations, living in remote communities far beyond the end of Ontario’s road and infrastructure network.
The Far North Boreal Forest has remained virtually undisturbed by humans since the glaciers retreated. But as pressure for new resources and new places to live increases, that will likely change. We need to take this opportunity to guide and plan for that development. It is our responsibility as global citizens.
We will only get one chance to get this right.
That’s why the Ontario government is launching a Far North Planning Process —bringing together various experts and groups to create a plan for the Northern Boreal Forest.

What is Being Protected?

Scientists have said that in order to preserve a healthy ecosystem in the Far North, a minimum of half of the land be protected while allowing carefully managed sustainable development in remaining lands.
The Ontario government will be protecting more than 225,000 square kms — or more than half of the Northern Boreal lands — in an interconnected network of conservation lands. Priority will be given to protect lands with key ecological features such as habitat for endangered species or important carbon sinks. These lands will be permanently protected through the Far North planning process. Activity on these lands will be restricted to tourism and traditional Aboriginal uses.
Preserving these lands also protects the core cultural connection of the Aboriginal people who live there — their connection to the land, clean water and abundant hunting and fishing.

How Will The Plan Be Developed?

Our goal is to strike the right balance between conservation and development.
Later this year, we’ll engage with First Nation and Métis communities, northerners, the resource sector and scientists to create a broad framework for our plan, which will be completed by the spring of 2009.
At the same time, we will also work with individual Aboriginal communities to begin a local land-use planning process. Each year, a number of communities will complete these local plans. To ensure proper planning and community input, new forestry and the opening of new mines in the Far North would require community land use plans supported by local Aboriginal communities.
To support this planning, the Ontario Government is undertaking scientific mapping of the region’s biodiversity, carbon sequestration potential, Aboriginal cultural heritage and mineral and natural resource potential.
The entire process will be completed in the next 10-15 years.

A New Role For First Nations In The Far North

This planning process for the Far North will enshrine a new respect and working relationship with First Nations. In addition to a much greater say on the future of their communities and traditional lands, the process also creates opportunities for economic development in these remote communities.
Planning at the community level will be a true partnership. Because any decision on development has the greatest affect on communities, local planning will only be done in agreement with First Nations.

Resource Benefits Sharing

We will create a new system of Resource Benefits Sharing and we will consult with Aboriginal communities immediately on ways to provide greater economic benefit to Aboriginal communities from resource development. This fall, we will provide details on a down payment to be made by the Ontario government towards Resource Benefits Sharing.

Reforming And Modernizing Ontario’s Mining Act

Our plan will ensure that mining potential across the province is developed in a sustainable way that benefits and respects communities.
We will ensure that our mining industry remains strong — but we also need to modernize the way mining companies stake and explore their claims to be more respectful of private land owners and Aboriginal communities. The Ontario government believes exploration and mine development should only take place following early consultation and accommodation of Aboriginal communities.
To ensure that mining practices are up to date in the far North and across the province, we will review the Mining Act. Consultations will begin early next month. We will introduce legislation in the upcoming session and new rules would be in place for later next year.

Premier’s Media Office: 416-314-8975
ontario.ca/premier-news
Disponible en français

Ontario's Announcement on Protection/Mining Reform

2008-07-14T11:34:00.000-07:00

Framing. Headline is all about forest protection.The 50% protection target( and it is only a target to be achieved 2 elections or so from now.) is direct from ENGO community( 50 % goes back to ecological biologist Michael Soule[google him]).

Appears to be primarily an environmental announcement.Political audience is the ENGO community and S. Ontario supporters and secondarily a recognition that achieving these protection goals will require First Nation buy in/and or consent via land use planning and on accommodation( read deals ) at the early exploration stage.
Significant that the announcement was made in Toronto and not on Premier's northern Ontario road show.

Announcement made by McGuinty and not Bryant, Gravelle or Cansfield. King has decided.Bryant and co will now act on King's wishes.

Questions.

1. Did anyone in First Nations leadership have a heads up or role in the announcement? Appears Not.
2. What will Ontario's role be in consultation and accommodation at the early exploration stage?
3.Who will fund consultation and accommodation talks?Industry in a user pays model?
4.Say communities 1-7 undertake planning and protect only 20%.Will other communities have to protect more than 50% to get to the 50% target?Or will 50% be imposed on an area and planning will be about how to get to the 50% goal?
5.What happens as in Platinex vs KI case when consultation and accommodation talks break down?Who will be the referee? Courts?Jails?

Postives.No new mines without First Nation consent[call them the De Beers principles].Hearing compulsory revenue sharing of new mines with First Nations. Consent means an impact and benefit agreement with company.

Weak positives. Compulsory consultation and accommodation in early exploration satge .I hear post staking. The First Nation demand is right to say no. Or free, prior( read prior to creating legal interest via staking or impacts via airborne surveys pre-staking), informed consent.Revenue sharing may be easy for Ontario if the pie to shared is only corporate pie and not government pie.

King McGuinty had guts to make the announcement. Shows leadership, even if I disagree with hsi methods.Profs to him.
Likely McGuinty expects some negative comment from mining( although they will like the certainty) and first nation folks which will affirm that he pissed both off and therefore made the right decision.

Finally Mining Act review has a start date.

Negatives. No prior agreement by Chiefs to overall protection goal, not to mention cultural gap on understandings re definition of a park.First Nations often see Parks as some kind of European fantasy not in accord with their land ethic.
No First nation right to say no, just right to consult and accommodate.
No respect/recognition for community moratoriums.
Leaves Northern Table with NAN bypassed.

This is a long road.The devil really will be in details.

Ontario's Definition of Consultation

2008-07-13T13:11:00.001-07:00

Consult: To seek approval for a course of action already decided upon.
Ambrose Bierce

Jesus - Master Legal Tactician-from the teachings of Walter Wink

2008-07-12T14:53:00.001-07:00

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if
anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if
anyone wants to sue you and take your outer garment, give your
undergarment as well; and if one of the occupation troops forces you to
carry his pack one mile, go two" (Matthew 5:38-41).

Jesus' second example deals with indebtedness, the most onerous social
problem in first century Palestine. The wealthy of the Empire sought
ways to avoid taxes. The best way was to buy land on the fringes of the
Empire. But the poor didn't want to sell. So the rich jacked up
interest rates—25 to 250 percent. When the poor couldn't repay, first
their moveable property was seized, then their lands, and finally the
very clothes on their backs. Scripture allowed the destitute to sleep
in their long robes, but they had to surrender them by day (Deuteronomy
24:10-13).

It is to that situation that Jesus speaks. Look, he says, you can't win
when they take you to court. But here is something you can do: when
they demand your outer garment, give your undergarment as well. That
was all they wore. The poor man is stark naked! And in Israel,
nakedness brought shame, not on the naked party, but on the one viewing
his nakedness. (See the story of Noah, Genesis 9.) Jesus is not asking
those already defrauded of their possessions to submit to further
indignity. He is enjoining them to guerrilla theater.

Imagine the debtor walking out of the court in his altogethers. To the
question what happened, he responds, That creditor got all my clothes.
People come pouring out of the streets and alleys and join the little
procession to his home. It will be a while before creditors in that
village take a poor man to court! But, of course, the Powers That Be
are shrewd, and within weeks new laws will be in place making nakedness
in court punishable by fines or incarceration. So the poor need to keep
inventing new forms of resistance. Jesus is advocating a kind of
Aikido, where the momentum of the oppressor is used to throw the
oppressor and make him the laughing stock of the community. Jesus is
not averse to using shame to kindle a moral sense in the creditor.

Platinex Continues to Diss KI As it seeks access in other Treaty No. 9 areas-Dumb and Dumber

2008-07-12T13:13:00.001-07:00

PTX Platinex focuses on Shiningtree, McFaulds South
Stockwatch
265 words
11 July 2008
Canada Stockwatch
English
(c) 2008 Canjex Publishing Ltd.

Platinex Inc (TSX-V:PTX)

Shares Issued 25,891,548

Last Close 7/10/2008 $0.22

Friday July 11 2008 - News Release

Mr. James Trusler reports

PLATINEX UPDATE

After unparalleled efforts to gain access to the Big Trout Lake
property were not met with the needed co-operation of KI, Platinex Inc.
management decided that diversification into other properties was
necessary. Commencing in late February, Platinex staked seven very
prospective platinum group element properties and optioned one gold
property. Further details can be found on the newly revamped Platinex
website.

Reports for the various properties are being prepared and will be
published shortly.

Recently a suit was brought against the Ontario government for its role
in causing damages to Platinex and its shareholders during the
continuing legal issues at Big Trout Lake. Some background for this is
provided in the company's recent management's discussion and analysis
and an article in the First Nations Yearbook, an aboriginal journal;
both can be found on the company's website.

The company's efforts going forward in the near term will stress
pursuit of exploration on the Shining Tree gold property, which is
located on several former gold developments, and the McFaulds South
property near the recent Noront discoveries. The company's approaches
to first nations bands in and around these new properties have been
very encouraging and the company believes it will receive much support
from local first nations going forward.

Please visit the company's website for press release information and
details about its new properties.

Document CNSW000020080711e47b007sq

Why MNDM Are Resisting Change-A Story of True Believers and Soft Racism

2008-07-11T18:33:00.001-07:00

I think we can divide MNDM into roughly 3 groups. First there are what
I would call true believers — people who
identify with the values of the mining industry, who likely are "soft
racists" and cannot imagine a world without free entry or on the flip
side First Nation self government. Then there is a larger middle group
that basically adopt what we would call "standard operating procedures"
— they do what they are asked and do not confront authority. At the
other end of the spectrum is a smaller group that support change in the
direction of recognizing and respecting aboriginal and treaty rights
and ending free entry.

I think that the true believers actively seek opportunities to
advocate for free entry and mining as the one true faith and take every
opportunity to frustrate any change that First Nations might be
seeking. I think that as people behave, they often adapt their belief
to that behavior.

I think you also have a number of people who act out of their
conception of what it means to be a good bureaucrat, what their duty is
as
officials administering a piece of legislation that is more about the
industry's good than any notion of the larger public interest. As the
controversy over mining grows they may now conceive of themselves as at
war with a world of First Nation, environmentalist and do gooder
enemies and maybe even other Ministries encircling them. Some, I think,
they go along with their true believer colleagues basically because
they are simply afraid to confront authority, afraid to be seen as
cowards, afraid to look soft and weak in the boys club that is MNDM.

We have to ask ourselves: How much is racism; traditional soft racism (
people who exhibit muted social antagonism, contempt, subscribe to
beliefs of inferiority and likely are quick to default into biological
explanations), as an
explanation of the motivation for their hostility to change?

In the true believers I think we have some examples of deep hostility
and pervasive racism. But of course that could be said of many in
Canadian society and is not certainly unique to MNDM.

For me it is interesting how a bureaucracy led by true believers can
control government policy in which the bulk of bureuacrats are not
fanatical racists and barking mad mining promoters , but the resistance
to change takes place anyway. This is a much more
dangerous world, and a much more pessimistic view of the possibilities
for change.

The other explanation for MNDM resistance to change would go something
like this.

The MNDM agenda is a by-product of a commodity boom and a declining
Ontario heartland. What the MNDM really wants to do is to simply create
more mining exploration and mines in Ontario's far north and First
Nations are standing in the way of this.

Likely the "truth" is a mixture of both.

Nonetheless we have a ministry dominated by a free market set of ideas
in which the
First Nations are identified with all sorts of non- market values that
threaten an aggressive industry and bureaucracy —
reverence for the land, respect for elders and tradition , family and
community, a rejection of money before all else- and ultimately some
control over industry access to land. These values are all identified
with
First Nations, and the First Nations become the concrete symbol for
all the values
industry and MNDM don't like.I think there is no denying that racism
plays a part in this story as well.

Our hope in government is in the middle[ I know it's a weak hope]. There is no doubt that the KI
events have humiliated the MNDM true believers.
But humiliation often leads to rage. And suppressed rage can be ugly.
Our best hope now is the middle represented by officials in MNR,
Aboriginal affairs{unlikely but possible] and MOE.

Let's imagine that somewhere in the McGuinty government thinking
people will get over their fear and do the right thing.
Otherwise 40 years from now this generation of MNDM officials will be
the subject of their own truth and reconciliation hearings.

Not Here, Not Now, Not Without Our Consent, When Will Ontario Step Up to the Plate? Jailing KI Leadership and Bob Lovelace Was the Turning Point

2008-07-10T05:29:00.001-07:00

Erasmus has the 3 nots correct.But I am a little worried at the "buy in" to the need for industry secrecy-one of the main rationales of the current free entry.

The subtle point here is on talking[read consultation] "before mineral claims are made." If that were law, free entry would be at an end.
Of course we want more than talk. And we want to talk to the Crown and not to the companies. We want the right to say no [not here, not now(we need to plan, we need to build capacity, we need to resolve our land claims] and not without our consent.

The problem with all these protocols, AFN, NAN bilateral etc is that they are built on the premise that issues arising from the politics of the three nots have been resolved.

And they help build a false division between so-called pro-development and anti-development First Nations.

Often communities facing the twin challenges arising from the failure of the Crown to actually implement the Treaties and the costs of litigation simply make agreements.

That is not to say that these "open for business " communities disagree with the the politics of the 3 nots. For them a deal represents consent.

The limitations of these AFN style protocols become clear when we have the Temex's or other junior miners who say no deal when all around them their competitors are making agreements with communities.

There is some honesty in this article on the flak the AFN is taking, from KI( and even from some mebers of the NAN executive) for appearing to promote mining as a last best hope for First Nations.Personally I think the National Chief is making a mistake on the roles and responsibilities of the AFN.But then again the era of federally funded First Nation advocacy organizations is waning. The AFN can read the cards and are searching for a new identity.

But this time the AFN are looking for love in all the wrong places.

Recent deal aimed at ending clashes between mining industry, aboriginals

13 hours ago

FORT MCPHERSON, N.W.T. — Miners and aboriginals have been on opposite
sides for long enough, says the grand chief of the Assembly of First
Nations.

Phil Fontaine was at the Dene National Assembly on Wednesday pushing a
recent deal with the mining industry that he hopes will end clashes
that have seen aboriginal leaders jailed and prospectors forbidden to
explore land on which they hold legitimate claims.

"We wanted to ensure that if development was going to take place, it
would take place in an orderly manner and the companies interested in
development were respectful of First Nations," he said from Fort
McPherson, N.W.T., where the assembly is taking place.

Conflicts over land use have upset both aboriginals and mining
interests in recent months.

Seven northern Ontario aboriginal leaders served almost 10 weeks in
jail after protesting resource exploration on their traditional lands.
In the Northwest Territories, uranium prospectors have been frustrated
by regulatory decisions that cited aboriginal concerns in blocking
low-impact drilling on land that had been legitimately staked.

In March, the AFN and the Prospectors and Developers Association of
Canada signed an agreement intended to get the two parties talking
before any conflicts occur.

"The protocol talks about respecting community people's view of the
world," said Bill Erasmus, the assembly's regional chief in the N.W.T.
"It talks about consultation. It talks about improving relations."

It also talks about certainty of access.

The agreement says both sides "recognize that access to lands for
mineral exploration is critical to sustaining a healthy mining industry
in Canada."

The key will be to get companies and First Nations talking before
mineral claims are made. Right now, companies don't have to consult
with a band when staking ground, even if that land is considered
traditional territory.

"Some of our people have land-use plans," said Erasmus. "Some areas
they may not want to develop because they're sacred sites. Other sites
are different."

Miners just want to know the rules - and be assured their plans won't
be available to competitors before the rights to an area are locked up.

"We do have to see a system where a company cannot be scooped," said
association past-president Bill Mercer, who spoke at the assembly.

"The key objective is to put in place better consultation."

Fontaine said the AFN believes that resource extraction is one of the
few economic cards many remote bands - especially those in the North -
have to play. Any plans to develop self-supporting economies in those
communities have to include the mining industry.

Not everyone agrees, he acknowledged.

"There are some First Nations communities that are not entirely happy
we have signed this agreement."

The agreement mentions business partnerships, investments, education
and employment, but it contains no binding targets or timetables.

"The (agreement) is more a commitment of goodwill and determination to
do right," said Fontaine.

More open lines of communication are the agreement's main goal, said
Mercer.

"One of the key things is to develop better methods to work together.
The smarter companies right now will be talking to the communities
earlier."

- By Bob Weber in Edmonton

Globe and Mail Says Change the Mining Act

2008-07-09T05:03:00.000-07:00

MINING AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Taking a respectful view of contempt

July 9, 2008

Ontario's highest court has reduced to nothing the 60-day contempt
sentences imposed on Queen's University professor Robert Lovelace and
six other native protesters in Eastern Ontario, and cut their
substantial fines nearly to nothing. Although the decision comes too
late in some ways - Mr. Lovelace had already served 14 weeks, and the
others 10 weeks - it points to a humane and sensible approach in
difficult circumstances. The rule of law is not merely a hammer to be
wielded by the courts in an automatic or reflexive way.

Some will criticize the decision for offering a separate standard of
justice for native offenders, and to the extent that the court offered
as a rationale the Criminal Code's separate sentencing clause for
natives, that criticism is justified. But there was a good reason
beyond nativeness in and of itself to support the ruling's thrust. The
initial sentence of 60 days and fines of $10,000 to $25,000 was too
harsh.

Ontario has a mining law that virtually invites aboriginal protests.
Though the province is asking Michael Bryant to oversee a Native
Affairs Ministry that will address legitimate native concerns, it
allows mining companies to stake claims on and explore lands in which
native groups have made unresolved claims. The Court of Appeal clearly
doesn't like this "remarkably sweeping law." It pointed out that, while
Frontenac Ventures Corp., the mining company, acted within the law, the
response of Mr. Lovelace and the others was "grounded, at a minimum, in
a respectable interpretation" of the aboriginal-rights clause of the
Canadian Constitution. The court, of course, needs to apply the law,
but it needs to use some wisdom in sentencing. Jailing Mr. Lovelace and
other community leaders simply emphasized "the gulf between the
dominant culture's sense of justice and [the Ardoch] First Nation's
sense of justice." That won't help spread respect for the rule of law
in that community.

Those who engage in civil disobedience should expect to pay a penalty,
and the court does not recommend impunity. What it did was find some
nuance in a situation that seems not to allow for much. Reasonably, it
said the rule of law includes respect for minority rights and
reconciliation of aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests through
negotiations. Given a deeply rooted conflict, the protesters' lack of
criminal records and their history of community "leadership in
demonstrating respect for Canadian law," the appeal court was willing
virtually to cancel the sentence (it ordered a $1,000 fine against Mr.
Lovelace). That seems reasonable.
Print Edition - Section Front

Mr. Lovelace's acts in ignoring a court injunction barring his protests
were deserving of rebuke. But he is no Shawn Brant, the self-appointed
disrupter who cloaks criminal acts as civil disobedience with blockades
of railway lines.

In these circumstances, the appeal court suggests it is unwilling to
act as a tough enforcer. The Ontario government should take the hint
and change the mining law.

Sudbury Star Editorial-Now What

2008-07-09T05:00:00.001-07:00

Editorial

* Home
* News
* Editorial
* Jail didn't work

Jail didn't work
now what? OUR OPINION
Posted -48 sec ago

Back in March, we said in this space that throwing aboriginal leaders
in jail for protesting mining exploration on their traditional lands
wouldn't work.

It hasn't. The native leaders spent weeks in jail and were eventually
freed by the Ontario Court of Appeal, drilling on the lands in question
has not resumed, and on the same day the appeal court's decision was
released, members of the Six Nations band near Brantford -- backed for
the first time by leaders of the Confederacy (the traditional band
council) -- swarmed construction projects on claimed land near the
Grand River, bringing private construction to a halt.

All that has changed as a result of jail terms, is a demonstration of
the ineffectiveness of the courts to solve issues that arise when
natives' desire to protect their traditional lands collides with
private interests to develop or exploit those lands.

Earlier this year, six members of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI)
First Nation near Thunder Bay and two members of the Ardoch Algonquin
First Nation in eastern Ontario were jailed for 10 and 14 weeks
respectively -- they were given six months terms -- when they protested
private companies' activities on their traditional lands (though not
reserve lands). The companies involved -- junior mining company
Platinex Inc. in KI's case and Frontenac Ventures in Ardoch Algonquin's
dispute -- felt they had the law on their side. Maybe so, but battering
aboriginals with jail terms in an attempt to address what governments
won't is a recipe for failure.

In fact, that's pretty much what the appeals court said. The panel of
three judges decried the decision to "bring down the hammer" on native
bands that had already been subject to huge bills by the legal process.
The panel said jailing native leaders emphasized the "estrangement of
aboriginal peoples from the Canadian justice system."

Aboriginals' right to protest "cannot simply be dismissed as illusory,
flawed or weak," the panel said. "Imprisonment, far from being a
meaningful sanction for the community, had the effect of pitting the
community against the justice system."

The appeals court also dismissed thousands of dollars in fines against
the protesters.

To their credit, Northern Development and Mines Minister Michael
Gravelle and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant agreed with the
appeals court decision.

Said Bryant: "The jailing was a black cloud hanging over everything,
and not just KI and not just for (Ardoch) Chief (Bob) Lovelace, but all
across the province and arguably across the country."

True enough. Jailing aboriginals was never going to stop demonstrations
and protests, unless the province was willing to fill the jails.

But what happens next? The black cloud remains, and it's not moving,
not even with legal injunctions.

Joint KI/Ardoch Statement on Ct of Appeal Reasons

2008-07-07T14:27:00.001-07:00

For Immediate Release - July 7, 2008

Court of Appeal Calls on Ontario to Negotiate with KI and Ardoch

On February 15, 2008, Robert Lovelace, retired Chief of the Ardoch
Algonquin First Nation, was sentenced to six months in a maximum
security prison. His crime? He had declared that he could not obey a
court order which banned peaceful protest against uranium exploration
on his community's territory in eastern Ontario, because he must obey
Algonquin law which forbids uranium mining and exploration. The
government of Ontario had approved the exploration in 2006 without any
consultation with the Ardoch Algonquins and without any regard for the
sensitive ecology of the area.

On March 17, Chief Donny Morris and five other leaders of the
Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) received a similar six month sentence
in a very similar case. In KI's case Ontario had also approved the
staking and exploration of land which KI says is part of its
traditional territory, and which should not be subjected to the
environmental impacts of mining. The six KI leaders: Chief Morris,
Dpty. Chief Jack McKay, Spokesperson Sam McKay, Councilors Cecilia Begg
and Daryl Sainnawap and Bruce Sakakeep – became known as the "KI Six".
Like the Ardoch Algonquins, they had refused to obey a court order
prohibiting them from interfering with mining in their territory.

In both cases, Ontario's Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Michael
Bryant, instructed Ontario's lawyers to support the mining companies in
seeking the harshest possible punishment for our "disobedience" of
Ontario's laws. The government made it clear at every step of the
legal proceedings that their only priority is to support the 19th
century Mining Act which states that mining is always the best use of
land, and any peaceful protesters who oppose mining should expect jail
and crippling fines.

The incarceration of seven respected community leaders for peacefully
obeying their own laws and resisting the destruction of their
territories led to an outpouring of support for KI and Ardoch and calls
from environmental groups, unions, churches and community activists to
reform the outdated Mining Act to allow communities to say 'no' to
mining. The support culminated in a rally at Queen's Park on May 26,
followed by a four-day "sovereignty sleep-over" at the legislature.

On May 28, an appeal of our sentences was heard by the Ontario Court of
Appeal. The Court ordered the immediate release of Bob Lovelace and
the KI Six, but did not release the reasons for their decision until
today.

In today's ruling the Court of Appeal said that the outdated Mining Act
"lies at the heart of this case".
The Court called the Act "a remarkably sweeping law" which allows
prospectors to stake claims on any Crown land, and which allows no role
for communities in deciding whether mineral exploration occurs in their
territories, even when they have unsettled land claims to those areas.

The Court noted that both KI and Ardoch had consistently asked the
government of Ontario to engage in direct negotiations with them to
resolve these disputes rather than supporting the mining companies'
efforts to obtain injunctions and then have community leaders jailed
for refusing to obey the injunctions. The Court said:

"Where a requested injunction is intended to create 'a protest-free
zone' for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal
or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the
context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully
discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations. The
court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to
obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it.
Good faith on both sides is required in this process"

Said Bob Lovelace, "We feel fully vindicated in the position we have
taken and remain committed to our position that there will be no
mineral exploration within the territories of KI or Ardoch without our
consent. Our laws, which require respect for the land, are entitled to
at least as much respect as Ontario's Mining Act. We remain open to
dialogue, but Ontario has never responded to our proposals for
negotiations. We want negotiations, not conflict, but we will enforce
our laws and protect our land."

KI Spokesperson Sam McKay added: "The decision of the Court of Appeal
proves that we went to jail because of the stubborn refusal of the
provincial government to respect our laws and our perspective on
development within our territories. The Premier of Ontario owes an
apology to the people of KI and Ardoch, especially to those of us who
were jailed for opposing an outdated and immoral law. A sincere
apology would begin a process of healing and reconciliation."

Background Legal Issues

To encourage mining and exploration, Ontario's Mining Act is based on a
"free entry" system, which means that all Crown lands, including those
subject to Aboriginal title claims, are open for staking, exploration
and mining without any consultation or permitting required. Anyone
with a prospector's license may stake claims and prospect for minerals
on any Crown land. Once a claim has been staked the Mining Recorder
"shall" record the claims. There is no opportunity or requirement for
consultations with affected First Nation communities. Once a claim is
recorded, the prospector can conduct exploratory drilling without any
more permits being required.

It is also important to realize that in the 2004 Haida case, the
Supreme Court made it clear that First Nations which have asserted
rights claims or land claims, but have not yet proven their claims,
must be consulted and accommodated, but they cannot "veto" development
on disputed land. Consultations and accommodation can include measures
to mitigate the impacts of the project and provide some compensation
for the affected communities, but they must lead towards implementation
of the project.

The only way to achieve what KI and Ardoch believe is a fair and just
solution is through negotiations to withdraw sensitive lands from
mineral staking and mining.

Contacts:

Sam McKay, Spokesperson, KI (807) 537-2263
Robert Lovelace, Ardoch FN (613) 532-2166
Chris Reid, Legal Counsel for KI and Ardoch: (416) 629-3117

NAN Take on KI/Ardoch Decision

2008-07-07T14:03:00.001-07:00

NAN pleased Ontario Court of Appeal finds jailing first nation
leadership not the answer in land disputes

THUNDER BAY, ON, July 7 /CNW/ - Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) Deputy
Grand
Chief Alvin Fiddler is pleased by the decisions of the Ontario Court of
Appeal
today in the cases of Frontenac Ventures Corporate v. Ardoch Algonquin
First
Nations and Platinex v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nations
where the
court found that jailing First Nation leadership in a land dispute with
the
Crown was "too harsh" and should only be used as a last resort.
"This is good news for the leaders of First Nations who are
concerned
about being jailed for protecting their lands and defending their
Aboriginal
and treaty rights," said NAN Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler. "The
Courts are
saying that Ontario has an obligation to actively bring about
reconciliation
with First Nations and not just stand on the sidelines when First
Nations
leaders are at risk of being incarcerated," said Fiddler.
Today's decisions by Justices James MacPherson, Marc Rosenberg and
Kathryn Feldman granted the appeals by the First Nations leadership of
both
communities and concluded that jailing First Nations leadership in
disputes
between the Crown and Aboriginal people should only be used as a last
resort.
"The use of incarceration as the first response to breach of the
injunction dramatically marginalizes the significance of aboriginal law
and
aboriginal rights. Second, imposing a lengthy term of imprisonment on a
first
offender fails to recognize the impact of years of dislocation." (par.
58)
NAN had intervener status at the appeal and argued that the lower
court
had missed an important legal step when it sentenced the First Nations
leadership to six months in jail rather than continuing the negotiation
process that was required as part of reconciliation between First
Nations and
the Government of Ontario.
"In my view, the Court has set a different and higher standard for
granting injunctions when cases involve restricting asserted Aboriginal
and
Treaty rights. The decision sends a strong message to the Ontario
government
that negotiation, not incarceration, is the best way to reconcile the
claims
of our Aboriginal communities with the rights of the Crown," said lawyer
Julian Falconer who, along with Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto,
represented NAN at the Court of Appeal.
The KI leadership and the Ardoch leadership were sentenced to six
months
in jail for civil contempt of court after disobeying court orders which
allowed mining exploration on traditional territories.
In declaring the sentences too harsh, the Court of Appeal stated
"... in
light of the progress already made, much of it with the encouragement
and
assistance of the motion judge, there was no need to bring down the
hammer of
long jail sentences and very substantial fines." (par. 65)

Nishnawbe Aski Nation is a political territorial organization
representing 49 First Nation communities in James Bay Treaty 9 and
Ontario
portions of Treaty 5 - an area covering two thirds of the province of
Ontario.

For further information: Michael Heintzman, Media Relations Officer -
Nishnawbe Aski Nation, (807) 625-4906 or (807) 621-2790 mobile

Why the Frontenac Appeal Reasons Apply to KI

2008-07-07T10:44:00.000-07:00

At para 5 "The
principles that would have been applied to this appeal are set out in
the reasons in the companion appeal in Frontenac v Ardoch".

Jail Will Now Be the Last Bridge We Cross When Aboriginal Rights and Mining Rights Come Into Conflict.

2008-07-07T09:28:00.000-07:00

The role of the court of appeal is to check the power of judges and make undesirable outcomes less likely in future.

Clearly jailing First Nations leadership ( or membership for that matter) is an undesirable outcome when aboriginal and treaty rights and mining rights come into conflict.

And that outcome is a lot less likely today than yesterday in Ontario.

But are we really any farther ahead in answering the question: How should we resolve disputes between First Nation(s) with aboriginal and treaty rights and an outstanding land claim and a mining company who has staked claims in the First Nation's territory?

In a way. Courts do not legislate and legislation is what we need.

MNDM best take note of para 48 esp the words legislated solution. Broad hint?
48] The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532.

But hints are not deeds and the Platinex claims remain on KI lands and the Mining Act is yet unchanged.

There is comfort in the fact that jail will be the last bridge we cross when First Nations and mining companies battle.

The extension of Gladue sentencing principles may ripple widely.

And perhaps mining companies will think twice before launching lawsuits to gain access to First Nation lands. Only the Crown can resolve the dispute between S. 35 rights and free entry. When that might happen remains anyone's guess.

So Temex( Did you see those eviction notices up in Neskantaga?) and all you other juniors having some trouble in Treaty No. 9 , time to sue the Crown for failing in its legal obligations.Just cut and paste the Platinex statement of claim. Faskens will be happy to help. Perhaps a corporate class action by the mining industry against the Crown.

This case set out a new stricter standard for the imposition of injunctions that “might have an adverse impact on asserted aboriginal and treaty rights.” (par. 43)
I can see a new law of aboriginal injunctions developing.

Lower court judge's better mind their manners when opining on the strength of a first nation land claim. You might say the burden of proof has shifted in a big way onto the Crown.A cynically timed letter from Minister Bryant's minions rejecting a land claim will not be enough next time we are in court.

And there will be a next time.

Nice to see judicial recognition of the fact that in place based struggles First Nations stand in a different legal "place" than environmental protests (with the greatest of respect to all my enviro friends out there) The lands at issue in the dispute with Platinex and Ontario are KI's place in a different legal way than for non aboriginal folks.

I like the reference to protest free zones. But the larger point is that all those who would stake mining claims without First Nation consent are trying to create an aboriginal and treaty rights free zone.

The general direction of the law remains- resolve aboriginal disputes by negotiation.

But will negotiation give First Nations the right to say no?

Maybe, just maybe, with the removal of the jail "hammer" in aboriginal versus mining co. disputes the distinction between a First Nations right to say no and the legal right to consultation, accommodation and reconciliation [read inevitable mining exploration and development project delays] becomes meaningless.

Take that greedheads.

Take Away Pt from Ct of Appeal

2008-07-07T09:01:00.001-07:00

[57] Although Gladue was focused primarily on the serious problem of excessive imprisonment of aboriginal peoples, the case in a broader sense draws attention to the state of the justice system's engagement with Canada's First Nations. I note three factors in particular that were highlighted in Gladue: the estrangement of aboriginal peoples from the Canadian justice system, the impact of years of dislocation, and whether imprisonment would be meaningful to the community of which the offender is a member. Those factors were all at stake in this case.

[58] First, while the appellants did not contest the injunctions and admitted that they were in breach of the orders, the enforcement of the injunctions by imprisonment could not help but emphasize the estrangement of this community and aboriginal peoples generally from the justice system. The use of incarceration as the first response to breach of the injunction dramatically marginalizes the significance of aboriginal law and aboriginal rights. Second, imposing a lengthy term of imprisonment on a first offender fails to recognize the impact of years of dislocation. The fact that persons of the stature of Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman saw no meaningful avenues of redress within the justice system and felt driven to take these drastic measures demonstrates the impact of years of dislocation and the other problems discussed in Gladue at paras. 67-69. Finally, imprisonment, far from being a meaningful sanction for the community, had the effect of pitting the community against the justice system. That the court found it necessary to imprison the leaders of the AAFN simply serves to emphasize the gulf between the dominant culture's sense of justice and this First Nation's sense of justice.

[59] For these reasons, I cannot agree that the principles underlying the Gladue decision have no application in the civil contempt context. Rather, as in Gladue, the court must look at the unique systemic or background factors at play in this case.

[60] What then are the unique systemic or background factors that played a part in bringing the AAFN and two of its leaders before the courts to be sentenced for contempt? The first background factor is that there is an existing land claim negotiation between the Algonquin Nation and Ontario. In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court of Canada held at pp. 532-36 that when the Crown has knowledge that a First Nation community has claimed rights or title in respect of a territory, it must consult the affected community and, where indicated, must accommodate aboriginal concerns before approving any activity that could have an impact on the claimed rights or title. In Taku River, at p. 567, the Supreme Court also held that the fact that a land claim has been accepted by the Crown for negotiation establishes a prima facie case that the claim has merit. Ontario accepted the Algonquin land claim for negotiation in 1991: see Frontenac Ventures Corp. v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, [2007] O.J. No. 3360 (S.C.J.) at para. 25. Haida Nation and Taku River together instruct that the existing, and as yet unresolved, Algonquin land claim – the basis for the AAFN's protest and blockade – cannot simply be dismissed as illusory, flawed or weak.

[61] The second background factor that played a part in bringing the appellants before the courts is the nature and content of Ontario's Mining Act. It is a remarkably sweeping law. It establishes a "free entry" system whereby all Crown lands, including those subject to aboriginal land claims, are open for prospecting and staking, without any consultation or permitting required. Anyone with a prospector's licence may stake claims and prospect for minerals on any Crown land. Once a claim has been staked, in accordance with the Act, the Mining Recorder must record the claim. There is nothing in the Mining Act about considering aboriginal land claims or interests.

[62] The intersection of these two background circumstances creates an obvious problem, indeed the problem that lies at the heart of this case. What Frontenac wants to do on Crown land – staking and exploration – is legal under the Mining Act. However, the appellants' response, although in contempt of two court orders, is grounded, at a minimum, in a respectable interpretation of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and several recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. In summary, the appellants' character and circumstances, their actual conduct, and the difficult legal context within which it occurred, should have counted as significant mitigation when sentences were imposed on them. The circumstances of the offences and these aboriginal offenders are such that, in accordance with the Gladue principles, sentences of incarceration were inappropriate.

[63] The third reason for concluding that the sentences imposed on the appellants were too harsh is that they are considerably more severe than the sentences imposed in other protest/blockade cases. In MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Brown (1994), 88 C.C.C. (3d) 148, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed in part appeals from sentences for criminal contempt consisting of public disobedience of court orders related to logging operations in Clayoquot Sound. McEachern C.J.B.C., for the majority, discussed past sentences that were imposed by B.C. courts for contempt in non-violent protest cases, at para. 8:

[66] For these reasons, I conclude that the custodial and monetary components of the sentences imposed on the appellants were too harsh. [67] Nor, at this juncture, would I order any custodial sentence. That is not to say that incarceration is always out of place in civil contempt cases. In some cases, including potentially this case down the road, incarceration and substantial fines may be necessary. However, it would be wrong to cross this bridge now for these first offenders in a situation that cries out for dedicated negotiation among Ontario, the AAFN and Frontenac with a view to reconciliation of the competing interests.

[68] On this final point I could cite almost 20 years of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, from Sparrow to Mikisew, or the eloquent Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry (Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2007). However, I choose to quote the equally thoughtful observation by the motion judge near the end of his reasons in support of the interlocutory injunction he issued on September 27, 2007:

I fully recognize that this case engages complex relations between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. I also recognize that respect for consultation lies at the heart of resolving such disputes even when certainty over the legitimacy and extent of the claim is unresolved. As the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 and in Haida, supra, conciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, and their respective claims, interests and ambitions is the fundamental objective of these negotiations.

E. DISPOSITION
[69] I would allow the appeal and set aside the custodial and monetary components of the sentences imposed on the appellants.

[70] The appellants are entitled to their costs of the appeal. They may file costs submissions of not more than five pages within 30 days of the release of these reasons. The respondents should file their responses within 14 days thereafter. The interveners should neither pay nor receive costs.

CT of Appeal Decision

2008-07-07T08:44:00.000-07:00

CITATION: Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008 ONCA 534

DATE: 20080707

DOCKET: C48642

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

ROSENBERG, FELDMAN and MACPHERSON JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

FRONTENAC VENTURES CORPORATION

Plaintiff (Respondent in Appeal)

and

ARDOCH ALGONQUIN FIRST NATION, SHABOT OBAADJIWAN FIRST NATION, ROBERT LOVELACE, PAULA SHERMAN, DOREEN DAVIS, RANDY COTA, HAROLD PERRY, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE and PERSONS UNKNOWN and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO

Defendants (Respondent in Appeal)

and

ARDOCH ALGONQUIN FIRST NATION, SHABOT OBAADJIWAN FIRST NATION, ROBERT LOVELACE, PAULA SHERMAN, DOREEN DAVIS, HAROLD PERRY, EARL BADOUR SR., FRANK MORRISON, DAVID MILNE, JOHN HUDSON, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE and PERSONS UNKNOWN

Respondents on Contempt Motion (Appellants)

Christopher Reid and Sarah Dover for the appellants Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Robert Lovelace and Paula Sherman

Neil J. Smitheman and Tracy A. Pratt for the respondent Frontenac Ventures Corporation

Malliha Wilson, E. Ria Tzimas and Tamara Barclay for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Julian N. Falconer and Kimberly R. Murray for the intervener Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Mary Eberts for the intervener Native Women’s Association of Canada

Heard: May 28, 2008

On appeal from the sentences imposed by J. Douglas Cunningham A.C.J.S.C. on February 15, 2008.

MACPHERSON J.A.:

A. INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an appeal by Robert Lovelace, Paula Sherman and the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation (“AAFN”) from the sentences imposed on them by Cunningham A.C.J.S.C. for their admitted contempt of court orders made on August 27 and September 27, 2007.

[2] The two court orders allowed the respondent, Frontenac Ventures Corporation (“Frontenac”), to conduct a campaign of exploratory drilling for uranium on lands the AAFN claims is within the traditional territory occupied by its members for centuries.

[3] Mr. Lovelace, Paula Sherman, who is co-chief of the AAFN, and other AAFN members engaged in a peaceful protest and blockade, which together prevented Frontenac’s managers and employees from engaging in any drilling on the land.

[4] After tripartite negotiations among Frontenac, the AAFN and the Government of Ontario (“ Ontario”) failed to resolve the impasse, the motion judge held that the appellants were in contempt of two previous court orders. The appellants admitted their contempt of the court orders, but stated that their conduct flowed from their adherence to Algonquin law.

[5] The motion judge sentenced Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman to six months in jail and imposed substantial fines on them and on the AAFN.

[6] Mr. Lovelace and the AAFN appeal their sentences. Chief Sherman appeals the only component of her sentence that remains, the fine.

[7] At a superficial level, this appeal raises the typical legal issues posed by any sentence appeal: did the sentencing judge make an error in principle or were the sentences demonstrably unfit? However, the reality is that this narrow focus cannot resolve the appeal. That is because the conduct of Frontenac, and especially the appellants, requires a broader analytical framework, including consideration of constitutional, civil, criminal, aboriginal and statute law.

[8] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court indicated that the appeal was allowed, Mr. Lovelace was to be released immediately, and the fines imposed on all three appellants were stayed pending the release of the court’s reasons. These are our reasons.

B. FACTS
(1) The parties and events
[9] There are three appellants in this appeal. The first is the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, a First Nation community located in the Ottawa valley in eastern Ontario.

[10] Robert Lovelace is a member of the AAFN. He is a former chief and currently holds the positions of spokesman and chief negotiator. He is 60 years old and the father of seven children, including four minor children for whom he is a single parent. He is employed as a lecturer and aboriginal student counsellor at Queen’s University and is a full-time instructor at Fleming College. He has no criminal record.

[11] Paula Sherman is a co-chief of the AAFN. She is a single mother of two children and a grandmother. She overcame a lifetime of poverty and hardship to obtain a Ph. D. She is currently employed as a Professor of Native Studies at Trent University. She has no criminal record.

[12] Frontenac is a private uranium exploration company. It holds a mining lease, multiple mining claims, and several agreements with private property owners to conduct mineral exploration on lands in Frontenac County, about 60 miles north of Kingston. Most of the mining claims are on Crown land. Frontenac’s lease, mining claims and agreements are all within an area of land subject to an Algonquin land claim (“the subject property”). The Algonquin land claim was accepted for negotiation by the Governments of Canada and Ontario and negotiations have been ongoing since 1991.

[13] In early 2007, members of the AAFN learned that Frontenac had staked mineral claims on the subject property as authorized under Ontario’s Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.14. They also learned from Frontenac’s website that the company was planning “an aggressive exploration and development program” in order to determine if future uranium exploration and development was warranted. The website further stated that “substantial drilling and engineering studies … indicated that there was potential for an open-pit operation on one of these properties.”

[14] In June 2007, the AAFN, Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation (“Shabot”) and non-aboriginal community groups protested against Frontenac’s uranium exploration plans. The protest led to a blockade that prevented Frontenac from gaining access to the lands on which it wished to carry out mineral exploration.

[15] One of the stated reasons for the protest was a purported failure on the part of Ontario to consult with the AAFN and the Shabot about Frontenac’s exploration plan and the renewal of its mining lease. The appellants assert that Frontenac is not legally entitled to conduct mineral exploration within the subject property until the Crown discharges its constitutional duty to consult with the affected First Nations about the impact of mining activity on the environment, wildlife harvesting and sacred, archaeological, historical and culturally significant sites on the property.

(2) The litigation
[16] In July 2007, Frontenac commenced an action against the AAFN and the Shabot and their leaders, seeking an injunction and $77 million in compensation.

[17] Frontenac first sought an interim injunction against the AAFN and the Shabot to restrain them from interfering with its exploration program. Frontenac’s motion was heard on August 23, 2007. The appellants filed no evidence and made no submissions on this motion. Instead, counsel for the appellants attended and advised the court that they had, respectfully, decided not to participate in the injunction proceedings and had written to the Premier of Ontario to propose negotiations to end the dispute. On August 27, 2007, Thomson J. granted the order sought by Frontenac.

[18] The appellants did not abide by Thomson J.’s order. Frontenac initiated civil contempt proceedings in September 2007, which were rescheduled to November 2007.

[19] Frontenac then sought an interlocutory injunction against the AAFN and the Shabot, restraining them and anyone associated with them from interfering with, disrupting or hindering in any way Frontenac’s legitimate activities on the subject property.

[20] Frontenac’s motion for an interlocutory injunction was heard by Cunningham A.C.J.S.C. on September 24 and 25, 2007. Once again, the AAFN chose not to participate in this proceeding. They did not provide any evidence, including evidence related to their reliance on Algonquin law or their reliance on s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes existing aboriginal and treaty rights. On September 27, 2007, the motion judge issued the requested interlocutory injunction.

[21] The appellants did not abide by Cunningham A.C.J.S.C.’s order. The blockade of the subject land continued. Frontenac was unable to continue its uranium exploration program.

[22] Frontenac brought an urgent motion returnable on October 4, 2007 to have the appellants and other alleged contemnors found in contempt of court for not obeying the interlocutory injunction.

[23] With prompting by Cunningham A.C.J.S.C., and with the assistance of Scott J., on October 5, 2007 the parties agreed to enter into mediation for a twelve-week period. This period corresponded with the preliminary and non-invasive period of Frontenac’s exploration schedule. As a result, the contempt proceedings were adjourned. One of the purposes of the mediation as expressed by Cunningham A.C.J.S.C. was to avoid contempt proceedings:

[F]irst of all, I’m very much obliged to all counsel for taking this matter so seriously, and trying to work out a realistic solution to a difficult problem. And I’m also very much obliged to Mr. Justice Scott, for his intervention – which I think has borne some fruit. And I wish you well. I’m very hopeful that the process that you have agreed to become a part of will be successful, and will avoid the necessity of us having to re-convene on November 14th. I think, if good will and a real serious attempt at resolution is to prevail, then I think these problems can be put aside.

[24] Negotiations among Frontenac, the AAFN and Ontario proceeded. However, despite the efforts of the parties, the mediation was not successful and the issues in dispute, especially the mineral exploration issue, were not resolved.

(3) The contempt proceedings and sentencing hearing
[25] After the failed mediation, Frontenac revived its civil contempt motion in relation to alleged non-compliance with the August 27 and September 27 court orders. The motion was heard by Cunningham A.C.J.S.C. on February 12 through 15, 2008.

[26] The appellants did not contest the motion for contempt. They admitted that they had not complied with the two court orders.

[27] The appellants restricted their evidence and submissions to the issue of sentence. Mr. Lovelace testified on behalf of all of the AAFN defendants. The essence of his testimony was that uranium exploration on the subject lands would violate Algonquin law, which imposed a “moratorium” on such activity:

Q. [E]xactly where does the authority, in your view, at least as a matter of Algonquin law, lie for this particular expression, the moratorium?

A. The authority for this particular moratorium lies both with the AAFN Algonquin First Nation – Mr. Perry was our representative Elder who after hearing consensus within the community and at the Family Heads Council – and it also comes from the authority of William Commanda who is the principal Elder of all of the Algonquin people, and after he considered it, after he talked with the people that are important to him and the Algonquins that he feels are – are representative of the Algonquin voice, then he also gave his hand to signing that moratorium.

. . .

With the voice of William Commanda, all Algonquins have the opportunity to heed that law. All Algonquins can turn to William Commanda and say, I respect this Elder, I respect his teachings, I respect his learned opinion, and they can either subscribe to that or not.

[28] On February 13, 2008, the motion judge declared the AAFN defendants in contempt of the August and September 27, 2007 court orders. One contemnor, former chief Harold Perry, a 78-year-old man in poor health, then purged his contempt by providing a permanent undertaking to the court to abide by the order of September 27, 2007.

[29] On February 15, 2008, the motion judge delivered his reasons for sentencing the remaining contemnors. Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman were each sentenced to six months in jail. Mr. Lovelace was fined $25,000, Chief Sherman was fined $15,000, and the AAFN community was fined $10,000. The motion judge also imposed a fine on the three respondents of $2000 per day for future non-compliance. He struck AAFN’s statement of defence in the action brought by Frontenac and ordered that “no other motions or applications to this court may be made by them until their contempt has been purged.”

[30] Immediately after the sentences were imposed, Chief Sherman, a single mother responsible for three children, provided a permanent undertaking to the court to abide by the September 27, 2007 order. As a result, the motion judge discharged the custodial portion of her sentence.

[31] Robert Lovelace did not purge his contempt. He was incarcerated from February 15 to May 28, 2008. On the latter date, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, he was ordered to be released.

[32] Mr. Lovelace appeals the custodial portion of his sentence. All three appellants appeal the fines imposed on them. The appellants do not appeal the component of the order striking their pleadings and restricting their future access to the courts while their contempt continues.

C. ISSUE
[33] The sole issue on the appeal is whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were fit sentences.

D. ANALYSIS
[34] This case was prosecuted by way of a motion for civil contempt. In a civil contempt case, the range of potential penalties is prescribed in subrules 60.11(1) and (5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194:

60.11 (1) A contempt order to enforce an order requiring a person to do an act, other than the payment of money, or to abstain from doing an act, may be obtained only on motion to a judge in the proceeding in which the order to be enforced was made.

. . .

(5) In disposing of a motion under subrule (1) the judge may make such order as is just, and where a finding of contempt is made, the judge may order that the person in contempt,

(a) be imprisoned for such period and on such terms as are just;

(b) be imprisoned if he or she fails to comply with a term of the order;

(c) pay a fine;

(d) do or refrain from doing an act;

(e) pay such costs as are just; and

(f) comply with any other order that the judge considers necessary,

and may grant leave to issue a writ of sequestration under rule 60.09 against the person’s property.

[35] In his reasons for sentence, the motion judge observed that counsel for the appellants agreed that his clients’ contemptuous behaviour came “perilously close to criminal contempt.” McLachlin J. for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901 at 931, explained that the distinction between civil and criminal contempt “rests in the concept of public defiance that accompanies criminal contempt.” She illustrated the distinction as follows:

A person who simply breaches a court order, for example by failing to abide by visiting hours stipulated in a child custody order, is viewed as having committed civil contempt. However, when the element of public defiance of the court’s process in a way calculated to lessen societal respect for the courts is added to the breach, it becomes criminal.

[36] In the Canadian Judicial Council’s Guidelines on the Use of Contempt Powers (May 2001) at p. 13, the Council described public disobedience of an injunction as “a classic criminal contempt.” The Council stated at p. 14 that, “In many cases arising out of disobedience of an injunction, the application for contempt will be brought in the civil proceedings, but the court may nevertheless make a finding of criminal contempt.”

[37] The motion judge in this case did not make a finding of criminal contempt. The choice of appropriate penalty for contempt must recognize an important distinction between civil and criminal contempt: the purpose of a sentence for criminal contempt is punishment, whereas the purpose of a sentence for civil contempt is coercive or persuasive, designed to enforce the rights of a private party: see Poje v. Attorney General (B.C.), [1953] S.C.R. 516 at 517. However, I would not place significant weight on this differential purpose in reviewing the fitness of the sentences imposed by the motion judge for civil contempt. As appellants’ counsel acknowledged at the sentencing hearing, the nature of the appellants’ conduct in repeatedly disobeying the interim and interlocutory injunctions came extremely close to criminal contempt and may potentially have justified such a finding by the motion judge.

[38] As mentioned above, the motion judge imposed a combination of penalties – six months in jail for Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman, fines ranging from $10,000 to $25,000, prospective fines for future disobedience of $2000 per day, and striking the appellants’ pleadings.

[39] There is no doubt that these are serious, even stiff, penalties. Incarceration for professional people who are respected leaders of their community and substantial fines for the same leaders and for an impoverished aboriginal community are onerous penalties.

[40] In imposing these sentences, the motion judge grounded his reasons in the rule of law. The core of the rule of law, in his view, was respect for and compliance with court orders:

Compliance with orders of this court is not optional.

. . .

When one ignores orders of our courts, or takes the law into one’s own hands, respect for our court system evaporates, and our entire society suffers.

. . .

Mr. Lovelace says that while he respects the rule of law, he cannot comply because his Algonquin law is supreme. He says he finds himself in a dilemma. Sadly, it is a dilemma of his own making.

His apparent frustration with the Ontario government is no excuse for breaking the law. There can only be one law, and that is the law of Canada , expressed through this court.

[41] In this court, the appellants and the interveners made lengthy submissions about the nature of the rule of law. They argued that the rule of law is not fully described as respect for court orders. Their submissions were primarily based on Laskin J.A.’s articulation of the rule of law in another recent case dealing with an aboriginal occupation of disputed land. In Henco Industries Ltd. v. Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council (2006), 82 O.R. (3d) 721 at paras. 140-42, Laskin J.A. stated:

[N]o one can deny the importance of the rule of law in Canada . The preamble to our Constitution states that Canada is founded on principles that recognize the rule of law. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that it is one of our underlying constitutional values. See Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; and Reference re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753.

But the rule of law has many dimensions, or in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada is “highly textured.” See Reference re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, supra, at 805. One dimension is certainly that focused on by the motions judge: the court’s exercise of its contempt power to vindicate the court’s authority and ultimately to uphold the rule of law. The rule of law requires a justice system that can ensure orders of the court are enforced and the process of the court is respected.

Other dimensions of the rule of law, however, have a significant role in this dispute. These other dimensions include respect for minority rights, reconciliation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interests through negotiations, fair procedural safeguards for those subject to criminal proceedings, respect for Crown and police discretion, respect for the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and respect for Crown property rights.

[42] I fully accept and agree that compliance with court orders is an important, but not exclusive, component of the rule of law. The motion judge in his sentencing decision did not address the other dimensions of the rule of law referred to in Henco. However, I do not think that he erred in focusing at the sentencing stage of contempt proceedings on the dimension of the rule of law that relates to ensuring that orders of the court are enforced. The following passage from McLachlin J.’s reasons in United Nurses of Alberta, at p. 931 supports this view:

Both civil and criminal contempt of court rest on the power of the court to uphold its dignity and process. The rule of law is at the heart of our society; without it there can be neither peace, nor order nor good government. The rule of law is directly dependent on the ability of the courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect. To maintain their process and respect, courts since the 12th century have exercised the power to punish for contempt of court. [Emphasis added.]

[43] In my view, the stage at which the comprehensive and nuanced description of the rule of law expressed in Henco must be considered is when a court is requested by a private party to grant an injunction and where doing so might have an adverse impact on asserted aboriginal and treaty rights affirmed in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Such cases demand a careful and sensitive balancing of many important interests in assessing whether to grant the requested injunction and on what terms.

[44] In the present case, as in Henco, the competing interests include the asserted aboriginal rights of the Algonquin First Nations, Frontenac’s private interest in pursuing its exploration plan in accordance with valid mining claims and agreements, and respect for the Crown property rights of Ontario.

[45] And how are these interests to be effectively balanced? The answer has been clear for almost 20 years in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada – consultation, negotiation, accommodation, and ultimately, reconciliation of aboriginal rights and other important, but at times, conflicting interests: see R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388. The honour of the Crown requires that it act as a committed participant in the undoubtedly complex process of consultation and reconciliation: Haida Nation, Taku River and Mikisew Cree.

[46] Having regard to the clear line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, from Sparrow to Mikisew, where constitutionally protected aboriginal rights are asserted, injunctions sought by private parties to protect their interests should only be granted where every effort has been made by the court to encourage consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation among the competing rights and interests. Such is the case even if the affected aboriginal communities choose not to fully participate in the injunction proceedings.

[47] I am quick to point out that in this case, the AAFN did not appeal either the interim or the interlocutory injunctions granted by Thomson J. and Cunningham A.S.C.J.C. It is thus not for this court to address the merits of either order. However, I think it is important to give judicial guidance on the role to be played by the nuanced rule of law described in Henco when courts are asked to grant injunctions, the violation of which will result in aboriginal protestors facing civil or criminal contempt proceedings.

[48] Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, “The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases” (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532.

[49] I turn then to the sole issue on this appeal – the merits of the sentencing decision. In my view, and with great respect to a judge trying conscientiously to resolve a difficult, bordering on intractable problem, the sentences he imposed are too harsh. I say this for several reasons.

[50] First, in his reasons the motion judge focused exclusively on punishment and deterrence, both specific and general. He said nothing about promoting reformation and rehabilitation of leaders of a First Nation community. Both sides of the standard analytical framework in sentencing cases needed to be assessed in a balanced fashion.

[51] Second, the motion judge failed to refer to the mitigating factors that were present in this case. Importantly, both Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman were first offenders. Until the events giving rise to their protest and blockade, they had led lives characterized by leadership in their community, including leadership in demonstrating respect for Canadian law. Both candidly conceded their contempt. These significant facts should have been acknowledged and taken into account in fashioning an appropriate sentence.

[52] In addition, some account should have been taken of the way in which the protest and blockade were conducted. The appellants’ conduct was peaceful, with no violence and no damage to property.

[53] Moreover, there should have been recognition of the limited purpose of the appellants’ conduct. The purpose was not a “no entry” purpose, whereby non-Algonquins could not set foot on the disputed property. Rather, the purpose was to prevent mining exploration on lands which were, and still are, subject to land claim negotiations with the Governments of Canada and Ontario.

[54] All of these factors ought to have been considered by the motion judge when fashioning appropriate sanctions for their acts of contempt. Another way of saying this is that the sentencing principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue (1999), 133 C.C.C. (3d) 385, are applicable when fashioning a sentence for civil or criminal contempt on the part of aboriginal contemnors.

[55] In Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to consider the purpose of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which requires that a court take into account the principle that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders” [emphasis added]. At para. 50, the court referred to the “acute problem of the disproportionate incarceration of aboriginal peoples.” The court accepted that the purpose of s. 718.2(e) is to provide sentencing judges with the flexibility and authority to “resort to the restorative model of justice in sentencing aboriginal offenders and to reduce the imposition of jail sentences where to do so would not sacrifice the traditional goals of sentencing” (para. 50). According to the court, sentencing judges must pay particular attention to the unique circumstances of aboriginal offenders, namely: “[t]he unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts” and “[t]he types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances of the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection” (para. 66).

[56] Frontenac and Ontario contend that the Gladue principles should not be extended beyond the criminal context because criminal law sentencing is designed to achieve entirely different objectives from sentencing for contempt. I do not agree with this submission. The Gladue principles have already been extended to a variety of other contexts in the criminal justice system, including bail, parole eligibility, dangerous offender applications, and disposition hearings of the Ontario Review Board. In this last context, in R. v. Sim (2005), 78 O.R. (3d) 183 ( C.A. ), Sharpe J.A. said, at para. 16: “I do not think that the principles underlying Gladue should be limited to the sentencing process and I can see no reason to disregard the Gladue principles when assessing the criminal justice system’s treatment of NCR accused.”

[57] Although Gladue was focused primarily on the serious problem of excessive imprisonment of aboriginal peoples, the case in a broader sense draws attention to the state of the justice system’s engagement with Canada’s First Nations. I note three factors in particular that were highlighted in Gladue: the estrangement of aboriginal peoples from the Canadian justice system, the impact of years of dislocation, and whether imprisonment would be meaningful to the community of which the offender is a member. Those factors were all at stake in this case.

[58] First, while the appellants did not contest the injunctions and admitted that they were in breach of the orders, the enforcement of the injunctions by imprisonment could not help but emphasize the estrangement of this community and aboriginal peoples generally from the justice system. The use of incarceration as the first response to breach of the injunction dramatically marginalizes the significance of aboriginal law and aboriginal rights. Second, imposing a lengthy term of imprisonment on a first offender fails to recognize the impact of years of dislocation. The fact that persons of the stature of Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman saw no meaningful avenues of redress within the justice system and felt driven to take these drastic measures demonstrates the impact of years of dislocation and the other problems discussed in Gladue at paras. 67-69. Finally, imprisonment, far from being a meaningful sanction for the community, had the effect of pitting the community against the justice system. That the court found it necessary to imprison the leaders of the AAFN simply serves to emphasize the gulf between the dominant culture’s sense of justice and this First Nation’s sense of justice.

[59] For these reasons, I cannot agree that the principles underlying the Gladue decision have no application in the civil contempt context. Rather, as in Gladue, the court must look at the unique systemic or background factors at play in this case.

[60] What then are the unique systemic or background factors that played a part in bringing the AAFN and two of its leaders before the courts to be sentenced for contempt? The first background factor is that there is an existing land claim negotiation between the Algonquin Nation and Ontario. In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court of Canada held at pp. 532-36 that when the Crown has knowledge that a First Nation community has claimed rights or title in respect of a territory, it must consult the affected community and, where indicated, must accommodate aboriginal concerns before approving any activity that could have an impact on the claimed rights or title. In Taku River, at p. 567, the Supreme Court also held that the fact that a land claim has been accepted by the Crown for negotiation establishes a prima facie case that the claim has merit. Ontario accepted the Algonquin land claim for negotiation in 1991: see Frontenac Ventures Corp. v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, [2007] O.J. No. 3360 (S.C.J.) at para. 25. Haida Nation and Taku River together instruct that the existing, and as yet unresolved, Algonquin land claim – the basis for the AAFN’s protest and blockade – cannot simply be dismissed as illusory, flawed or weak.

[61] The second background factor that played a part in bringing the appellants before the courts is the nature and content of Ontario’s Mining Act. It is a remarkably sweeping law. It establishes a “free entry” system whereby all Crown lands, including those subject to aboriginal land claims, are open for prospecting and staking, without any consultation or permitting required. Anyone with a prospector’s licence may stake claims and prospect for minerals on any Crown land. Once a claim has been staked, in accordance with the Act, the Mining Recorder must record the claim. There is nothing in the Mining Act about considering aboriginal land claims or interests.

[62] The intersection of these two background circumstances creates an obvious problem, indeed the problem that lies at the heart of this case. What Frontenac wants to do on Crown land – staking and exploration – is legal under the Mining Act. However, the appellants’ response, although in contempt of two court orders, is grounded, at a minimum, in a respectable interpretation of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and several recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. In summary, the appellants’ character and circumstances, their actual conduct, and the difficult legal context within which it occurred, should have counted as significant mitigation when sentences were imposed on them. The circumstances of the offences and these aboriginal offenders are such that, in accordance with the Gladue principles, sentences of incarceration were inappropriate.

[63] The third reason for concluding that the sentences imposed on the appellants were too harsh is that they are considerably more severe than the sentences imposed in other protest/blockade cases. In MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Brown (1994), 88 C.C.C. (3d) 148, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed in part appeals from sentences for criminal contempt consisting of public disobedience of court orders related to logging operations in Clayoquot Sound. McEachern C.J.B.C., for the majority, discussed past sentences that were imposed by B.C. courts for contempt in non-violent protest cases, at para. 8:

In most cases the courts have endeavoured to deal firmly, but leniently with those found guilty of contempt… In the more recent disputes, although short, unsuspended terms of imprisonment were imposed in some of the [abortion clinic protest cases (e.g., Everywoman’s Health Centre Society v. Bridges (1990), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273 and R. v. Bridges (No. 2) (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 154)], sentences have been nominal fines or suspended terms of imprisonment and probation.

In MacMillan Bloedel, the majority reduced the sentences of those who had pleaded guilty from 45 days to 30 days imprisonment (one appellant received a suspended sentence) and upheld the sentences of 45 days for offenders who had not pleaded guilty. The majority set aside fines of up to $1500 imposed against each of the appellants because there had been no inquiry into their ability to pay.

[64] A further illustration of the tendency of courts to impose nominal fines or short terms of imprisonment in blockade/protest cases is the recent decision of Peter Kiewet Sons Co. v. Perry, 2007 BCSC 305. Sixteen individuals were arrested for breaching a court-ordered injunction that restrained protestors from obstructing work crews in building a highway. Seven of the defendants were found guilty of criminal contempt. One of these defendants, who did not admit her contempt, was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment, while the other six were sentenced to a fine of $5000 or 250 hours of community service. The remaining defendants, who acknowledged their contempt but who “did not engage in open flagrant and continuous violation of the court order” were sentenced to a $250 fine or 24 hours of community service (with one exception of a $500 fine or 50 hours of community service for a second-time offender: see para. 28). Against the backdrop of these and many other similar cases, custodial sentences of six months and fines of $10,000 to $25,000 for first time offenders are very high indeed.

[65] Fourth, I observe that, by the time of the sentencing hearing on February 15, 2008, the Shabot contemnors and Chief Perry of the AAFN had purged their contempt by undertaking not to continue their protest and blockade activities. Only Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman remained. It appeared that a process initiated with care, sensitivity and fairness by the motion judge in the autumn of 2007 was bearing fruit. In my view, continued adherence to the conciliatory values that drove that autumn process suggested a more moderate sentence for the only two contemnors still not complying with the earlier court orders. On February 15, 2008, in light of the progress already made, much of it with the encouragement and assistance of the motion judge, there was no need to bring down the hammer of long jail sentences and very substantial fines.

[66] For these reasons, I conclude that the custodial and monetary components of the sentences imposed on the appellants were too harsh. Accordingly, I would allow the appeal and set aside both components of the sentences, including the prospective fines for future disobedience. In my view, in Mr. Lovelace’s case, a fine of $1000 would have been appropriate. However, having regard to the time he has spent in custody, I refrain from imposing any penalty on him. I would not fine Chief Sherman or the community who have no ability to pay the fines. I would leave intact the pleadings component of the sentencing decision, with which the appellants do not take issue.

[67] Nor, at this juncture, would I order any custodial sentence. That is not to say that incarceration is always out of place in civil contempt cases. In some cases, including potentially this case down the road, incarceration and substantial fines may be necessary. However, it would be wrong to cross this bridge now for these first offenders in a situation that cries out for dedicated negotiation among Ontario, the AAFN and Frontenac with a view to reconciliation of the competing interests.

[68] On this final point I could cite almost 20 years of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, from Sparrow to Mikisew, or the eloquent Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2007). However, I choose to quote the equally thoughtful observation by the motion judge near the end of his reasons in support of the interlocutory injunction he issued on September 27, 2007:

I fully recognize that this case engages complex relations between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. I also recognize that respect for consultation lies at the heart of resolving such disputes even when certainty over the legitimacy and extent of the claim is unresolved. As the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 and in Haida, supra, conciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, and their respective claims, interests and ambitions is the fundamental objective of these negotiations.

E. DISPOSITION
[69] I would allow the appeal and set aside the custodial and monetary components of the sentences imposed on the appellants.

[70] The appellants are entitled to their costs of the appeal. They may file costs submissions of not more than five pages within 30 days of the release of these reasons. The respondents should file their responses within 14 days thereafter. The interveners should neither pay nor receive costs.

RELEASED: July 7, 2008 (“M.R.”)

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“I agree M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“I agree K. Feldman J.A.”

Cautionary Tale

2008-07-05T08:10:00.000-07:00

Our tale begins with a Chief on holiday, wandering through the back alleys of Thunder Bay's Simpson Street, where he comes upon a little antique shop, filled with curious pieces of bric-a-brac and art objects. What especially catches his eye is a beautifully wrought, life-size bronze statue of a rat. He asks the elderly shopkeeper the price. “The rat costs $12,” says the shopkeeper, “and it will be $1,000 more for the story behind it.” “Well, you can keep your story, old man,” responds the Chief, “But I’ll take the statue.”

The Chief leaves the store with the statue under his arm. As he crosses the street, he is surprised to see two rats emerge from a storm drain and fall into step behind him. He looks nervously over his shoulder and starts to walk faster. Soon more rats appear and begin to follow him. In a few minutes vermin are coming out of every sewer, basement, and vacant lot, forming themselves into swarms and packs and massing in step behind him. People on the street point and shout as the rodents force him into a trot, then a dead run. The rats, now squeaking and squealing grotesquely, stay right behind him.

By the time he reaches the lake's edge, the line of rats trailing him extends back for blocks. It’s a terrifying spectacle. In desperation, the Chief leaps as high as he can onto a lamppost and grasps it with one arm while, with the other, he flings the statue as far as he can into the waters of Lake Superior. To his amazement, the hordes of rats race right by him and follow the statue, surging over the breakwater and leaping into the lake . . . then promptly drowning.

Immediately, the Chief hurries back to the antique shop. When he appears at the door, the shopkeeper smiles knowingly and says, “Ah, yes, sir. So now you’ve seen what the statue can do, and you’ve come back to find out the story?” “No, no, no,” replies the Chief excitedly. “I don’t care about that. But can you sell me a bronze statue of a bureaucrat?”

Time for Treaty Partner to Apologize to KI ( Part 1)

2008-07-03T10:05:00.000-07:00

Time for Ontario to Apologize to KI( Part 2)

2008-07-03T10:04:00.000-07:00

CT of Appeal re KI sentence Reasons Monday at 11 am

2008-07-03T09:58:00.000-07:00

Stay tuned, will be posted here first.

Pursuit of Cutfeet for Contempt Ends, Judge rules

2008-07-03T09:56:00.000-07:00

Judge Agrees to Dismiss Contempt Proceedings vs Former KI Councillor John Cutfeet

2008-07-02T16:56:00.001-07:00

And so ends the long journey of former KI Councillor John Cutfeet.

Somebody's Getting Rich in Matawa Territory and it Ain't the First Nations

2008-06-27T08:21:00.000-07:00

This 2008 TSX Venture 50 list ranks the top 10 companies in each of five major industry sectors for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007

The number one, two and three companies are all active on the territory of the Marten Falls, Webequie, Neskantaga and likely other First Nations. To date none of these companies have announced agreements with First Nations.Maybe some letters of comfort but no real early exploration agreements that address compensation for impacts, jobs and training guarantees, accommodation and catering, monies for legal and other technical advice etc.
Keep your eye on Phoscan who have an agreement with Constance Lake.This project is advancing rapidly with an archaeological screen of the new road.

Temex continues to be a problem and Northern Superior is setting a gold standard.
MINING Market Cap.Growth
1 Noront Resources Ltd., Ont. (NOT) 821%
2 MacDonald Mines Exploration Ltd., Ont. (BMK) 1188%
3 Fancamp Exploration Ltd., B.C. (FNC) 661%
4 TTM Resources Inc., B.C. (TTQ) 1466%
5 Zeox Corp., B.C. (ZOX) 2150%
6 Brilliant Mining Corp., Alta. (BMC) 126%
7 Canplats Resources Corp., B.C. (CPQ) - 856%
8 North American Tungsten Corp. Ltd., B.C. (NTC) 114%
9 Phoscan Chemical Corp., Ont. (FOS) - 793%
10 Rockwell Diamonds Inc., B.C. (RDI) 693%

Government of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug's Ultimate Objective

2008-06-26T13:24:00.001-07:00

Government of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug's Ultimate Objective

Statement Of KI Chief and Council:

The leadership of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug were imprisoned and
exiled from March 17, 2008 to May 28, 2008 for opposing further
exploitation of KI homelands. The leadership is compelled to counter
act the tactics and injustices applied by the governments. The
Governments of Canada and Ontario reneged and failed on their legal
obligation and duty to consult and accommodate KI membership affecting
their homelands. KI at this time will not permit further exploitation
of homelands, regardless of consequences imposed by the Governments,
until such time the Government has met its legal obligations including
fulfilling the expectations of KI membership affecting their homelands.

As custodians of our customary homelands, speaking with one spirit, one
mind, one heart and as one family, utilizing and implementing the
original teachings and laws given to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug by
the Creator, we will make every effort to restore and maintain balance
and harmony to our natural environment.

We will be guided by the wisdom and vision of our ancestors who have
passed onto the spirit world We will also confer with elders, spiritual
leaders and community members to explore, understand and exercise the
Natural Law given to us by the Creator which guides our traditional way
of life in harmony with all creation upon the land and waters of our KI
environment.

KI Chief and Council is embarking in a new process which will
strengthen it's present organizational structure by revamping and
restructuring it's governance through the usage of contemporary and
traditional knowledge and wisdom to reflect the mandate and direction
provided by the membership of Kitchenuhmaykoosib. The following areas
have been identified and approved by KI Chief and Council:

1. KI Customary Lands Documentation Initiative:

Begin to identify and determine which land areas are suitable for
potential development, which areas are sacred, areas of cultural,
spiritual and historical significance, cultural and traditional land
use areas, migratory corridors and spawning beds, reviving the
customary names of certain areas and incorporate indigenous
environmental and management regimes in the identified areas.

2. Revamping Existing Local Government to Reflect Contemporary and
Traditional Governance:

Review existing mechanisms presently used for the implementation and
management of various service delivery programs and incorporate
contemporary and traditional management practices to strengthen and
enhance the local government

3. Strengthening Cultural and Spiritual Components:

Strengthen the spiritual and cultural base and component of the
community including our relationship with our customary lands and all
natural resources which make up our overall KI natural environment.

4. Strengthening and Enhancement of Aboriginal and
Treaty Rights:

Creation and establishment of an Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Office
with major emphasis on the fiduciary duty and obligation to consult and
accommodate based on the various Supreme Court of Canada decisions
related to proposed development within the customary homelands of
aboriginal people.

To utilize international instruments protecting KI Indigenous peoples
from further cultural genocide and to achieve self determination.

Contact Information:

Additional information or clarification can be obtained by contacting
Chief Donny Morris or Councillor Samuel Mckay at the Band Office 807
537 2263 during regular business hours or Jacob Ostaman and Bruce
Sakakeep at 807 537 2614.

Missanabie Cree Chief Now Platinex/Metalex Negotiator

2008-06-26T11:22:00.000-07:00

Rumour has it that Missanabie Cree Chief Glenn Nolan is now the chief negotiator for Platinex and Metalex in their talks with Matawa First Nations.Glenn follows in the footsteps of former Deputy Grand Chief Goyce Kakegeamic who was once retained by Platinex and of course De Beers advisor former Deputy Grand Chief Brian Davey.
The situation now seems ripe for conflicts of interest when NAN Chiefs meet in Assembly.

Letter to Exploration Managers-How to Notify and Seek Consent of First Nations

2008-06-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

How to Notify and Seek Consent of First Nation(s) for Early Exploration.[prior to staking]

Submit a Work Plan Detailing Proposed Exploration Program to Affected First Nation(s).

Elements of a Work Plan

a) full and detailed information about the Applicant including
contact information;

(b) indication of the Subsurface Resource(s) being explored;

(c) detailed sketch map or maps, survey plan or aerial photographs/
satellite imagery of the Proposed Exploration Program area and surrounding area, with maps showing:

i) the location of the Proposed Exploration Program area being applied for and if known identifying the First Nation(s) Areas of Interest where the Proposed Exploration Program is located;

(ii) the Proposed Exploration Program boundaries;

(iii) the location of any existing infrastructure, previous Exploration
activity or known debris within the Proposed Exploration Program;

(iv) all significant natural features within the Proposed Exploration Program, including any body of water;

(v) the location and distance of all significant natural features
within a 500 meter radius of the boundaries of the Proposed Exploration Program, including any permanent or seasonal body of water;

(vi) the proposed location within the Proposed Exploration Program of the principal features of the Exploration Program, including airborne surveys, ground surveys, diamond drilling, trenching,
pitting and stripping and any underground workings;

(vii) the locations of all dwellings, buildings, and boundaries
of First Nation communities located within a 500 meter radius
of the boundaries of the Proposed Exploration Program;

(viii) the proposed access to the Proposed Exploration Program and its location in relation to trails, wharves, airstrips, power lines or roads in the vicinity;

(d) location of the Proposed Exploration Program in relation to the nearest First Nation community, dwellings, roads and other existing infrastructure and a description of the visibility of the Proposed Exploration Program from the Community and dwellings, roads and other features and facilities such as look-offs and parks;

(e) detailed information about the Proposed Exploration Program including a description of the nature and extent of topsoil and other overburden, and the type of vegetation cover over the land to be affected by Exploration activity;

(f) detailed information about the means of accessing the Proposed Exploration Program area;

(g) identification and summary of any prior Exploration activity
carried out by the Applicant at the Proposed Exploration Program area including prior permits
and leases;

(h) identification and composition of all consumable materials
to be stockpiled or stored on Proposed Exploration Program area;

(i) detailed description of Exploration activity to be carried out,
and all infrastructure and facilities to be constructed for purposes
of accessing the Proposed Exploration Program area and carrying out the Exploration Program;

(j) the source of all water to be used in the Exploration Program
and their geographic locations;

(k) a full description of all water withdrawal and transmission
facilities including the total capability of the water withdrawal
facilities, the total withdrawal capability per day and
the amount to be withdrawn from each water source, the
uses to be made of the water, the place or places of use, discharge
treatment and discharge facilities, and the place or
places of discharge;

(l) measures to be used at the Proposed Exploration Program area to delineate and mark the Proposed Exploration Program area
on the ground, identify the Plan Holder and protect the
safety of individuals entering the Proposed Exploration Program;

(m) the size of the workforce to be employed in the Proposed Exploration Program;

(n) an Environmental Protection Plan;

(o) a Reclamation and Closure Plan including, where appropriate,
a plan for progressive reclamation of the Proposed Exploration Program; and

(p) any other information that the Applicant deems relevant and wishes to provide,

Pay necessary fees to First Nation(s).

The First Nation(s) may[or may deny access] issue a land use permit/and/or negotiate an access or early exploration agreement for purposes of carrying out work and activities authorized under the Work Plan for a maximum term of one year.

A Work Plan must be certified to be true, accurate and complete by the Applicant

A Work Plan must include an agreement on the part of the Plan Holder to assume all liability arising out of the Exploration Program
and to indemnify the First Nation(s).

A Work Plan shall be considered to be incomplete until it has been received by First Nation(s).

A Work Plan is not approved until it has been approved by the First Nation(s).

Work Plan May Proceed Only Upon Approval of First Nation(s).

Consent for access to and use of lands( including flying of airborne survey) is granted by First Nation by issuance of a permit/and/or an access or early exploration agreement. The First Nation may deny access to any and all of the exploration area.

Mining Act Reform and The Fox and Wanlin Show

2008-06-23T13:58:00.000-07:00

The brain trust at MNDM have brought in former Regional Chief Charles Fox to run their First Nation consultation piece and Margaret Wanlin to talk to industry about what changes they want to see. I guess they don't trust the northern table to deliver the options on mining reform.Better to set up a parallel process and use the Northern table as a distraction.

Ironically the Ontario government is funding Mr. Fox to test the waters in his run at National Chief.Can't say his support in NAN is rock solid.The NNEC file and the revelations in the Bushie inquest should be enough to sink him.

Likely his real role is to one of intelligence gathering.We might say NAN is like a prison. A muskeg prison. In order to effectively manage a prison the guards need informants.And so we hire Mr. Fox. The job of Mr. Fox is simply to tell the wardens at MNDM where the divisions are in the NAN communities and how best to manage them in the interests of mining industry.Much like the informants in a prison. Issues management as they say in the trade.

On Wanlin-with the rising Canadian dollar killing hubby's tourism biz and no hope for his successful election I guess someone has to bring home the bacon.

We know what industry want.Free and unfettered access.For them permits look like red tape, the endangered species act a license to create parks and First Nations as simply bad guys holding them up for compensation.
I hold little hope for mining reform.We will tame this industry with markets campaigns outside of Canada( see the No Dirty Gold campaign], leverage from the socially responsible investment community, rising fuel costs, land claims and on the realization that the state has no answer to blockades and civil disobedience in the roadless far north.

BC On Early Notification, Not Early Enuff

2008-06-23T13:57:00.000-07:00

May 7, 2008
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
MINERAL TENURE AND COAL ACTS AMENDMENTS IN FORCE
Notice to Private Land Owners Required Before Exploration
VICTORIA – Amendments to the Mineral Tenure and Coal Acts will be put in force on June 2, 2008, adding requirements to ensure free miners/mineral developers provide notice to private land owners and Crown land leaseholders before they enter the property to start any type of mining or exploration activity. Industry is being given notice of these changes at this time, so that companies can incorporate the new rules into upcoming exploration plans.

The Mineral Tenure Act and the Coal Act provide for the administration of the Province’s
mineral and coal rights. The two amendments are meant to reduce the potential for conflict between
free miners/mineral developers and land holders by promoting and facilitating open communication
between the parties.

The amendment to the Mineral Tenure Act requires people who explore for minerals (“free
miners”) and mineral developers to provide notice to private land owners and people holding Crown land leases or grants before entering the property to commence any mining or exploration activity. The Coal Act amendment ensures that the notice, content and delivery methods are consistent between the Mineral Tenure and Coal Acts.

The notice will advise the landowner of the free miner/mineral developers’ statutory right of
entry under the Acts, and inform the owner about the timing, scope and nature of activity to be done on the property.

Since November 2006, ministry staff have been consulting on the changes with industry and
land-holder stakeholders. They have also sought advice from other parties who contribute expertise
and best practices based on their own experiences interacting with resource developers and landholders.

The Politics of Overlaps

2008-06-22T18:32:00.000-07:00

The Australian

March 22, 2000, Wednesday

Premier tripped by brother on Wik

BYLINE: ROGER MARTIN

SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 8

LENGTH: 470 words

RICHARD Court's campaigning on native title has come back to haunt him, with revelations a land claim now known to be funded by his brother's steel company was used repeatedly by the Premier as a reason why the federal Government's Wik amendments should be passed.

Mr Court issued three press releases between August 1997 and June 1998 calling on Labor to support the Howard Government's 10-point plan and citing claims over the Pilbara township of Karratha as evidence of the unworkability of the original Mabo laws.

Mr Court said two claims were choking growth in the town.

But one of those claims was by the Yaburara people, which Kingstream Resources helped register by giving more than $55,000 to the claimants. Kingstream is chaired by Mr Court's brother and former federal Liberal candidate Ken Court, while the Yaburara's former lawyer was Liberal Party president David Johnston.

Mr Court would not comment directly on those media releases yesterday, but reiterated his belief that native title had held up development across Western Australia.

He told Radio 6PR he believed his brother had done nothing wrong by allowing Kingstream to fund the land claim.

"My brother is a person of the utmost integrity," Mr Court said.

"I have no difficulty at all in defending him publicly."

Kingstream Resources managing director Nik Zuks has admitted giving the Yaburara people more than $55,000 to help fund the 1996 land claim application.

The claim covers nearly 14,000sqkm of the Pilbara and does not affect Kingstream's own plans to build a $1.7 billion steel mill at Geraldton, some 2000km to the south.

But the claim does cover land on which rival steel proponent Mineralogy plans to build a $5 billion mine and mill, prompting that company to accuse Kingstream of commercial sabotage and threaten legal action.

Kingstream's funding of native title claims dominated state parliament yesterday, with Opposition Leader Geoff Gallop claiming Mr Court was in denial over the revelations.

He accused Mr Court of being too quick to jump to Kingstream's defence.

"We no longer have a Premier for all of the people of Western Australia, we have a defence counsel for his political mates," Dr Gallop said.

He claimed the Government had consistently refused to help resolve native title issues, and now friends of the administration had been exposed as causing many of the problems.

"The hypocrisy of the Government in respect of this issue is there for all to see," he said.

"It is their friends, their fellow travellers, stirring up problems in respect to native title in Western Australia."

Mr Court said Mineralogy's leases were not affected by native title, while Kingstream had interests in the Pilbara because it wanted to source its gas supply from the area.

SUBJECT: LITIGATION (90%); IRON & STEEL MILLS (89%); LAWYERS (78%); POLITICAL CANDIDATES (78%); POLITICAL PARTIES (78%); LEGISLATIVE BODIES (77%);

STATE: WESTERN AUSTRALIA, AUSTRALIA (94%);

COUNTRY: AUSTRALIA (95%);

Mindanao Fights the Copper Miners - Philippines

2008-06-22T18:09:00.001-07:00

Grand Theft Congo - DRC

2008-06-22T18:08:00.001-07:00

Mushkegowuk Grand Chief tells it Like it is-No Progress in Talks With Ontario

2008-06-19T07:15:00.000-07:00

Building an opportunity
Timmins Daily Press
Meanwhile, at the Building Bridges conference, Jonathon Solomon, the chief of Kashechewan First Nation, spoke about Aboriginal communities moving forward ...
http://www.timminspress.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1080376

Two years ago, Mushkegowuk Council Grand Chief Stan Louttit came to the first Building Bridges forum and talked about resource development.

He's frustrated he is back and nothing has changed.

"We're nowhere near implementing it," Louttit said. "These (government) ministries don't know what to do with it.

"We know what to do with it. They just need to let us drive it."

He said First Nations groups have talked about revenue sharing with the City of Timmins, but companies don't feel they have to share profit.

The government still says it believes in revenue sharing but it isn't happening, Louttit said.

"There's no legal obligation for companies to share at all, even if it's only five kilometres away from a First Nation community. It's up to each community to negotiate a settlement."

He said the more than 100- year-old mining act is basically a "free-for-all" for companies to come in and do what they want.

"I think any leader will tell you we're not against resource development. We're impoverished here, but we need to do it right."

Louttit said the government is taking advantage of First Nation communities with wind power, which he also said has been a free-for-all.

"It's time for us to get out of this poverty and enjoy the wealth of our land. The government is doing it, the municipalities are doing it and it's time we did it, too

Organizing To Win!

2008-06-19T07:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.rabble.ca/in_her_own_words.shtml?x=72664

Queen's Park to Grassy Narrows: Organizing to win

There were times when we as activists had tactical disagreements, but we recognized that this issue was too important to walk away from.

>by Carmelle Wolfson
June 18, 2008

"I heard it on the television/ All the talking politicians/ Words are easy, words are cheap/ Much cheaper than our priceless land/ But promises can disappear/ Just like writing in the sand/" – Australian musician Yothu Yindi.

For years, every level of Canadian government has made assurances to the First Nations – most never carried out. But in just a couple weeks, we've seen amazing gains for First Nations communities in Ontario. Leaders have been freed from jail. The third largest logging company in North America has been driven away by resistance from the First Nations community that stakes claim on that land. Finally, diverse communities, organizations and individuals who have been hesitant to work together in the past are working hand-in-hand for Native land rights.

Sleepover for Sovereignty at Queen's Park

The Gathering of Mother Earth Protectors and Sovereignty Sleepover took place from May 26 to 29 at Queen's Park, but given the events of the past few weeks it feels like it's still ongoing. We were calling on the provincial government to respect the right to say no to environmental destruction on Native lands. We were demanding freedom for political prisoners Bob Lovelace and the KI-6.

The gathering culminated with Grassy Narrows, Ardoch Algonquin and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) First Nations and their supporters grasping hands to make a wish, before offering tobacco into the sacred fire. Then we headed off for the final march. Normally, I would find this kind of stuff pretty cheesy, but somehow it just seemed like the right thing to do. The gesture was a spiritual custom from a Native tradition, but also symbolized disparate groups coming together to form a broad coalition.

Allies came from across Ontario to attend the gathering. KI community members travelled from one of the most remote communities in northern Ontario's Boreal Forest, while more than 20 Grassy Narrows folks walked from Kenora nearly 2,000 km along the highway. The trek took almost four weeks.

There was a general sense of optimism in the air as activists reunited with one another at the May 26 rally. It had been two years since I, along with a group of Rainforest Action Network interns, camped out at the Slant Lake Blockade in Grassy Narrows. Two years since the Earth Justice Gathering in Grassy saw over 100 activists from across the continent hold a 12-hour blockade on the Trans-Canada Highway. It was good to see everyone together again in one place. Even though it was Queen's Park, it felt like our own private party space (replete with rented party tents, a mobile stage, a sound system and three cooked meals served up every day).

While the high profile speakers (comedian Cathy Jones, novelist Thomas King, CPTer James Loney and former AFN chief Ovide Mercredi) and the CLC endorsed 2,000-strong-march on May 29 were the events most people heard about, it was the time spent in between where the real coalition building took place.

A broad coalition taking direction from First Nations communities

During the daily teach-ins, participants had the chance to learn about wide-ranging issues from locally specific (the politics surrounding the arrest of Tyendinaga Mohawk Shawn Brant) to far-reaching (the links between the Olympics, the G8 and the SPP). More importantly, we all had a chance to make lasting connections and discuss future action plans. Meetings and consultas are already underway in southern Ontario for 2010 resistance.

The weeks leading up to the Sovereignty Sleepover were filled with endless conference calls (Monday: rally and sleepover coordination, Tuesday: sovereignty sleepover logistics, and Friday: community and organization representatives). At Queen's Park we finally had the chance to meet face-to-face. The coinciding CLC convention offered an opportunity for union backing. While union members were less present at the campout, many endorsed the Gathering of Mother Earth Protectors, including OPSEU, CUPE, OSSTF, the Law Union of Ontario and of course the CLC itself. Prior to the event CPT and others allied with religious organizations like the Anglican Council of Indigenous Peoples, the National Indigenous Anglican Bishop, United Churches Bloor and Spadina and the Toronto Buddhist Peace Fellowship for endorsements and resources.

Key organizers considered the diversity of groups involved as well as how high the stakes were for the three First Nations communities. In response, they worked out a framework to deal with important tactical questions. Non-Native supporters would take direction from KI, Ardoch and Grassy Narrows community leaders, while RAN, CPT, ForestEthics, Canadian Federation of Students, OCAP, the Tyendinaga Support Committee, No One Is Illegal and the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid would provide logistical support in Toronto.

A conscious effort was made to take lessons learned from the 2006 Earth Justice Gathering to inform the way we organized this one. Everyone attempted to be inclusive and transparent in organizing this event. Security liaisons engaged in open dialogue with Queen’s Park, negotiating use of the front lawn to light a sacred fire and erect teepees, party tents and mosquito mesh tents for people to "rest their eyes" (the words of QP officials who didn’t want to admit they were giving us permission to sleep onsite).

Aboriginal Affairs minister Michael Bryant came out front of Queen's Park for a few brief moments to give interviews with the media, but didn't talk to any gathering participants. He reiterated that ye olde Mining Act should be revised. The act doesn't take into consideration outstanding Native land claims and allows companies to set up shop on private property belonging to settlers since they own only the surface rights.

Movement building leads to victories

But politicians' tokenistic gestures don't encompass the true power of the movement itself. The events of the last few weeks speak for themselves. The first and second victories came simultaneously on Wednesday, May 28. While the harsh sentencing of the seven Native leaders was clearly politically motivated, justice was finally served when former Ardoch Algonquin chief Bob Lovelace AND the KI-6 (Donny Morris, Cecilia Begg, Sam McKay, Jack McKay, Darryl Sainnawap and Bruce Sakakeep) were all freed from prison.

The courthouse was so packed that supporters spilled out onto the street. Bob Lovelace, the KI-6 and lawyer Chris Reid joined the crowd at Queen's Park to celebrate immediately following their release.

Although Uranium mining continues at the Robertsville site near Ardoch and Sharbot Lake, a precedent was set in the Ontario Court of Appeals when Lovelace was released. In response, Frontenac Ventures dropped the remaining injunction charges on Monday June 2 against him and other activists charged for protesting against the mine. Victory number three!

The final and most extraordinary victory came on Tuesday June 3 when one of the largest paper and pulp corporations in the world, AbitibiBowater, announced they would halt logging in Grassy Narrows and pursue alternative wood sources. The Slant Lake blockade at Grassy Narrows is the longest standing in Canada. Five and a half years of blockades in the community and solidarity actions targeting companies that AbitibiBowater supplies have crippled the logging industry in the Whiskey Jack Forest. Boise announced in February they would no longer purchase wood fibre coming from Grassy Narrows. AbitibiBowater say they cannot wait four more years while the province negotiates with the Grassy Narrows council.

"Now they can't say direct action doesn't work," a friend told me following the announcement. If something has been learned from the Grassy Narrows victory, KI and Ardoch will regain control over their lands.

RAN, CPT, Amnesty International, ForestEthics and others have all worked in solidarity with the Grassy Narrows community to fight destructive logging on their traditional lands. The unrelenting Grassy blockade in conjunction with outside supporters pressuring companies in urban centres meant they literally couldn’t afford to ignore us. Opposition to corporate greed and injustice need not remain a localized issue. Our personal connections could not be broken by distance alone.

A Peruvian from a community with the largest gold mines in South America said it very eloquently at the May 26 rally: "The Andean people are united with Canada's First Nations people to defend their water and their land." He went on to say, "This economic system that's based on greed wants to take away from us not only our land but also our spirit and our unity. And we're here to make sure that doesn't happen."

Through our solidarity networks we were able to break the isolation that can hinder resistance. Our arms stretched across rivers and highways. There were times when we as activists had tactical disagreements, but we recognized that this issue was too important to walk away from. When we build solidarity instead of division within our movements, we can accomplish so much more.

When we held hands at Queen's Park we were told to make a wish. I wished for logging to stop in Grassy Narrows. It looks like I wasn't the only one.

Carmelle Wolfson has been supporting Grassy Narrows in their fight to stop logging on their lands since 2005. She spent three months in the summer of 2006 camping out at the Slant Lake Blockade in Grassy, and is currently working on a documentary about the Grassy Narrows solidarity movement.

3 Demands to Unite Us-Moratorium, Land Use Planning and Revenue Sharing

2008-06-18T16:26:00.000-07:00

450, Third Avenue
Prince George, BC
V2L 3B9
Telephone: 250-564-9321
Fax: 250-564-9521

*For Immediate Release*

*June 18, 2008
*

*Takla** Lake** First Nation Roadblock to Protect Territory*

/Takla// Lake First Nation Territory//: /The Takla Lake First Nation hereby announce that we will not permit the use of Driftwood Forest Service Road past Kilometer 71 for industrial activities until further notice. “Our Territory has been flooded with tenures awarded to industry with no proper consultation and no accommodation” states Chief Dolly Abraham. “The whole top of our watershed is blanketed with tenures. The provincial on-line staking system has turned into the new gold rush”. Takla has set up a checkpoint at km 71 out of a particular concern about mining exploration activity in a sacred area of Bear Mountain.

Takla has repeatedly requested provincial Ministers to negotiate a land use plan and revenue sharing agreement. “We keep trying to negotiate with government in good faith and they keep putting us off”, states Chief Abraham. “If we don’t take action now, the government will hand over our whole territory to mining and forestry companies and there will be nothing left for our children”. Takla are quick to point out their willingness to negotiate. “We are willing to work with individual companies that come to us in a respectful way. We are also willing to allow mining and forestry in some parts of our Territory if government would ever come and negotiate a land use plan with us”. Takla is also allowing the few private citizens with land holdings in the area to pass through the checkpoint.

Takla representatives are angered that their rights and Territory have been seriously damaged by mining and forestry in the past and nothing has been done. “The government still hasn’t cleaned up the contaminated mercury mine at the Bralorne site”, stated Councillor Kathaleigh George. “It’s on their top 10 list of contaminated sites, and they won’t clean it up. This is in an important camping and hunting area and our Nation has a hard time accepting new mining when there is this old unfinished business”.

In the words of Chief Abraham: “We’ve had enough. If the government and industry want to come and work with us to clean up contaminated mines and develop sustainable land use plans, we’ll talk. If not, we will stand up, be stewards of our land, and do what we have to do to protect our Territory for future generations.

*- 30 -
*

*Contact:
Chief Dolly Abraham: ph (250) 996-7877, fax (250) 996-7874
Takla Mining coordinator (250) 564-9321 ext.27, fax (250) 564-9

Municipal Pressure for Mining Reform Grows-Uranium Ban Needed

2008-06-18T03:31:00.001-07:00

This brings to 18 the number of municipal councils in Ontario demanding
changes to the Mining Act.

Motion for Presentation to City of Peterborough Council June
2, 2008

WHEREAS the City of Peterborough is situated on the banks of the
Otonabee River and is comprised of a landmass of just over 58 square
kilometers which supports a high quality of life to a growing
population of approximately 75,000 citizens through the benefits of a
multitude of green spaces, parks, recreational trails and waterways;

AND WHEREAS the City of Peterborough is located within the Otonabee
River watershed which is comprised of about 7000 square kilometres of
land, lakes, rivers and wetlands that are situated directly upstream
from Peterborough, and drain through the Otonabee River;

AND WHEREAS the City of Peterborough derives all of its drinking water
from the Otonabee River;

AND WHEREAS the City of Peterborough is known as the gateway to the
"cottage country" of the Kawartha Lakes region, highlighting the
significance of Peterborough as a tourism support centre for
surrounding areas;

AND WHEREAS the Otonabee River constitutes an integral part of the
Trent-Severn Waterway, which is a National Historic Site of Canada
administered by Parks Canada, and is routed directly through the City
of Peterborough;

AND WHEREAS the waterways of Peterborough and the Kawarthas are central
to overnight visitors' activities in the region which includes close to
300,000 overnight visitors claiming to have been boating during their
trip to Peterborough and the Kawarthas.

AND WHEREAS Peterborough and the Kawarthas generate 1,951,000 person
visits annually (2001), and an annual tourism-related revenue of $320
million for the City of Peterborough and Peterborough County combined.

AND WHEREAS tourism in Peterborough and the Kawarthas generates 3,520
jobs and almost $192.3 million in industry output (sales) for the local
economy (2001).

AND WHEREAS there are currently seven known uranium exploration
projects underway within the Otonabee River watershed in Haliburton
County, directly upstream from the City of Peterborough;

AND WHEREAS potential uranium mining and milling projects pose health,
environmental and financial risks for residents of the City of
Peterborough caused by the introduction of recognized radioactive
toxins into the water, air and land;

AND WHEREAS applicable examples of watershed contamination due to
uranium mining operations include the Serpent River near Elliot Lake,
Ontario which is considered contaminated for a distance of over 100
kilometres downstream from abandoned uranium mining operations, and
people are cautioned not to drink the water or consume fish from this
segment of the river;

AND WHEREAS tailings from a uranium mining operation within the
Otonabee River watershed will unavoidably contaminate surface and
ground waters, and potentially have a direct detrimental effect on the
health of Peterborough citizens and a negative economic impact on the
City of Peterborough;

AND WHEREAS no amount of radiation exposure has been found to be safe,
exposure is cumulative, uranium and its decay products remain
radioactive for tens of thousands to millions of years, and radioactive
contamination of water in present times will jeopardize the health of
local populations for generations;

AND WHEREAS children are especially prone to negative health effects
caused by exposure to ionizing radiation;

AND WHEREAS in Eastern Ontario, where there are significant numbers of
surface-rights only (SRO) properties, wherein the private landowner
owns only the surface of their properties;

AND WHEREAS the Crown holds all sub-surface mineral rights on SRO
property and on Crown lands;

AND WHEREAS under the Mining Act, 1990, licensed prospectors have a
statutory right to stake mining claims and conduct assessment work on
these properties, even if the surface rights are privately held;

AND WHEREAS under section 78 of the Mining Act, the holder of the
mining claim needs only to inform the surface-rights owner regarding
future mining assessment activities once, just prior to the
commencement of the assessment work;

AND WHEREAS this activity proceeds without authorization from the
municipality, conservation authority or having to undergo an
environmental review;

AND WHEREAS 19 Ontario municipal councils have, for reasons of similar
concern, already passed resolutions calling on the Province of Ontario
to place a moratorium on all uranium mining and exploration in Eastern
Ontario, to make substantive changes to the Mining Act and to begin
settlement plans for related native land claims, including the Cities
of Kingston and Ottawa, the Municipalities and Townships of Haliburton
County, Frontenac County, Lanark County, Dysart et al, Algonquin
Highlands, Highlands East, Minden Hills, Perth, Carleton Place, Lanark
Highlands, North Frontenac, Central Frontenac, South Frontenac, Tay
Valley, Beckwith, Mississippi Mills, and Drummond/North Elmsley;

AND WHEREAS concerned local citizens' groups are asking the City of
Peterborough to support and assist in protecting the local environment,
recreational tourism, health, the furtherance of our local economy and
the overall well-being of residents;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council for the City of Peterborough:

1. Petition the Province of Ontario and Premier Dalton McGuinty to
initiate an immediate moratorium on uranium mineral exploration, mining
and related processing in the Otonabee River watershed until such time
as all environmental and health issues related to uranium mining are
resolved;

2. Petition the Province of Ontario to undertake an immediate,
comprehensive, public review of the Mining Act, 1990, with a view to
curtailing the present system whereby the sub-surface rights of mineral
claims dominate the surface rights of private landowners, and whereby
Provincial land-use policies for Crown land gives overriding priority
to mining and mineral resource development.

AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier
of Ontario, to the Ontario Minister of Northern Development and Mines,
to the Ontario Minister Natural Resources, to Barry Devolin - MP
Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, to Laurie Scott - MPP
Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, to Dean Del Mastro - MP Peterborough,
and to Jeff Leal - MPP Peterborough, seeking their support.

What to Do When Snakes in Suits(Mining Company or MNDM Variety) Come To your Community

2008-06-17T16:26:00.002-07:00

What can communities do?

Understand what you are dealing with: If communities become aware of the possible presence of a psychopath, they should take steps to help any potential or actual victims understand the nature of the troublesome disorder.

Get help: Put these names into google with the word aboriginal. Call a lawyer. Chris Reid, Pape and Salter, Ron Maurice, Alan Donovan, Bryce Edwards, Kim Murray, Louise Mandell, Jackie Esmonde, Peter Grant. Lawyers help communities overcome such fears and confront opposition in an open but non-aggressive manner.

Do not try reason: Logic and rationality don't work on a psychopath and can be turned against the unsuspecting individual who is trying to resolve a situation.

Do not plead: If reasoning with a psychopath is useless then pleading is downright foolish as it's likely to be exploited as a sign of weakness.

Establish a power base: The best advice in dealing with a psychopath is to understand that power is likely to be the only language they'll respond to. Contact Mining Watch, Amnesty International, Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, Forest Ethics, Wildlands League, Anglican Church, Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler.Judy Rebick.Evelyn Baxter.

Exercise power with great care: It may be the only language a psychopath understands but wielding this power against such an individual or corporation is typically filled with difficulty.

Protect the victims: It's important to remember that the damage done by a psychopath in any community can adversely affect not only primary victims of manipulation but your land, water and the future of your children.

Psychopathy in the mining industry and government bureaucracy is a matter of mounting concern. Its impacts are evident in the recent rash of bad behaviour that could be characterised by excesses of callous greed and ruthlessness. Dealing with psychopathy will never be easy but increasing knowledge and awareness of the issue is the first step.

Three Days in May (Part 2)

2008-06-17T14:33:00.003-07:00

Three Days in May (Part 1)

2008-06-17T14:33:00.001-07:00

Thoughts of KI Councillor Sam McKay on His Recent Encounter at AOC with Minister Bryant

2008-06-16T17:53:00.001-07:00

Saturday June 14, 2008

Good morning people, just coming by to let you know I'm still alive and
kicking. I haven't really felt like updateing since I got out of jail
plus it's been verrry busy. I guess people have been wondering what KI
is up to next. That's just it we've been so busy getting up to speed
on a lot of issues and at the same time planning the next steps for our
ongoing struggle in protecting our land....We know it's not over by any
means...The industry and the government still want the "platinum" from
our territory....Hopefully the gov't shows alittle more respect ( what
am I saying, gov't and respect in the same sentence) in dealing with
us, because it can only get messy if they try to pull another fast one.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Micheal Bryant got upset with me in Red
Rock FN last week at the Chiefs of ON Assembly....in front of all the
Chiefs at that...he was saying you, meaning KI, refuse to take part in
the "Northern Round Table" and does not want to be part of any "PTO's"
meaning NAN, COO, AFN, etc...in essence he was insinuating that KI is
being unreasonable and slowing down progress in Northwestern Ontario in
regards to resource development.

I only have this to say to that insinuation " I'm sorry (although I
make no apology for it) your Honorable Bryant that KI does not and will
not fit into your "assembly line template" on how your little injuns
should line up and behave."

Any way it's Saturday morning and too damn early to allow my blood
pressure to get up so high on account of Minister Bryant and his
"relationship building with Fisrt Nations".

Shabot Obadjiwan discussing consultation with govt and FVC

2008-06-16T06:39:00.001-07:00

>
>> First Nation, Mining Company Open Dialogue
> Kingston Whig Standard,
> June 14, 2008
>
>
>> The Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation are working with a mining
>> exploration company to develop a consultation process to help resolve
>> a conflict over land on which the company wants to search for
>> uranium.
>>
>> The Shabot Obaadjiwan said they are also working with the provincial
>> government and the Algonquins of Ontario to develop a process that
>> will allow them to share information and talk about resolving
>> controversy, which flared up about a year ago north of Sharbot Lake.
>>
>> A release from the Shabot Obaadjiwan said all three parties have
>> agreed to focus on environmental concerns, Algonquin aboriginal
>> values, as well as health and safety.
>>
>> "We intend this to be a true dialogue, with opportunities to listen
>> and, through respectful relations, to make a new beginning at
>> addressing each other's concerns and interests," all four said in an
>> agreed statement.
>>
>> This agreement comes the same day that the Algonquins announced the
>> provincial gover nment has laid charges against Frontenac Ventures
>> and Gemmill Sand and Gravel Ltd. with breach of environmental
>> regulations.
>>
>> The release from the Shabot Obaadjiwan said road construction
>> permitting access to proposed uranium drill sites has damaged
>> sensitive wetlands. It also said dumping fill into the waterways has
>> severed the natural flow of the water.
>>
>> The two companies will appear in court in Kingston Aug. 7 to answer
>> to the charges.
>>
>> Copyright © 2008 The Whig Standard

Issues at Heart of KI Dispute will be Fundamental to Reconciliation

2008-06-15T19:23:00.001-07:00

The Globe and Mail (Canada)

June 12, 2008 Thursday

For once, Ontario squarely in Harper's camp

BYLINE: MURRAY CAMPBELL, mcampbell@globeandmail.com

SECTION: COLUMN; ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION; Pg. A10

LENGTH: 621 words

DATELINE: TORONTO

In Dalton McGuinty's view, it was a bit unseemly - even a bit
un-Canadian - to try to cast a shadow on a bright day of reconciliation
by talking about the nitty-gritty of his government's relations with
aboriginal communities.

"I'm disappointed," the Ontario Premier said yesterday when New
Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton asked him in the legislature to
emulate Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Enhanced Coverage Linking
Stephen Harper -Search using:

* Biographies Plus News
* News, Most Recent 60 Days

by apologizing for his government's role in the jailing of native
leaders who were trying to protect their land from a mining company's
incursions.

"I don't think I've ever said that before, but I just can't think of a
better expression. ... The Prime Minister and I are on different sides
on many issues, but on this side I'm squarely in his camp, because I
think it's the Canadian camp."

Mr. McGuinty said he hoped the apology would "lay the foundation" for a
stronger future for aboriginals. "So I just don't know why the Leader
of the NDP would want to ..." he concluded before his microphone was
cut off.

The Premier is right that Mr. Harper's acknowledgment of the harm
caused by the policy of assimilation should be allowed to resonate for
a while before it is relegated to history. But sooner rather than
later, Ontario has to push along its own plan for reconciliation or
risk repeated conflicts on its doorstep.

Mr. McGuinty has already accomplished much to advance Ontario beyond
the bleak days after the 1995 police killing at Ipperwash Provincial
Park of native protester Dudley George. His government promptly
appointed an inquiry into those events after the 2003 election.
Subsequently, it has pledged to implement all the recommendations of
that inquiry's superb report in consultation with natives. As part of
that, the government has set up a separate Ministry of Aboriginal
Affairs, returned Ipperwash to native hands and set up a $25-million
"new relationship fund."

But much remains to be done to crack the central issue - land. Nearly
90 per cent of Ontario is owned by the "provincial" Crown, and much of
it is also the traditional territory of aboriginal communities beyond
the smaller tracts recognized in treaties. The land is carpeted with
trees and rich with subterranean minerals coveted by the world beyond,
and that's where the trouble often starts.

As Ipperwash inquiry commissioner Mr. Justice Sidney Linden noted:
"Conflicts over natural resources often stem from sharply different
understandings about the nature of the lands which aboriginal peoples
agreed to share with newcomers."

The judge's recommendation for an independent treaty commission to
oversee settlement of treaty and land claims has not yet been
implemented. The government is also faced with fundamentally reforming
mining legislation that allows companies "free entry" on traditional
land to reflect court rulings that it has a duty to consult with native
bands. It also has to set up a framework for sharing resources revenue
and policies for police interventions during disputes.

Amnesty International's Canadian secretary-general, Alex Neve, is
"increasingly concerned that the government has not demonstrated
sufficient political will." Sam George, the slain protester's brother,
agrees things could move faster. "But I would rather see it at a slow
pace than not move at all," he said.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant says he is frustrated by the
federal government's reluctance to set a deadline for resolving the
backlog of land claims.

"The level of satisfaction with the state of negotiations surprises me
and whenever the [federal] government gets asked questions in
Parliament about this, the response seems to be everything is moving
along exactly as it should," he said. "Well, it's not."

KIs Biggest Political Ally Hangs it Up

2008-06-15T19:19:00.001-07:00

The Toronto Sun

June 14, 2008 Saturday
FINAL EDITION

Hampton saved the NDP's bacon

SECTION: EDITORIAL/OPINION; Editorial; Pg. 20

LENGTH: 335 words

It wasn't pretty being the leader of Ontario's New Democrats for the
past 12 years and now that Howard Hampton is retiring, he deserves the
thanks of his party.

Hampton, 56, the rugged, hardscrabble, hockey-playing, northern Ontario
boy, who grew up to become a lawyer, and, since 1987, the MPP from
Kenora-Rainy River, took over as NDP leader in 1996.

That was right after the disastrous five-year term of Bob Rae as
Ontario's NDP premier, after which the party became an endangered
species in Ontario politics.

Hampton served as attorney-general and natural resources minister in
Rae's cabinet, but the two seldom saw eye-to-eye.

While Rae is now a Liberal MP, the party he left behind has never
recovered from voter fury.

Critics will say Hampton failed to grow the NDP through three
successive elections in 1999, 2003 and 2007 and was often reduced to
begging first the Tories and then the Liberals to allow the NDP to
retain official party status.

But that's an unfair assessment.

Hampton, who was clearly nearing the end of his rope during a revealing
meeting with the Sun's editorial board just days before last year's
election -- he publicly questioned whether he was still the right
person for the job -- did a thankless job well.

That job was holding the NDP together in the aftermath of the Rae
debacle.

Were it not for Hampton, the NDP could have collapsed completely as a
political force in Ontario.

Hampton preserved the party to fight another day, no small achievement.

Married to long-time Nickel Belt MPP Shelley Martel, who retired before
last year's provincial election, Hampton understandably wants to spend
more time with his family.

Possible successors include Toronto NDP MPPs Michael Prue, Peter Tabuns
and federal MP Charlie Angus.

While Hampton reportedly will stay on as an MPP until the 2011
election, if Premier Dalton McGuinty is smart, he should offer him an
oversight job in Ontario's electricity sector.

Hampton knows the file cold and cares about the public. The Liberals
could do a lot worse.

Essence of Ontario's Hype of Mining Exploration for First Nations

2008-06-14T06:00:00.001-07:00

Hope Sold to First Nations at Bad Odds

Influential Economist Magazine on New Aboriginal Politics of Media, Courts and ENGO Allies

2008-06-12T18:32:00.000-07:00

Rumour has it that a Greenpeace style direct action/media stunts organization is being formed by an unholy alliance of First Nation leaders and savvy environmental campaigners. Let's call it Redpeace for now. All that Pew Foundation money has to go somewhere.

Aboriginals in Canada
Finding their voice

Jun 12th 2008 | OTTAWA
From The Economist print edition
Canada delivers an official apology to its increasingly assertive indigenous peoples

FEW would dispute that Canada's shameful treatment of many of its aboriginals has left a stain on its image. Between 1870 and 1996, an estimated 150,000 indigenous children were wrenched from their homes and sent to Christian boarding schools, where many were sexually and physically abused. Yet until Stephen Harper, Canada's Conservative prime minister, rose in the House of Commons on June 11th to deliver an unqualified official apology to assembled leaders of Canada's 1m First Nation, Inuit and mixed-race Métis people, no Canadian leader had taken this step.

Parallels will be drawn with a similar act of contrition by Kevin Rudd, Australia's Labor prime minister in February. But the two differ in important respects. Australia offered an apology, but no compensation, to 55,000 mixed-race children forced into white foster homes. Mr Harper's apology follows a C$2 billion ($2 billion) settlement in 2005 of a lawsuit by former students of schools set up, in Mr Harper's words, “to kill the Indian in the child” by assimilating them into the dominant culture.

Mr Harper's decision to apologise now is probably aimed in part at curtailing future lawsuits by Indian victims of abuse, who chose not to take part in the earlier settlement. But it is also shows that he understands the value of saying sorry when the state has harmed its citizens. He recently apologised to Maher Arar, a Canadian tortured in Syria after wrongly being identified as a terrorist; and to Chinese-Canadians for the government's punitive Chinese head-tax policy of 1885-1923.

But this week's ceremony is also testimony to the increasingly sophisticated use made by Canada's indigenous tribes, who make up a mere 3.8% of the population, of the courts, alliances with environmental groups and targeted protests against mining companies to strengthen their otherwise limited influence.

This communications savvy was on display in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, on May 29th, when the premiers of the four, resource-rich western provinces decided to interrupt their annual summit to participate in a “national day of action” called by the First Nations, many in traditional feathered head-dress. Intended as a “we-share-your-pain” gesture beloved by politicians, it backfired when Chief Albert Mercredi took advantage of the assembled media to denounce the premiers for allowing mining development to pollute the aboriginals' air, land and water. The chief, whose own band lives on Lake Athabasca, downstream and downwind from massive tar-sands operations in Alberta, says the recent arrival of the internet in isolated communities allows them to keep track of the outside world's ideas and deeds.

Informal alliances with environmental groups, adept at using the media to generate political pressure, give aboriginal groups allies in the land-use disputes they once fought on their own. Their ends may differ—greens seized on the oily death of 500 ducks in an Alberta tailing pond last April to promote wildlife safeguards, while the native group downstream regarded the threat to human health as the salient point—but they help each other generate publicity. Tensions do arise, however. Whereas green groups tend to oppose any development, aboriginals are keen on job creation—so long as they are consulted about sustainable projects.

High mineral prices offer native Canadians living in the remote areas where most such resources are found another way to raise their profile. A well-targeted protest that raises corporate hackles—such as the one over a proposed platinum mine in northern Ontario that led to the arrest and imprisonment of six members of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug band—can produce a quicker political response than years of patient negotiations. Ontario's premier now says he will change mining law to ensure that aboriginals are consulted in advance of any mining on their land. Across Canada, other groups are using similar tactics against a wide array of pipeline and mining projects, confident that pressure from frustrated companies will force politicians to take notice.

Although native Canadians may be speaking more loudly, they do not yet do so with one voice. No single group represents them all, which is one reason why there are no co-ordinated proposals to improve aboriginal living conditions, education and financial prospects, which still trail national averages by a wide margin. Still, with the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010 providing a golden opportunity for protest, the First Nations, Inuit and Métis have time to hone their already sharp skills in getting out their message.

With All this Exploration Are we Likely to See any Mines?

2008-06-12T18:20:00.000-07:00

Likely yes with sustained annual exploration expenditures in the $600 million range.

Here's what the Australian pointy heads say about what it costs to find a base metal mine.

Discovery costs
Mackenzie et al. (1997) reported that the average cost of finding and delineating an economic base metal deposit was about $120 million ($160 million in 2004–2005 dollars) and almost six times higher than for nickel but varied greatly between regions.

The decline in the rate of discovery of new base metals (excluding nickel) since the early 1990s suggests that the average cost of discovery of base metal deposits in Australia is likely to have increased since Mackenzie et al., (1998) study. Discovery costs have improved for nickel, however. Hronsky and Schodde (2005) estimated that, on average, each nickel sulphide deposit discovered in the Yilgarn Craton cost $17.7 million and nickel laterite deposits $6.5 million. This is substantially less than the $23 million ($31 million in 2004–2005 dollars) reported by Mackenzie et al., 1997 M Hronsky and Schodde (2005) noted that average discovery costs were ‘remarkably cheap’ at 5.2 c/lb ($115/tonne) for nickel sulphide and 0.6 c/lb for laterite nickel.

One fact to keep in mind.

• there is a broad correlation between intensity of exploration and rates of base metal discovery. However, the major peak in mineral exploration activity in the mid-1990s was not accompanied by significant discovery, as noted previously (e.g. Haynes, 2000; Parry and Parry, 2001

Resources Policy
Volume 30, Issue 3, September 2005, Pages 168-185
Exploration and discovery of Australia's copper, nickel, lead and zinc resources 1976–2005

A.L. Jaques M.B. Huleatt, M. Ratajkoski and R.R. Towner

Why I Like Ecuador Mining Reform, Sometimes Having an Economist Running the State Can Work, But Then Again Ecuador Has A Sketchy Shark Fin Export Policy

2008-06-12T16:18:00.001-07:00

1. It got the Industry's attention by declaring a moratorium while the
mining reform process was set in motion.

2. It cancelled existing concessions. Every once in a while the
industry has to be reminded that the State controls natural resources.

3. A key goal of the new policy was to make companies accountable for
the social and environmental impacts of their exploration activities.

4.It provides for a veto of current mining projects.

5. It requires stricter environmental regulations and royalties that
return a fair share of profits to the state.

6.It creates a state run mining company.

Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa founded the Alianza PAIS—Patria
Altiva y Soberana ("Proud and Sovereign Fatherland Alliance"). The new
party espouses political sovereignty and regional integration, and
economic relief for Ecuador's poor. Correa, an observant Roman
Catholic, describes himself as a humanist, a Christian of the left, and
a proponent of socialism of the 21st century.

In addition to his platform on economic and social policy, Correa's
ability to communicate with Ecuador's indigenous population in their
own language also differentiated him from the other presidential
candidates. He learned Quichua in his youth during a year he spent
volunteering in a remote highland town.

Republic of NANistan?

2008-06-12T15:55:00.001-07:00

Let's hope resource revenue sharing comes with Kazak-like Financial
Police.I can just see it now the NAN Financial Police with their AK47s raiding De Beers
offices in Toronto and demanding the records on IBA implementation at
Attawapiskat.

Power Putsch; After an armed seizure, years of criminal investigations
and millions of dollars in suspicious fines, U.S. power company AES
Corp. is retreating from Kazakhstan--the latest victim of cronyism in
poor, resource-rich countries.
Nathan Vardi
2639 words
2 June 2008
Forbes
84
Volume 181 Issue 11
English
(c) 2008 Forbes Inc.

After an armed seizure, years of criminal investigations and millions
of dollars in suspicious fines, U.S. power company AES Corp. is
retreating from Kazakhstan--the latest American victim of cronyism in
poor, resource-rich nations. Without warning, 24 foot soldiers of the
Pavlodar Oblast Financial Police showed up, carrying AK-47 Kalashnikov
automatic rifles. Their target: the Maikuben coal mine in northern
Kazakhstan, owned by the American firm AES Corp. Demanding documents
connected to a tax case in Kazakh courts, the troops brandished their
weapons to remove AES employees and seize the mine's administration
building, according to internal AES e-mails. With no cellular service
in the area, AES managers in the country struggled to communicate with
their staff as the occupation dragged into a second day.

They negotiated an end to the standoff with regional officials, who
persuaded the goons to pull back. AES never told investors or the press
about the armed takeover.

Operations at the open coal pit continued, and the company got slapped
with a tax fine.

. . .

Three AES executives who had already left the country for routine
career changes--two citizens of the U.K., one from New Zealand--were
placed under investigation in connection with the tax probe. Kazakh
authorities said they were wanted for questioning and threatened to
alert Interpol, according to an internal AES e-mail. Ten Kazakh workers
at AES were interrogated for eight hours a day over several days. They
were grilled about the political affiliations of AES employees, says an
internal company e-mail, and accused of being unpatriotic. "Why do you
work for Americans who steal from us?" they were asked.

. ..

But that official policy hasn't kept authorities from hassling foreign
operations. In November a regional Kazakh environmental regulator fined
Chevron's Tengiz oilfield project $310 million for alleged violations
involving the improper storage of sulfur. Chevron insists it has dealt
with the sulfur safely and legally, and is contesting the fine.

The Tengiz problem is a mere puddle next to the troubles at Kashagan in
the remote North Caspian Sea, the world's largest oilfield discovery in
the last three decades. Citing production delays and cost overruns, and
threatening new laws and fines to protect the wilderness, the Kazakh
government has extracted critical concessions from Western companies
developing the field. In January the chief executives of Exxon, Shell,
France's Total and Eni of Italy flew to Astana, the new northern
capital decreed in 1997 and built almost from scratch. There, in a
nine-hour meeting at La Rivière restaurant, the oil giants agreed to
fork over $5 billion to compensate Kazakhstan for delays and potential
lost revenue, and let KazMunayGas, the state oil company, double its
stake in Kashagan to 17% for the bargain price of $1.8 billion.

It doesn't stop there. Foreign firms in Kazakhstan, which pay a maximum
tax rate of 30%, plus value added taxes, have come to expect frequent
visits from the regional taxman. ArcelorMittal, the world's biggest
steel company, has been fighting $2.5 billion of tax claims associated
with its coal- and steel-producing assets in the country. The Ministry
of Finance claimed that ArcelorMittal should, among other things, be
paying Kazakh taxes on the income of a subsidiary in the United Arab
Emirates. ArcelorMittal says it has paid taxes in accordance with the
original privatization agreement and recently won court victories in
the case. (Unrelated to the tax cases, ArcelorMittal has had serious
safety issues: 71 Kazakh miners have died in two accidents in the last
three years.)

. . .

As AES packs it in, other American companies in Kazakhstan brace for
more hits. Not long ago President Nazarbayev declared that his
government would take greater control of energy resources. Soon after,
the environmental protection minister announced new taxes on foreign
oil companies.

How Mining Majors Handle Political Risk-Use a Junior MIning Front-oops I mean Partner

2008-06-12T14:37:00.003-07:00

For the past few years, the metals and mining industry has witnessed a
flurry of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), totalling about $210.8
billion (R1.5 trillion) last year, as companies found it easier to buy
a running operation than start from scratch.

High metals prices have served as a great incentive for M&A activity,
as key raw materials such as copper, aluminium and nickel have rallied
to record highs.

Experts believe the M&A trend is likely to continue, although at a
slower pace, but scarce metal reserves in the earth's crust will force
firms to go where the assets are.

"Increasingly we are going to more remote areas, first to explore and
then develop projects," said Rio Tinto. "The reality is you have to go
a bit further afield these days to find new, good quality
mineralisation. The traditional areas have been explored."

That is exactly what Rio did when it teamed up with Canadian
exploration company Ivanhoe to develop the colossal gold and copper Oyu
Tolgoi deposit in Mongolia.

There have been repeated delays in Mongolian legislation to approve the
$13 billion project, which has pushed up costs, causing Ivanhoe to lose
money in the third quarter of last year.

But companies had not become discouraged by increased political risks,
as they had become much more adept at handling them, said a senior
industry expert.

Michael Lynch-Bell, a global mining and metals transaction leader at
Ernst & Young, said: "Firms are finding political risk easier to deal
with."

Anywhere in the world

Almost half of the participants in last year's survey by Ernst & Young
say there are no regions in the world that they will avoid.

"They have to take the risk," said Simon Gardner-Bond, a mining analyst
at Ocean Equities. "Because there are no deposits elsewhere for them,
it is the lack of supply that's driving people to go to the higher
sovereign risk areas."

Countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique,
Kirgizistan and Tajikistan have recently entered the spotlight, thanks
to their mineral-rich deposits.

In the case of larger mining companies, setting up a joint venture or
buying a minority stake in the project looks more convenient than
owning the whole deposit.

"Due to political and safety issues, there are certain places you would
avoid, but you also have to monitor these areas," said Illtud Harri,
the spokesperson for the world's largest mining company, BHP Billiton.

Harri said bringing in partners was a good way of getting involved.

BHP Billiton did exactly that in war-torn Mozambique, by setting up an
aluminium smelter.

In some cases, majors prefer to act together in risky areas. BHP
Billiton, Anglo American and Xstrata operate a big coal mine in
Colombia that faces security risks.

On Tuesday a coal train from the Cerrejon coal mine, owned by the three
mining companies, was derailed by a guerrilla bomb attack.

David Rovig, the president of Greystar Resources, a Canadian mining
firm with a big gold and silver project in Colombia, said security
risks were still an issue, but the situation had improved
significantly, compared with five years ago.

"A lot of the easy stuff is gone,'' said Rovig. ''You're forced to look
where the minerals are."

In an environment of rising inflation and transportation costs, small
mining companies bold enough to take on the initial risks may hope to
be taken over by a major company.

Such firms "don't have enough resources to develop the mine and related
infrastructure, and their access to debt and equity funding is harder",
said Paul Knight, a joint global chief of metals and mining at UBS.

This scenario could open the door to more M&A activity. "In M&A, you do
a transaction now, and a year later you've got an operating mine – the
reward is much bigger," said Knight.

Ecuadorian Indigenous Peoples Ramp Up Right to Say No Camapign

2008-06-12T14:37:00.001-07:00

The powerful Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador
(Conaie) - the representative body of Ecuador's indigenous peoples -
has been officially declared an opposition party by the government
after the body's president, Marlon Santi, threatened the possibility of
protests to forestall the president's mining reform program. Conaie's
demands are twofold: to have the new constitution officially recognise
indigenous rights, and to have the authorities consult local
communities before extractive licences on their land are approved. One
regional chapter head has urged dialogue, and a timeframe for any
protest not been set. While the space for negotiation exists, President
Correa faces the very real possibility of widespread strikes and
roadblocks by the powerful lobby.

Matawa Mining Deal on Day of National Apology-Bad Timing?

2008-06-12T14:02:00.001-07:00

International Nickel Ventures Corp - Update on INV's "Ring of Fire"
Properties
1284 words
12 June 2008
13:34
Market News Publishing
English
Copyright 2008 Market News Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved

INTERNATIONAL NICKEL VENTURES CORP ("INV-T") - Update on INV's "Ring of
Fire" Properties International Nickel Ventures Corporation ("INV" or
the "Corporation") is pleased to advise that it has entered into a
Letter of Comfort with the Neskantaga First Nation ("Neskantaga") on
INV's Lansdowne House property, one of two large mineral properties the
Corporation has in the prospective "Ring of Fire" area of northern
Ontario. INV expects to immediately initiate an exploration program on
the property comprised of prospecting, gridding, geological mapping,
geochemical sampling and ground geophysics.

Robert Bell, President and CEO stated "INV is delighted to have been
able to develop an excellent personal and business relationship with
Neskantaga, culminating in the execution of a Letter of Comfort which
allows INV to access the Lansdowne property and outlines the benefits
and impacts of the project to the Neskantaga community. The first phase
of our partnership with Neskantaga includes exploration activities
involved with drill target identification. INV has committed, where
possible, to employ several members of the community to participate in
exploration activities. INV management believes that the strong
partnership with Neskantaga will continue to progress as the project is
advanced.

INV's large Lansdowne House and Fishtrap properties (14,880 hectares
and 12,160 hectares respectively) are located in the James Bay Lowlands
area and are underlain by large mafic-ultramafic igneous complexes
emplaced along major structures (see Figure 1, Regional Magnetics and
Structure) which appear to be related to the same geological terrane
boundary that hosts Noront Resources Ltd's ("Noront") McFaulds Lake
high-grade, nickel-copper-precious metal deposit. The press release of
June 4, 2008, announcing the significant sulphide intersection
discovered by the joint venture formed by Arctic Star Diamond Corp.,
WSR Gold Inc. and Metalex Ventures Ltd., 45 kilometres north of
Noront's Eagle One discovery, highlights the geological potential of
the "Ring of Fire" area.

Lansdowne House, located approximately 80 kilometres west of McFaulds
Lake, is underlain by a geological environment that has potential to
host nickel-copper-platinum-palladium-gold, base metal and gold
deposits. Previous diamond drilling on the property was concentrated
along a three-kilometre long trend of EM anomalies coincident with
magnetic highs (see Figure 2, Property Magnetics and Electromagnetic
Conductors, and Figure 3, Detail Area Magnetics and Electromagnetic
Conductors). Broad zones of anomalous mineralization were encountered,
with results ranging from weakly anomalous to intersections grading
0.74% copper and 0.40% nickel over 17.7 metres in one zone; and 0.79%
copper and 0.64% nickel over 21.5 metres, including 1.0% copper and
0.83% nickel over 14.9 metres, in another zone. Diamond drilling for
platinum-palladium-gold in the early 2000's intersected anomalous
precious metal values, ranging from 0.32 g/t platinum + palladium +
gold ("TPM") over 220.6 metres to 1.04 g/t TPM over 25.5 metres,
including 3.1 g/t TPM over 1.5 metres.

In addition to the nickel-copper-precious metal targets on the
property, widespread anomalous zinc and copper values occur in
association with felsic volcanics, sediments and iron formations, in
some cases coincident with conductive and magnetic bodies with
considerable untested strike length. The southern part of the property
is transected by shear zones which host two gold showings. Previous
owner, Aurora Platinum, reported gold values from outcrop grab samples
ranging up to 23.8 g/t at the Goose showing and 9.3 g/t at the Sandvik
showing.

In 2006, FNX Mining Company Inc. ("FNX") carried out an airborne
geophysical survey over the property and identified numerous untested
conductors, but did not complete any ground surveys or drilling. INV
plans to immediately initiate an exploration program at the Lansdowne
property, comprised of prospecting, gridding, geological mapping,
geochemical sampling and ground geophysics.

Like Lansdowne House, the 49 claim (760 units totaling 12,160 hectares)
Fishtrap property, located approximately 60 kilometres south of the
McFaulds Lake discovery, covers a large layered mafic-ultramafic
complex. The eastern half of the complex is being explored by third
parties for precious metals. There is no record of any previous
drilling on the Fishtrap property. FNX's 2006 airborne geophysical
survey identified a number of conductive zones associated with the
interpreted basal portions of the complex.

An access agreement has been reached with the Marten Falls First
Nation, in whose traditional territory the property is located, and
gridding has been completed over the previously identified conductive
zones. Ground magnetometer and electromagnetic geophysical surveys are
underway, with drilling to follow.

To view Figure 1 - Regional Magnetics and Structure, please visit the
following link: http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/inv612a.pdf

To view Figure 2 - Property Magnetics and Electromagnetic Conductors,
please visit the following link:

http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/inv612b.pdf

To view Figure 3 - Detail Area Magnetics and Electromagnetic
Conductors, please visit the following link:

http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/inv612c.pdf

About INV

INV is an international mineral resource company focused on the
acquisition, exploration and development of base and precious metal
projects in Brazil and Canada. Currently, INV's primary assets are: (1)
the advanced-stage Santa Fe-Ipora nickel laterite deposits located in
Goias State, Brazil; (2) the Montcalm nickel-copper property located
contiguous to Xstrata Nickel's operating nickel mine in the Timmins,
Ontario area; (3) its nickel-copper-precious metals properties located
in the 'Ring of Fire' area in northern Ontario and (4) its
nickel-copper sulphide properties, including Niquelandia, Damolandia,
and Taquaral, located in Brazil.

For further information please see INV's Management's Discussion and
Analysis dated May 14, 2008 and other technical reports filed on SEDAR
and available on INV's website at www.nickelventures.com.

All That Attention on Mining Act One of Reasons Ontario Yet To Create Treaty Commission

2008-06-12T13:44:00.001-07:00

File this as one of the strangest responses yet.Maybe Bryant really
is channelling Kreskin. It's in the eyes.Will be interesting to see how
First Nation members on the Ipperwash Implementation committee see
things.

Thursday » June 12 » 2008

Ontario has yet to implement any of Ipperwash inquiry recommendations
Federal government's co-operation needed, minister insists

Lee Greenberg
The Ottawa Citizen

Thursday, June 12, 2008

TORONTO - One year after a seminal report outlined steps to a better
relationship between First Nations and provincial authorities,
Ontario's government has yet to implement one of its top
recommendations.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant yesterday said he is waiting
for the federal government's co-operation to set up an independent
treaty commission.

"We can't do it without the federal government's agreement and
co-operation, as they have done with other provinces," he said
yesterday.

. . .
Mr. Bryant insists that federal authority is needed. He adds that
"there's not been a level of focus on this (federally)."

An Ipperwash implementation committee made up of provincial officials
and First Nations leadership was focused on other issues, particularly
the provincial mining act, when it met for the first time in April,
said Mr. Bryant.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, meanwhile, yesterday touted his
government's achievements following the Ipperwash Inquiry, which
resulted, most notably, in the creation of a standalone aboriginal
affairs ministry.

"If you were to contrast what we've done in the last eight months with
(what has been done in) the last 80 years, I think some might argue
that we're moving at a pretty fast clip," Mr. McGuinty told reporters.

Australian's Say Junior Miners May be Set for a Tumble

2008-06-12T10:00:00.001-07:00

The Age (Melbourne, Australia)

June 10, 2008 Tuesday
First Edition

Juniors expected to slash spending

BYLINE: Jamie Freed

SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 3

LENGTH: 267 words

THE amount of money junior miners spend on exploration could drop
sharply because of difficulties in raising funds in a tough equity
market.

Citi analyst Julian Bu has noted financing of initial public offering
was down 90% on the Australian Securities Exchange through May compared
with the same period last year. The Toronto Stock Exchange was down
72%.

"With such large and consistent falls in financing volume, we are hard
pressed to believe junior miners will not be affected," he said.

"Therefore, unless things improve quickly, juniors will have less to
spend and the exploration drilling cycle could turn."

From 2002 to 2007, exploration spending by junior miners rose 900%,
meaning they were responsible for just over half of global spending on
minerals exploration. In 2001, juniors had accounted for just a
quarter.

Mr Bu's report, focused on drilling contractor Boart Longyear, said
there was anecdotal evidence that juniors were finding it hard to get
finance.

The ASX website yesterday showed six potential exploration floats had
no proposed listing date, meaning the expected offer close date had
passed without enough funds being raised.

Mr Bu said a slowdown in exploration spending by junior miners could
force down the cost of drilling, affecting contractors such as Boart
Longyear.

Drillers now dedicated to these juniors would have to turn to the
majors.

A year's lag between metals prices and exploration spending meant Boart
Longyear's earnings could be shielded for a year.

But he said the lag offered little protection if metal prices fell.

Citi has a "sell" recommendation on Boart Longyear.

First Nation Consultation Could Temper MNDM Hype of Ontario as Risk Free

2008-06-12T09:00:00.001-07:00

Ontario Exploration Spending to Rise 25% on Higher Metal Prices
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a4ceOfIUxBuc#

By Rob Delaney

June 10, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- Mining companies including Cia. Vale do
Rio Doce and Xstrata Plc will spend 25 percent more this year on
exploration in Canada's Ontario province amid rising interest in
searching for deposits in stable nations, the government said.

Exploration expenditures in Canada's largest metal-producing province
may increase to C$629 million ($616 million) from C$502 million in
2007, said Marc Leroux, marketing manager with the province's Ministry
of Northern Development and Mines. Ontario produced C$10.7 billion of
metal, mostly nickel, gold and copper in 2007, according to the
ministry's data.

Mining companies, driven by copper and gold prices that reached
records this year, are seeking deposits in lower-risk countries as
governments in developing nations try to revise agreements to gain more
from their mineral wealth, Leroux said.

``Mining companies have come to appreciate the lack of political risk,
the rule of law, security of tenure, and all of the elements that
create a reliable investment climate,'' Leroux said in an interview
yesterday. ``We're expecting a lot of work to come in over the next 10
years or so.''

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. said last week that plans to start
its copper mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo by the second half
of next year are at risk because of logistical difficulties and poor
infrastructure. Ivanhoe Mines Ltd., seeking to develop a copper and
gold project in Mongolia with Rio Tinto Group, has been negotiating
with the nation's government for more than five years.

The price of nickel, Ontario's largest mineral product by value, has
more than doubled in the past five years as economic growth in China
boosted demand for the ingredient used in stainless steel. Gold,
Ontario's No. 2 metal, has more than doubled in that period, and copper
has more than quadrupled.

Claims Rise

The number of exploration concessions claimed in Ontario's Sudbury
district, where Vale and Xstrata's largest Canadian operations are
based, rose 36 percent to 27,000 last year, according to the ministry's
data. Exploration spending in Ontario has risen from C$219 million in
2003, according to the department.

Vale announced in June 2007 that exploration drilling confirmed the
presence of copper and nickel deposits that may extend the life of a
106-year-old mine it controls in Sudbury. The Creighton Deep project
has the potential to almost double proven and probable reserves of
nickel and copper at the Creighton mine, Vale said at the time.

To contact the reporter on this story: Rob Delaney in Toronto at
robdelaney@bloomberg.net

NDP Pushes McGuinty to Apologize to KI and Bob Lovelace

2008-06-11T13:09:00.000-07:00

The New Democrats tried to push McGuinty to apologize to Ontario aboriginal leaders for conflicts with mining companies that have led to some chiefs being jailed for trying to block exploration on their lands.

"It seems to me, given the recent history of Ontario, this premier has something to apologize for,'' NDP Leader Howard Hampton told the legislature.

Why Muskoka Cottage Owners Will Win Campaign For First Nation Consultation

2008-06-10T09:34:00.000-07:00

who needs constitutional rights when you have angry cottage and property owners.

Tuesday » June 10 » 2008

Forget academia, the future's in mining

Lloyd Brown-John
Special to The Windsor Star

Monday, June 09, 2008

This is all about archaic mining rights legislation in Ontario and the almost desperate need for the provincial government to update a rights erosion law.

Coming from backwoods British Columbia, I studied geology in my early years. I've never lost interest in rocks and minerals so it was with enormous pleasure that I joined my cousin Jack Brown-John at his home near Horsefly, B.C. a few weeks ago.

Cousin Jack is nationally famous in as one of this country's top competitive loggers. Indeed, Jack travelled the world demonstrating his skills with a chainsaw and falling axe. But time and an accident slowed him down somewhat, so now he's turned to another of his loves, prospecting.

Horsefly, B.C. is in the heart of B.C.'s "gold rush country" and almost everybody has some nuggets cached away somewhere.

But Cousin Jack is different. "You can pan for gold any day, the real future is in minerals." So Jack prospects and registers claims. He has hundreds and many are rich in lead and zinc and copper and molybdenum. Jack explained details for staking a claim and registering it and even how to claim-jump.

So after some cultural upgrading in B.C., I returned to Ontario and started to explore mining legislation in Ontario. Well Lo! ... you can file mineral claims in Ontario even if somebody else owns the land.

Ontario's quaint 19th-century mining legislation allows a prospector to enter your land, stake out a claim, file and register that claim and even begin exploratory drilling on your land without your permission.

You see, in Ontario, your "property rights" are only superficial. You do not own the mineral rights beneath your own property.

I read through Ontario's Mining Act and realized there was an opportunity just itching to be taken.

Cousin Jack had demonstrated how to blaze and stake a claim and how to nail pink plastic ribbon on claim stakes and blazes -- so why not, thought I.

I bought a new axe and a file for sharpening the axe, a huge roll of pink plastic ribbon, donned my official old prospector's hat and set out around our neighbourhood in lovely rural Kingsville to stake my claims.

I consulted geological maps and discovered a possibility that oil and natural gas could be found in my backyard and ravine.

There is also potential for salt and, if worse comes to worse, I can always open an aggregate quarry and harvest sand and gravel. We may not have gold in the ground in Kingsville but by jimminey-crackers we still have resource exploitation potential.

Some of my neighbours have not been sympathetic to my prospecting. One complained loudly when I took my axe and blazed along the trees of his driveway. And, he's still fuming about the pink ribbons I've hung in his magnolia tree. But, I showed him the Ontario Mining Act and he cowered under my threat to call out Ontario's Mines Minister Michael Gravelle and troops to enforce my mining claims.

Another neighbour was upset simply because I explained to her that her in-ground swimming pool violated my sub-surface mineral rights now that I'd staked a claim around her red maple trees and hung pink ribbon on her forsythia bushes. I warned that her menacing shotgun would be no match for my right to call in the Ontario Mining Commission and its enforcement brigade. I adjusted my GPS, spat a wad of chewin' tobacco into her daffodils, and carried on.

Of course, with all my neighbours, I've induced them to my point-of-view with the prospect of big royalties they will surely earn once we bring in a few gas wells in their front and back yards. I suppose the prospect of being a petroleum baron in Kingsville has mollified their initial shock and turned it to awe.

We will know much better next year after our initial test well drillings are completed.

My neighbour with the greenhouse has expressed some concern about the drilling rigs operating between his greenhouses. I had to tape my pink ribbons on his greenhouse as the usual nails punched holes in the plastic sheathing.

My Cousin Jack would be so proud of me knowing that his instructions on staking a mining claim have been so assiduously followed -- well, maybe. You see, I'm just satirizing.

No, my immediate neighbors in Kingsville are safe from rapacious mining companies, but many folks in Ontario are not.

Many residents of Ontario who have bought that ideal piece of woodland acreage are almost annually finding themselves confronted by mining companies and prospectors staking claims on their land.

Ontario has an 80 year old mining law that more or less quietly encourages mining companies to stake claims on private land because Ontarians do not own the mineral or sub-surface rights on their own land.

It is long past the appropriate time for Ontario to bring its mining laws into the 21st century. One provincial ministry almost solely dedicated both to a region and an industry does not make for equity in rights for all Ontarians.

Lloyd Brown-John is professor emeritus, public administration, at the University of Windsor.

Is this Exploration Boom about Investment or Speculation?

2008-06-09T18:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.bcbusinessmagazine.com/bcb/top-stories/2006/09/01/rock-stars

If you look into any one of the 400 or so juniors that call Vancouver home, chances are you’ll find a credible geologist at the heart of the business and a number of serious projects aimed at bringing a mineral-producing mine to life.

That’s not to say the scam factor has been eliminated completely. A new exploration company typically goes public with a share price well below a dollar, and anywhere you find stocks whose value can jump 40 or 50 per cent with a swing in price of a dime or a quarter, you’ll find unsophisticated investors dreaming of instant riches. Close on their heels will be unscrupulous promoters eager to relieve them of their money.

Vancouver Sun columnist David Baines has made a career of exposing fraud in Vancouver’s junior public companies and he’s convinced that swindles didn’t disappear with the death of the VSE.

“If anyone thinks this market has changed its character to one where the process has changed from speculation to investment, they’re crazy, they’re delusional,” Baines says. He points to the example of De Beira Goldfields, a company founded by a Vancouver longshoreman and headed by two Australians with a history of online pornography and gambling. De Beira was grounded by the B.C. Securities Exchange in June after its market capitalization had soared from zero to more then US$600 million in 35 trading days, following extensive promotion in newsletters and online chat forums.

However, Baines concedes that there is a key difference between De Beira and the hundreds of legitimate Vancouver exploration companies: its shares traded only on the largely unregulated Over The Counter Bulletin Board in the U.S. and the equally fast and loose Frankfurt Exchange.

When asked if a TSX or TSX-Venture listing reduces the likelihood of similar scams, Baines replies, “Yes, I think so,” adding that if an OTCBB company is co-listed on the TSX -Venture Exchange, “that’s fine, because they always have to adhere to the highest standards. The bulletin board may have virtually no standards, but the TSX does.” Several dozen of B.C.’s approximately 400 exploration companies trade exclusively on the OTCBB.

Will it all come crashing down again? Maybe. Certainly no one will argue that metal prices will remain at their current peak indefinitely. And whenever people start saying it’s different this time around, the smart money heads for the hills. But for now, the new crop of Vancouver juniors has no time to look in the rearview mirror. As Fronteer’s Mark O’Dea puts it, “We’re cashed up and we’re going to do what we’re supposed to do: go out and find big deposits.”

Death and resurrection of Vancouver’s junior scene
Vancouver saw its last mining boom in the mid 1990s, when promoters went into overdrive as news of a massive gold find in Indonesia fanned the flames of speculation on the VSE. But following the NDP government’s expropriation of the Windy Craggy mine in 1993, a string of disasters converged in what seemed certain to spell the end of Vancouver’s reign as an internation hub of mineral exploration

1988- The VSE at its best
Local geologist Ron Netolitzky and partners team up with Murray Pezim to raise exploration capital on the VSE. Gold discoveries at the Snip and Eskay Creek properties in northwest B.C. spark a frenzy of trading, pushing share prices into the stratosphere. By the early ’90s, investors, geologists and promoters have cashed in their chips as discoveries move from exploration to production.

1993- Omen of doom
In an unprecedented move, the NDP government expropriates the site of the planned Windy Craggy mine from Royal Oak Mines and turns it into the Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park. Royal Oak kick-starts the mining industry’s exodus from B.C. by picking up stakes and moving its head office from Vancouver to Kirkland, Washington.

1997 The Bre-X debacle
The biggest gold discovery in decades – 200 million ounces in Busang, Indonesia – turns out to be a fraud. When the Calgary company, trading on the ASE, began
hyping its find in 1991, the VSE erupted in a frenzy of speculation and penny investors propelled junior mining stocks to the stratosphere. It comes crashing down in 1997 when independent analyses confirm a massive fraud.

1999 Death of the VSE
Some blame it on Bre-X. Some attribute it to the death of Murray Pezim in 1998. But on the eve of the 21st century, it is clear that the VSE is an anachronism. The VSE hooks up with the Alberta Stock Exchange to become the Canadian Venture Exchange, housed in Calgary. Within two years, it is swallowed by the Toronto Stock Exchange to become the TSX-Venture Exchange.

2006 The return of the juniors
More than 400 junior exploration companies call B.C. home, and they’re raising money like never before. The previous year, 41 B.C.-based juniors went public on the TSX and TSX-Venture Exchanges. In June 2006 one company, Fronteer Development Group, raises $38.4 million.

Prediction-Court of Appeal Written reasons will Turn on Issue of Reconciliation

2008-06-09T15:10:00.000-07:00

Jail sentences set aside.

Posted: June 09, 2008

by: Kate Harries

* http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417468

Seven leaders freed by Ontario court of appeal

TORONTO - An Ontario appeals court has set aside the six-month jail
sentences imposed on seven aboriginal leaders who were incarcerated for
refusing to cease protesting mining exploration in their traditional
territory.

''Justice was done,'' said Bob Lovelace, former chief of the Ardoch
Algonquin First Nation.

He, along with the ''KI Six'' - Chief Donny Morris and five other members of
the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (Big Trout Lake) First Nation - walked out
of the Osgoode Hall courthouse with their freedom in May after a daylong
hearing before three Ontario Supreme Court justices.

Lovelace vowed to continue his fight, even if it meant further jail time.

''We plan to continue to protect our land,'' he said. ''I'm hoping from this
whole exercise the government will want to engage in some meaningful
discussion that will lead some place that won't be back to jail.''

''I think history has been made,'' said KI council member Sam McKay. ''I
think it's time the government starts taking aboriginal issues really
seriously. I think we have an opportunity to do relationship-building
between the government and aboriginals, but the government has to be willing
to do their part.''

A possible way forward was spelled out a few months ago in a joint proposal
from the KI and Ardoch Algonquin First Nations that called for a moratorium
on mining exploration pending the recommendations of a joint panel to be set
up with representatives from the government and the two communities. That
would lead to negotiation of an interim measures agreement that would
provide for land withdrawals and joint decision-making on resource
extraction.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant agreed to a joint panel with KI,
but refused to include the Ardoch Algonquins in the deal - which meant that
KI refused to be part of it.

Michael Gravelle, minister of Northern Development and Mines, has refused to
heed calls for a moratorium while new rules are worked out.

Calls for reform of the underlying legislation, Ontario's mining act, based
on a free-entry system that allows claims to be staked and exploration to
start without environmental assessment or the consent of affected First
Nations or landowners, have also come from many parties, including Robert
Kennedy Jr.

''I have great respect for the way in which these community leaders have
faced threats to their traditional lands,'' the Natural Resources Defense
Council lawyer wrote in a May 22 letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty. ''I know
that for these communities, the land and waters of their traditional
territory is their life, their livelihood and the future of their
children.''

While McGuinty has said that it's time for the mining act to be reformed,
the government has offered no details of its priorities. Gravelle spokesman
Anne-Marie Flanagan said the government is carrying out full consultation
with affected stakeholders.

''I can't give you any timetable,'' she said. Asked whether an end to the
free-entry system is under study, she added, ''I can't get into speculation
of what the changes might be.''

Anna Baggio, of CPAWS Wildlands League, said talk of reviewing the mining
act is meaningless unless free entry is replaced by a permit system that
enshrines the rights of aboriginal communities and landowners to say ''no''
and implements rules for development that protects the values of ecosystems
prior to mineral tenure being handed out.

The government's inaction is evidence that the Liberals are afraid of a
backlash from the mining industry, she said. But this is the time to show
leadership because, if left unresolved, the jailing of leaders who stand in
the way will continue.

''If you don't have the right to say no, you don't have any rights at all,''
Lovelace said.

In Ontario's booming mining sector, uncertainty rewards unprincipled
behavior.

New Democratic Party leader Howard Hampton cited the case of a company that
initiated talks with Neskantaga First Nation before staking a claim - only
to be outflanked by a second company that staked the claim, cleared the land
and obtained government approval.

Nevertheless, ministers like Gravelle and Bryant and their representatives
insist that consultation is a necessary part of exploration.

All the while, First Nations such as Gull Bay, Webequie, Eabametoong and
Marten Falls are coming forward to complain that claims are being staked
without their knowledge or consent - unsurprisingly, since that's what the
mining act sanctions.

The judges were careful not to tip their hand as to the rationale for
overturning the harsh penalties - including fines as high as $25,000 in
Lovelace's case - imposed by lower-court judges in Kingston and Thunder Bay.
The reasons will be released later, they said.

The ruling will be important. The issues are critical to resource
development and aboriginal self-determination - whether accommodation of the
right to say no is implicit in the Ontario government's legal duty to First
Nations, what weight should be given to aboriginal law, and whether there
should be a check to the criminalization of protest.

One thing was clear. Ontario government lawyer Malliha Wilson, who supported
release of the seven appellants, conceded under questioning by the judges
that the six-month sentences bore no relation to the ''couple of weeks''
applied to previous first-time offenders in the context of political
protest.

The judges zeroed in on the contrast between Wilson's statement that the
government sees itself a conciliator and the position taken in January by
Owen Young, the government lawyer at the sentencing hearing for the KI Six,
who called for ''a financial penalty that hurts.''

''The word 'hurts' and the word 'reconciliation' are polar opposites,''
Justice James MacPherson pointed out.

New Protest Wave as Ontario Economy Tanks

2008-06-09T08:20:00.000-07:00

We might be witnessing the initial stage of a wave of protests in Ontario.With the tectonic shift of power from Ontario to the West and the coincidence of global warming, plant closures, rising fuel prices and the ticking time bomb of alienated First Nation youth we have all the elements in place for a lot of unhappy folks expressing their anger on the streets and in the legislature.

If labour can keep its anger focused on the boss(so-far so good Buzz) and not fall into a backlash conservatism that blames First Nations and environmentalists for their plight we might have the makings of an unholy alliance that could get things rocking in Ontario.

Nice to see CUPE Ontario recently passed Resolution 38, in support of indigenous struggle for the land, against the criminalization of indigenous resistance.Government workers are always on the vanguard.

Blockaders of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but an injunction.

Cycles of protest are characterized by five elements: heightened
conflict[Ki, Grassy, Ardoch, Six Nations, CAW], broad geographic[Northern and Southern Ontario] and sector diffusion[forests, mining, nukes, auto, suburban development at Caledonia], the appearance of new social movement organizations[Free Lovelace and KI6 coalition], new frames of meaning[No Means No, End Free Entry] and the invention of new forms of collective action[Tent In, blogs, youtube, facebook].

Teachings of Bob Lovelace -Building Bridges Between Aboriginal Rights and Environmentalism

2008-06-09T08:11:00.000-07:00

Native fight over mining goes beyond treaty rights TheStar.com - News -
Native fight over mining goes beyond treaty rights

June 07, 2008

Stephen Scharper

"Politicians, guided by the power of the privileged class, promise that
the dream of perpetual affluence is still possible. It is not. For
millions of human beings, impoverished and separated from their
indigenous relationship with the land, the proof is clear: Development
as defined by colonial nations of this world is merely theft and murder
and when we bring it on ourselves, it is suicide."

So wrote an imprisoned but impassioned Bob Lovelace, former chief of the
Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, who was freed last month after protesting
mining on traditional Ardoch lands.

"If you go camping often or spend time in the woods," Lovelace
continues, "you know we live in a very quiet world, a world of murmurs."

Yet many of us in North America have become "autistic" to the natural
world and have to re-attune ourselves to the whisperings of non-human
nature, notes "geologian" Thomas Berry.

"What it means to be human comes out of the environment," Lovelace
observes.

"When you look at a map of Europe," he notes in an interview, "you don't
see a square all cut up." Instead, national boundaries are often formed
around ecosystems, as was the case with pre-contact maps of North and
South America. We have to recapture a sense of our rootedness in our
lands and waters in order to be healthy as a species.

Lovelace, who teaches aboriginal studies at Queen's University, warns
that if we neglect our eco-systems, the results will be "cataclysmic."

Signs of cataclysm are already visible through increased natural
disasters such as- earthquakes, tsunamis, and typhoons.

It was this understanding of the interrelationship of humans with nature
that in part prompted Lovelace and six members of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib
Inninuwug (KI) to take a stand against uranium drilling in their
homelands by Frontenac Ventures Corporation.

Last February, Lovelace was sentenced to six months in jail for his
protest. He challenged the Ontario Mining Act of 1873, which stipulates
that anyone 18 or older can obtain a prospector's licence and stake
mineral claims throughout the province. Lovelace, declaring that the act
provided no protection for aboriginal lands, sought to reveal the
"colonialism" that accompanied access to resources on native land.

Lovelace has been buoyed by support from religious leaders across the
province. Such support dovetails nicely with what Lovelace calls
"transactional democracy," which begins with grassroots environmental
concerns and awareness, involving people "in their kitchens" and not
just in provincial or federal legislatures.

As this incident reveals, our mainstream approach to land use is still
overwhelmingly marked by exploitation for economic gain. Lovelace is
forcing us to confront the baleful legacy of a land that is proving
devastating to the planet's climate, leaving vast swaths of our
ecosystems, as well as impoverished children, as veritable road kill.

Lovelace's cause concerns not only aboriginal rights, but also changing
entrenched laws that perpetrate outdated values. They open up not only a
path to new legislation, but to new land ethics as we confront the
ecological and social challenges of the 21st century.

Stephen Scharper is co-author of The Green Bible.
stephen.scharper@utoronto.ca.

Grassy Narrows on CBC As It happens

2008-06-06T16:53:00.000-07:00

Please take 7 minutes to listen to Roberta Keesick on a very popular CBC national
radio show.

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/asithappens/20080605-aih-3.wmv

Minister Stumbles Yet Again, Handlers Should be Sent to Big Tobacco To Learn PR Lessons

2008-06-06T16:16:00.000-07:00

Chiefs tell Minister to be prepared for strong action
TB News Source
Web Posted: 6/5/2008 8:22:03 PM
Click Camera To Watch This Newscast Chiefs tell Minister to be prepared for strong action

Self government, revenue sharing and the Mining Act were some of the topics raised on the final day of the All Ontario Chiefs Conference hosted by the Red Rock Indian Band but the fireworks were not planned.

More than 100 chiefs from across the province attended the conference including on Thursday, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Michael Bryant who took some heat for his brief appearance.

The Minister wasn't expecting any softball questions from those in attendance and he didn't receive any. Bryant began by addressing the conference on revenue sharing and self-government but First Nations leaders had their own questions for the minister.

Gull Bay Chief Wilfred King said some chiefs were offended that the minister was only at the conference for a little more than an hour and he called the jailing sentences of six members of the KI First Nation a national shame.

''Members of the CAW have erected a blockade, when is the government coming down to condemn those actions. Its alright for other members of society to erect blockades but when our members oppose development, they're thrown in jail,'' King said.

Minister Bryant said the Ontario Government does not oppose blockades and admitted to making mistakes. ''I'm going to make mistakes like showing up here for an hour and half'' he replied and said ''I went to KI three times because I wanted to stop it and it was a national disgrace. ''

But KI band councillor Sam Mckay accused Bryant of being disingenuous about the true intentions of his visit to the First Nation to deal with the dispute with Platinex, an accusation that Bryant did not take lightly, saying he wanted to provide solutions to the dispute.

''Instead of what did you talk about, honestly it discourages government ministers from even going to a First Nation if you go there and they turn it into something else. I have bent over backwards on this, I give you my word. ''

Bryant assured the conference that changes are coming sooner than later to the Mining Act and he also promised reforms were coming with regard to land claim settlements but the Minister was told to be prepared for some very strong action from this assembly.

Grassy Wins Campaign, KI Process Now Needed

2008-06-03T17:48:00.000-07:00

With folks out of jail and contempt charges dropped we now need to turn our attention to a long term solution at KI.

The panel KI proposed should be appointed and the studies set out in the KI consultation protocol need to be put in motion as soon as possible.

Needless to say the Platinex exploration project is over and Ontario must deal with Platinex on the implications of terminating their claims and leases.

A more than fair approach would be to appoint an independent appraiser and compensate the company for all reasonable exploration expenditures they made on the "property". In return Platinex would drop the lawsuit against the Crown.

The big obstacle will likely be the little matter of legal fees.Platinex will want Ontario to pay and Ontario will say no.Personally, I don't want the taxpayer to compensate Pltinex for this nasty lawsuit.

Once we have the conditions for "peace" we can move to the conditions for justice.

Forest giant retreats after five-year native blockade

Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service Published: Tuesday, June 03, 2008

A five-year-old blockade in northwestern Ontario has forced
AbitibiBowater to stop using wood from a one-million-hectare forest near
the Manitoba border.

The Montreal-based forest products company told the Ontario government
on Tuesday that it was prepared to give up its licence to operate in the
Whiskey Jack forest in order to avoid having to wait several years for
the outcome of a consultative process with the Grassy Narrows First
Nation.

"The flexibility of a newly merged company, paired with the current
context of an industry that gives access to unused fibre, allow us to
temporarily find alternative wood supply for our operations," wrote
AbitibiBowater CEO David J. Paterson in a letter to Ontario's Natural
Resources Minister Donna Cansfield that was obtained by Canwest News
Service.

"Furthermore, we wish to engage in discussions with the Ministry of
Natural Resources and other key stakeholders to begin moving the Whiskey
Jack Forest to a more appropriate management structure, and are prepared
to work on an orderly transition of the licence. Our decision comes with
a clear commitment on our current management responsibilities, including
those related to reforestation."

Greenpeace Canada's forest campaign co-ordinator Richard Brooks said the
decision was significant, noting that the existing conflict was
considered to be the longest-standing blockade in Canadian history.

"You don't often having a company saying: 'We want to get out of this
forest because it's too controversial,'" said Brooks. "This follows on a
number of customers who have said to AbitibiBowater: 'Stop logging in
intact forest areas, and stop logging in the Grassy Narrows community.'"

Brooks added that Boise, the owner of the OfficeMax and Grand & Toy
office supply stores, was one of the customers that had recently
announced it would no longer purchase paper products that came from the
Whiskey Jack forest.

AbitibiBowater is expected to announce details of its plan to
shareholders of its newly-merged company on Thursday.

"We hope that they will take this initiative and build upon it and
really take a look at the rest of their forestry operations in Ontario
and Quebec and pursue environmental and social sustainability in those
operations as well," said Brooks.

Why KI Will Win and Platinex and Ontario Will Lose

2008-06-01T16:32:00.000-07:00

1. The people who live in a place care more about it than any mining company or elected politicians, and so they'll outlast them in a long dispute.

2. So the only way to defeat KI or any First Nation for that matter is to displace the population.And that ain't going to happen.Forced relocations ended in the 60s.

KI are fighting for one simple reason: because the mining companies, aided and abetted by the Ontario government are trying to occupy their lands without their consent. It's that simple.

Occupations always go bad.

The mining industry and the bureaucrats at MNDM desperately wants to put an outside agitator's face on the KI campaign for the right to say no. A vast conspiracy of anti-progress eco agitators led by Mrs. Big and her minions. They will do anything to avoid having to face the most obvious fact about KI: They have a righteous anger about the Platinex lawsuit, the wrongful jailing of their leaders and Minister Bryant's endless recycling of the story of his three visits to the community-the entire community.

Ontario and Platinex have to own up to the fact that it takes a community to have the leadership go to jail.

Everybody in the community.

Time for Bryant to Return to School-His Era of Aboriginal Rights Thinking At An End

2008-06-01T07:36:00.000-07:00

Elementary Teachers Support First Nations' Land Rights

TORONTO, May 30 /CNW/ - Elementary teachers applaud the Ontario Court of
Appeal decision to release native leaders who had been jailed for protesting
mineral development by mining companies on traditional First Nations land.
"As a federation which promotes and supports social justice in the
broader community, we were shocked by the harsh sentences imposed on First
Nations people who were simply engaging in a peaceful protest," said
Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) President David Clegg.
Clegg was referring to the six month sentences originally given to Ardoch
Algonquin First Nation spokesperson Robert Lovelace and six members of the
Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug.
Clegg noted that the Ipperwash Inquiry, requested by the current Liberal
government in 2003, produced a report strongly recommending that provincial
laws, policies, and practices be reformed to ensure they are consistent with
the government's legal obligations towards indigenous peoples.
"These legal obligations, which have been reinforced by over a decade of
Supreme Court decisions, include the duty of consultation, accommodation, and
consent of indigenous peoples around the use of treaty lands. This duty
applies to mining rights, even when land claims are still in dispute," said
Clegg.
"We strongly urge the government to honour its own guidelines on how
mining companies should consult with First Nations at every stage of the
mineral development process," Clegg said.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario represents 73,000
elementary public school teachers and education workers across the province
and is the largest teacher federation in Canada.

For further information: David Clegg, President, ETFO, (416) 962-3836
(Office), (416) 948-1592 (Cell); Larry Skory, ETFO Communications, (416)
962-3836 (Office), (416) 948-0195 (Cell)

3 Steps McGuinty Refuses to Take; Respect the Right to Say No, Environmental Assessment of Mining Exploration and Land Use Planning

2008-06-01T07:31:00.000-07:00

Mining trumps all land uses TheStar.com - comment - Mining trumps all land uses
May 31, 2008

Re:First Nations vs. Mining Act

Editorial, May 27

What was observed by the justices in the Court of Appeal this week in Toronto is that right now it is the mineral exploration companies that win the injunctions and that have the veto while First Nations people are sent to jail. At the appeal of the sentences of the KI Six and Bob Lovelace, the Ontario government made it clear that the Mining Act (as it is) must prevail. It still sought sanctions against the communities of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Ardoch Algonquins for peacefully opposing mineral exploration on their traditional lands.

One of the justices asked the lawyer representing Ontario what the sentence usually is for a first time offence in an aboriginal or environmental protest. After a bit of shuffling, the lawyer replied, "a couple of weeks." The KI Six and Lovelace were sentenced to six months in jail and Lovelace and his community were also slapped with tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

After a full day of submissions, the court ordered Lovelace and the KI Six released immediately and stayed the sentences, including fines. This is a partial victory, however, because mining still trumps all other land uses.

The Act must be reformed so that our environment can be protected and so that the right of aboriginal people, cottage owners and other landowners to say no to mineral exploration and mining is enshrined. It must include a planning process to protect all values of the land before mineral tenure is handed out.

Anna Baggio, Director, Conservation Land Use Planning, CPAWS Wildlands League, Toronto

Northern Miner Coverage of Mining Act Change

2008-05-31T20:09:00.000-07:00

Ontario's Mining Act under fire; PROVINCE BLAMED FOR LAND DISPUTES
Susan Kirwin
573 words
2 June 2008
Northern Miner
1
English
Copyright 2008 Business Information Group. All Rights Reserved.

Platinex (PTX-V, PANXF-O) is suing the government of Ontario for more than $70 million, claiming it didn't fulfill its duty to consult with a First Nation group before granting the junior exploration permits near Big Trout Lake, Ont.

As a result, a land access dispute between the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) First Nation and Platinex has stretched on for nine years now.

KI is firmly against any exploration activity on its land, so much so, that six KI community leaders were sent to prison in March for contempt of court after refusing to allow Platinex to work on the contested property.

They were released conditionally on May 23 but could be back in jail as soon as May 29 following their court appearance to appeal their sentences.

Several First Nations groups gathered at Queen's Park in Toronto recently for the four days leading up to the "National Day of Action" on May 29 to protest Ontario's 135-year-old mining law and bring attention to the ongoing problems between First Nations groups and mining and exploration companies.

Both have blamed the dated legislation for their disputes and would like to see something clearer enacted.

KI says that the cost of 18 months of litigation left the community unable to appeal the last court order, which granted Platinex access to the disputed area.

Meanwhile, Platinex claims it has lost millions of dollars because it has not been able to gain access to the land it leased. President and CEO James Trusler says he felt the company had no choice but to file the lawsuit.

"Our exhaustive efforts in consultation with KI over nine years have been rejected by KI despite landmark Supreme Court rulings which have determined that a First Nation does not haveaveto," Trusler said in a statement. "Our court-ordered access to the mining claims has not been enforced."

The company is also suing KI for $10 million for disrupting its exploration program. Under the Ontario Mining Act, all Crown land, including land subject to aboriginal title claims, is open for staking, exploration and mining without extensive consultation with native groups.

The provincial Liberals have said they are committed to changing the act to require more consultation with First Nations. A 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling said that First Nations must be consulted before development occurs, but this has been interpreted to mean that companies must provide information to local aboriginal communities, discuss how to minimize the environmental impact and provide some compensation.

Many First Nations groups don't agree this constitutes proper consultation, saying there needs to be the possibility that no exploration will occur.

Ontario First Nations have asked the government for a moratorium on exploration that doesn't have their approval. Ontario's regional chief, Angus Toulouse, with the Assembly of First Nations, says changing the province's Mining Act should be a top priority of the government; otherwise, more serious conflicts could result.

In April, Robert Lovelace, leader of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to follow a court order to stop blockading Frontenac Venture's uranium exploration property near Sharbot Lake, Ont. He recently began a hunger strike.

KI has proposed the creation of a joint panel to examine the disputes and make recommendations for preventing similar clashes in the future.