XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ont.politics   
   XPost: ab.politics, man.politics, sk.politics   
   From: "@nyet.ca   
      
   Last week the SC ruled in favour of a native land use claim.  This week   
   it ruled against one in Ontario.   
   Read this to understand the difference:   
   _________________________________________   
   CBC News Posted: Jul 11, 2014   
      
      
   Grassy Narrows loses Supreme Court logging rights decision   
   Top court finds province of Ontario, not First Nation or federal   
   government, has jurisdiction over logging   
      
      
   The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today in favour of the Ontario   
   government's right to permit industrial logging on a First Nation's   
   traditional lands.   
      
   Friday's 7-0 decision comes on the heels of a historic judgment in the   
   Tsilhqot'in case in British Columbia that changed the way governments   
   must deal with First Nations who can claim aboriginal title over their   
   traditional territories.   
      
   The difference between the Tsilhqot'in and Grassy Narrows First Nations   
   is that Grassy Narrows had a treaty with the government. The Tsilhqot'in   
   did not.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   Gary Sault of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation stands in   
   front of a sacred fire during a protest outside Queens Park in Toronto   
   in 2012. The Grassy Narrows First Nation has expressed concern about the   
   adverse effects of clear-cutting on hunting, trapping and drinking water   
   quality. (Chris Young/Canadian Press)   
      
   The top court ruling comes after the province decided to issue a logging   
   licence on land Grassy Narrows considers its traditional territory. The   
   First Nation worried about the adverse effects of clear-cutting on   
   hunting, trapping and drinking water quality.   
      
   "This has been a long fight, and while we are disappointed in today’s   
   outcome, we will be continuing to fight to protect the health, welfare   
   and culture of the people of Grassy Narrows using all the tools   
   available to us.  We believe Ontario and industry are morally and   
   politically obliged to seek our consent before logging our lands,"   
   Grassy Narrows trapper J.B. Fobister said.   
      
   The main issue was whether provincial authority applies on these   
   particular treaty lands.  According to Canada's 1867 Constitution, the   
   federal government has exclusive authority over "Indians and lands   
   reserved for Indians."   
      
   But Treaty 3 allowed for the "taking up" of lands for mining, towns and   
   forestry among other things. Municipalities and natural resources are   
   the responsibility of the provincial government under the   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   Constitution.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   The Supreme Court found that "both levels of government are responsible   
   for fulfilling the treaty promises when acting within the division of   
   powers under the Constitution."   
      
   That means, according to the court, that "Ontario, and only Ontario, has   
   the power to take up lands under Treaty 3."   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   Treaty 3 was one of 11 treaties — known as the Numbered Treaties —   
   negotiated soon after Confederation between the federal government and   
   First Nations.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   In keeping with Tsilhqot'in decision   
      
   Friday's ruling is in keeping with the Tsilhqot'in decision, which also   
   recognized the authority of the province to regulate uses of First   
   Nations land. But because the Tsilhqot'in have title to their land, any   
   infringement by the government must meet a high bar of justification.  A   
   simple consultation and accommodation will not do.   
      
   By the same token, the Tsilhqot'in must abide by provincial regulations   
   when setting up mining or forestry operations within their territories.   
      
   In the case of the Grassy Narrows First Nation, Treaty 3 extinguished   
   their aboriginal title rights and replaced them with treaty rights. The   
   province must still take those treaty rights into consideration when   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   using the land.   
      
   "The provincial government in pressing ahead, while it has the   
   jurisdiction to do so, has to live with certain fairly strict rules   
   around consultation — about having to listen to First Nations' concerns,   
   where possible accommodate them and being open to different solutions,"   
   explained Robert Janes, the lawyer for the Grassy Narrows First Nation.   
      
      
        Treaty vs. title: First Nations' new Tsilhqot'in choice   
        Read the Supreme Court's decision   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)