Attacks on Mi'kmaq treaty fishing
Chronology of key events leading to this conflict
[ UPDATES ] [ Background ] [ Wider implications ] [ 2001 ]
2000 : [ Sept. 26th - Nov. ] [ Sept. 23rd - 25th ] [ Sept. 20th - 22nd ] [ Sept. 1st-19th ] [ August ]
[ Military actions against First Nations, 1995 ] [ Links to First Nations news, Canada ]
[ Return to MTN Contents ]
PLEASE WRITE TO:
The Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, House of Commons
Dept of Fisheries and Oceans, Parliament Buildings Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario, KIA OA6
Fax: (613) 941-6900
BURNT CHURCH: LEARN FROM US
As Mi'kmaq fishermen defy federal fisheries officials and Bob Rae attempts to resolve the standoff, U.S. activists say there are lessons to be learned from their experience
DEBRA McNUTT, ANDREW GOKEE, AND ZOLTAN GROSSMAN
Toronto Globe and Mail Commentary
Thursday, September 14, 2000
We in Wisconsin have been been following the Mi'kmaq treaty conflict at Burnt Church, N.B., very closely. The Maritimes dispute has close echoes of the intense conflict over Chippewa (Ojibwa) spearfishing in northern Wisconsin in the late 1980s and early 1990s. If you substitute "walleye" for "lobsters" it all sounds regrettably familiar.
There are 861 lakes in Wisconsin where the highly prized walleyed pike spawn in the territory the Chippewa ceded to the American government in the 19th century -- roughly the northern third of the state. Sport fishermen take much of the catch and that's a major source of the regional economy. After a 1983 federal court decision upholding Ojibwa rights to fish for walleye in traditional fishing grounds before the sport season opened, there was outrage among non-natives.
Militant anti-treaty groups began to carry signs reading "Spear an Indian -- Save a Walleye." Some state political leaders inflamed public opinion with their claim that the Ojibwa (who never took more than 3 per cent of the walleye) would "rape" the fishery, and they tried, unsuccessfully, to divide Ojibwa bands from each other.
Throughout the late 1980s Wisconsin anti-treaty mobs committed numerous acts of violence -- including rock-throwing, swamping of Ojibwa boats, death threats, and pipe bombings. Riot-clad police and National Guard helicopters were deployed at the lakes, and Witnesses for Nonviolence monitored harassment of Ojibwa spearfishers and their families. A federal court injunction eventually prevented anti-Indian groups from harassing Ojibwa as they were merely exercising their rights.
The major difference between Wisconsin and New Brunswick is that here in the States it was the anti-Indian citizen or vigilante groups that swamped the native boats and threatened fishermen's lives. At Burnt Church it has seemed that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has taken on this role. Seeing the DFO's actions on our TV has seriously undermined many Americans' image of Canada as a "peaceful" and "inclusive" society -- an image that we value as a counterpoint to our sometimes violent and intolerant society.
The environmentalist facade of Wisconsin anti-treaty groups fell away in the early 1990s when mining companies such as Noranda and Rio Algom started coming into the north woods looking for metallic sulfide minerals. This type of mining can release sulfuric acid into trout streams. For a while, the
anti-treaty groups still chose to blame the Ojibwa for all rural environmental and economic problems. But many other non-Indian fishing groups began to get wise. They made an effort to understand the history of the treaties, the tribal respect for the environment, and the threat that metallic sulfide mines would pose to fishing by natives and non-natives alike.
These fishing groups and the tribes began to realize that instead of arguing over the fish, they could come together to protect the fish from a common outside threat. Today, Wisconsin has a strong inter-ethnic alliance of tribes, fishing groups, and environmentalists opposed to metallic sulfide mining, particularly Rio Algom's proposed Crandon mine next to the Mole Lake Ojibwe Reservation. The alliance has won some victories to protect the fisheries by throwing the mining companies out of Wisconsin.
Just as, in Wisconsin, anti-treaty groups focused more attention on the Ojibwa than on the mining companies, the DFO focuses more attention on lobster harvested by one Mi'kmaq band than on the numerous environmental threats to the entire North Atlantic ecology. We trust that the people of the Maritimes and the rest of Canada will also get wise to this new anti-aboriginal campaign as a diversion from the real environmental problems facing marine life. After all, they face human beings of all nationalities.
Just as Wisconsin state officials attempted to "lease" treaty rights from Ojibwa bands, provincial and federal officials hope that all Mi'kmaq bands will sign away their rights in return for peace. But peace is shortlived in the absence of justice. Isolating or criminalizing aboriginal leaders only divides and destabilizes aboriginal bands, and undermines chances for peace. Besides, in Wisconsin, yesterday's tribal "renegades" have become today's respected tribal government leaders. And the Ojibwa can finally fish in peace.
Wisconsin Indians and rural whites have found they had more in common with each other than they had with government or corporate officials. Now the neighboring communities of the Maritimes need to search for local solutions without outside interference or manipulation. Scapegoating the First Nations lobster fishermen does not address the sources of the economic crisis affecting all fishing people in the region. Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal has only exacerbated a physical conflict between two communities that are both going through hard times; in our view, he should resign.
The assertion of Wisconsin Ojibwa treaty rights in the short term created conflict between natives and non-natives, but in the long term it helped to build cultural understanding, economic cooperation, and a common environmental identity. The treaties became a key legal tool to protect natural resources, and reservation sovereignty became a political lever to gain economic development for natives and non-natives alike.
One important difference between Wisconsin -- or your Oka crisis --
in 1990 and Burnt Church in 2000 is the widespread use of the Internet.
No native Web sites existed a decade ago; today there are thousands. The
Mi'kmaq are able to get their perspective heard, and people around the
world concerned about human and sovereign rights are listening. Here in
the States we join the many voices urging a peaceful resolution of the
tense situation in Burnt Church and the rest of the Maritimes, and an
honourable recognition of Mi'kmaq treaty rights.
Debra McNutt, Andrew Gokee and Zoltan Grossman are members of the board of the Midwest Treaty Network, a native/non-native alliance supporting tribal sovereignty in the Western Great Lakes region: http://www.treatyland.com.
Midwest Treaty Network
With Lobster Dispute
By the Canadian Press, A P
September 26, 2000
Chronology of key events leading to this summer's conflict between the Canadian fisheries department and Indians from the Burnt Church reservation in New Brunswick:
Sept. 17, 1999: Supreme Court of Canada rules Indians have treaty right to fish, hunt and gather.
Oct. 3: Roughly 3,000 Indian lobster traps destroyed in New Brunswick's Miramichi Bay after 150 non-Indian fishermen take to water.
April 27, 2000: Spring lobster fishery opens in Miramichi Bay without a deal between Burnt Church band and Ottawa.
Aug. 9: Residents of reservation vote to manage their own lobster fishery with 1,500 traps.
Aug. 11: Federal fisheries officers begin pulling out traps.
Aug. 14: Indians set up fiery blockade on road to reserve; allege their boats are being rammed by fisheries officers.
Aug. 22: Fisheries officer injured by thrown rock during confrontation with Micmac fishermen.
Aug. 28: Federal Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault visits reservation, but abruptly leaves meeting to jeering from Indians.
Aug. 29: Fisheries officers launch raid on Indian lobster traps, two Indian boats swamped and sunk.
Sept. 12: Sixteen Indians, including Burnt Church chief, arrested and four Indian boats seized.
Sept. 18: Former Ontario premier Bob Rae, mediator in the standoff, sets 24-hour deadline to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Sept. 19: Agreement to have Indian leaders and federal officials conduct a count of Indian traps in the bay quickly falls apart.
Sept. 20: Commercial fishermen reject alleged financial offer from Ottawa of between $10,000 to $12,000 each to not haul Indian traps from Miramichi Bay. Rae leaves reserve.
Sept. 21: Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal declares the lobster fishery in Miramichi closed and gives Indians a 24-hour deadline to remove their lobster traps.
Sept. 22: Non-Indian boat struck by a bullet fired from another vessel as fisheries officials remove 113 lobster traps in pre-dawn raid.
Sept. 23: Three non-Indians arrested and firearms seized after shots fired on water. No one hurt. Officers remove about 800 traps.
Sept. 25: Shots ring out over waters as fisheries officials seize lobster traps. No one hurt. Indian boats chase away department vessels.
Sept. 26: Fisheries officials seize traps as they are pursued by Indian boats.
Backgrounder on the Situation in the
Update on Burnt Church:
Gunboat Diplomacy in Canada
by William Payne
A helicopter circles over our heads three times as we chat on the wharf. One man gets out binoculars to take a closer look, though we can almost see the faces without the help. For me, memories of being a human rights observer in a remote village in Chiapas, Mexico come back. Government surveillance feels the same in Canada, at least when you are in a First Nations community.
The conversation shifts from the government helicopter to school starting in a few days. A Mi'kmaq mother expresses concern, as her daughter has been having nightmares because of the tensions. A father watches as his two daughters load three lobster traps into their small dory. I am reminded that I am here only for a short while but the Mi'kmaki of Esgenoopetitj (Burnt Church) will continue living here long after the current conflict is over.
I am a full-time volunteer with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), a violence-reduction programme of several North American churches. On leave from teaching high school in downtown Toronto, I am now sent by CPT to situations of conflict. This year, I have been sent both to Chiapas and to Esgenoopetitj.
This is not the first conflict this community has faced, as reflected in its English name ? Burnt Church. Over two centuries ago their ancestors hid Acadians who were being sought by the British Army. Their church was burned in reprisal. We are reminded many times each day, as we listen to the whirl of the helicopters, as we watch the surveillance planes a few metres from the shore, as we count the RCMP vehicles or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) boats around this small community, that the Canadian government is using "gunboat diplomacy."
Let us remember what this is about. Non-natives have been granted permission for about three million lobster traps in the maritime provinces and one company holds licences for a quarter of those traps. Hundreds of thousands of traps are licenced for this bay alone. Esgenoopetitj is talking about a few thousand traps, and even by Canadian law Native fishing has priority over non-native fishing. If there is a conservation issue it is clear that the Native fishery is not the threat.
A member of the Listiguj Rangers (the fisheries officers from another Mi'kmaq community) told me about a fisheries dispute there twenty years ago. He was ten years old when hundreds of police raided their homes because of their salmon fishing. I had seen a National Film Board documentary about the incident and told him so: "I'm the little kid in the blue-plaid shirt on the bridge," he responded.
Another young man speaks of the hard death of his father, a man scarred by residential school. The memory of those schools is never far away as every person here has a family member, a parent or a grandparent who was sent there. Then he tells me of his three-year old's nightmares in recent days because of the helicopters.
CPTers stationed here have also served in Chiapas, the West Bank, Haiti and Bosnia. Too often we are struck by the similarities. In all our projects we search for ways of reducing the possibility of violence. In Chiapas we have camped out on a military base to pray for an end to the violence. In Hebron we have stood in front of machine guns.
Here in Burnt Church we stand watch. On the shore, on boats, in our visits throughout the area, and in our phone calls, letters and emails, we try to call the Canadian government to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities to the people of Esgenoopetitj.
My own family arrived in Mi'kmaq territory, in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia, back in 1760, the same year the treaty was signed that was affirmed last year by Canada's Supreme Court. For five generations my ancestors were ships-carpenters, until my grandfather moved to Ontario. Along with many Canadians, I have become aware of how much my own life has been built on the theft of land and resources from the First Nations. This is hard to face, but only good can follow honesty and the search for a more just relationship. We know this in our bones.
But it is also exciting to be here. It is always exciting to be in a place where there is great unity and great joy. People are so happy when someone comes in with a handful of lobster from their few traps. People share their boats, share their gas, share the responsibility of organizing a carefully managed fishery, and share their lobster. Visitors, Native and non-native alike arrive. Doors are opened and food is prepared in great quantity.
How I wish the millions of Canadians that have seen the government vessels sink Native boats last week could also meet the people in those boats. Whenever someone is introduced here you learn who their cousins are, who their parents are, who their children are. There is such a sense of community, of family really, and I am learning so much being here.
I go to court tomorrow (Thursday, Sept. 7), having been charged along with a Catholic priest with obstructing a fisheries officer. We had tried to retrieve some traps that had been taken by DFO officers from a Mi'kmaq fisher. It was all we could do really, when we saw those traps being taken away. In front of our eyes the next step in this long history of oppression was taking place ? we felt compelled to act in a way that said clearly that this was not being done in our names. We will not be alone though, as eight Mi'kmaq people face charges related to the fishery as well.
It is late in the evening and quiet now, though a plane passed over several times a few minutes ago. There is fear that the government may come tonight to take more traps. The number of RCMP vehicles at the road entrances of the reserve has again risen today. Yesterday a group of non-natives came into the waters here in a threatening way. All is not well.
I will go to bed shortly, not knowing if I will get a full night's sleep or only an hour. And I will go to sleep praying, first in thanksgiving that no-one was killed today and second in petition that no one will be killed tomorrow.
From: "jjbear" email@example.com
A Judge's Ruling Unmuddies the Waters
A funny thing happened to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on its way to stop Mi'kmaqs in Burnt Church, New Brunswick, from fishing lobster without DFO sanction.
The judge wouldn't play ball.
Not only was Mr. Justice Denis Lordon annoyed at the delay in getting native fishermen (arrested in a violent confrontation the night before) into court, he also declined to ban them from Miramichi Bay as a bail condition.
This blows a big hole in DFO's attempt to portray lobster fishing by members of the Burnt Church reserve in New Brunswick and the Indian Brook reserve in Nova Scotia as illegal.
As Lordon pointed out, the Marshall decision confirmed the Mi'kmaqs' treaty right to pursue a limited commercial fishery. That right is subject to federal regulation, but not to arbitrary regulation unilaterally imposed by DFO.
The Marshall decision, and previous aboriginal rights cases give Ottawa the power to regulate a native treaty right in the name of "compelling and substantial public objectives." The public objective usually cited is conservation, but the court says several others, like economic and regional fairness, and historical fishing by non-aboriginal groups, might also qualify.
Even after establishing that such compelling public concerns exist in the lobster fishery, DFO cannot proceed arbitrarily or unilaterally.
It must show that its method of regulation is the least intrusive upon native treaty rights. In the case of closed seasons, this will be a stretch. Closed seasons are only in part a conservation tool, and they are by no means the most effective one.
Good faith negotiations
It can impose regulations only after good faith negotiations with native groups whose rights they will infringe. Those negotiations must be procedurally fair to the natives, and substantively respectful of their right to fish.
As the court put it, "[T]he concerns and proposals of the native communities must be taken into account, and this might lead to different techniques of conservation and management in respect of the exercise of the treaty right."
This is already the case in Nova Scotia, where Mi'kmaqs hunt deer and moose in a different season, and according to different rules, than white hunters.
Proportionality must also come into play in any attempt to regulate a treaty right. A regime that permitted three million white traps in Atlantic Canada but only a few thousand Mi'kmaq traps would not substantively respect the Mi'kmaqs' treaty right to a limited commercial fishery.
In preparation for the 2000 fishing season, DFO attempted an end-run around this procedure. It asked native bands to accept Ottawa's unilaterally imposed rules for one year in return for millions of dollars in boats, licenses, equipment, and training.
Most bands agreed, but Indian Brook and Burnt Church did not. They wanted to fish under the terms of the Marshall decision.
A Marshall-based process would have looked something like this: DFO would have asked the two bands when, where, and how they proposed to fish, then evaluated those plans to see if they raised any public policy concerns.
If so, the appropriate course would have been to discuss those issues with the bands, and attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. Again and again, the courts have said negotiation is the way to resolve these issues.
If no solution could be reached, DFO could have referred the issue to the courts, or could have conducted a token prosecution to test the issue.
"As this and other courts have pointed out on many occasions, the process of accommodation of the treaty right may best be resolved by consultation and negotiation of a modern agreement for participation in specified resources by the Mi'kmaq rather than by litigation," the court said.
"[T]he best approach in these types of cases is a process of negotiation and reconciliation that properly considers the complex and competing interests at stake.
"The various governmental, aboriginal and other interests are not, of course, obliged to reach an agreement. In the absence of a mutually satisfactory solution, the courts will resolve the points of conflict as they arise case by case."
DFO did none of those things. It offered bands a series of inducements - money, gear, licences - in exchange for their agreement to fish by DFO imposed rules.
It portrays the refusal by Burnt Church and Indian Brook to take the bribe as "flagrant, in-your-face, illegal fishing." It responds out of all proportion to any action it has ever taken against flagrant illegal fishing by white lobster fishermen.
This is a provocative, destructive way to proceed, one the courts are unlikely to endorse.
Fishing Rights In Eastern Canada - Supreme Court Ruling Unravels
Boyhood pals rock boat on Miramichi Bay
Ottawa's lobster war against the Mi'kmaq
September 30, 2000
The shooting has begun on Miramichi Bay. Competing allegations abound as to who fired the first shot, but whoever did, this is a predictable outcome of a federal policy that seems designed to inflame the anger that has been smouldering in northeastern New Brunswick. On Thursday last week, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced that the Esgeno�petitj Mi'kmaq food fishery near Burnt Church, N.B., would, at 11 a.m. the next morning, "become illegal."
This time the DFO was not merely talking about the commercial fishery at the centre of the months-long dispute. Now, the government threatened that even the paltry 40 traps used by the Mi'kmaq to catch lobster for food and ceremonial purposes would be seized by force. This despite the fact that every aboriginal nation in Canada has recognized title to land and resources, and a constitutional right to a food fishery established by more than a century of legal precedents, beginning with the St. Catherine's Milling case in 1888 and culminating in the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark 1990 Sparrow decision.
The abrupt federal move has left legal experts reeling, as it threatens in its blatant unconstitutionality not only to trigger widespread violence between the aboriginal nations and the government, but also to render precarious the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Canadians. When a government has become so arrogant that it feels it can with impunity contravene its own constitution and defy the rulings of its own Supreme Court, all citizens have reason to be afraid.
Almost without exception, Canada's major newspapers and broadcasters wrongly report that the right to a commercial fishery is a "native belief" rather than a fact of law, at least as regards the Mi'kmaq. Emboldened by this misunderstanding, the government position has become increasingly intractable. In contrast, the Mi'kmaq have offered numerous concessions in an effort to reach a peaceful agreement, including a joint trap count, a voluntary reduction in fishing and an openness to dialogue with the Maritime Fishermen's Union.
The Supreme Court's 1999 Marshall decision, which authorized a limited Mi'kmaq commercial fishery, held that any federal regulation of that right must be justified by a legitimate conservation concern. After more than a month of violent assaults by DFO and RCMP officers against the Mi'kmaq, Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal and his staff appear to have finally begun to understand this. On Sept. 20, Mr. Dhaliwal and Jim Jones, DFO's regional director general, sent separate letters to the chief and council of Esgeno�petitj ("Burnt Church" is a distasteful name the government imposed on the Esgeno�petitj Mi'kmaq). These letters outlined, for the first time, a putative conservation concern about the level of lobster fishing authorized under the Esgeno�petitj Fishery Act and Management Plan (EFAMP).
Because the law matters, so do federal statements about conservation and sustainability. Unfortunately, DFO relies on inflated numbers and partial truths, raising the unsettling possibility that the government is manufacturing a conservation problem to justify the infringement of Mi'kmaq treaty rights.
According to DFO's Jim Jones, during this fishing season, which will end on Oct. 7, the total Esgeno�petitj lobster catch would total 153,000 kilograms. This figure is based on the DFO contention that the Mi'kmaq set 1,700 lobster traps in the water, a figure hotly contested by the Esgeno�petitj Band, which hired chartered accountants to verify its own claim of having set only 650 traps. Moreover, DFO bases its concerns about long-term sustainability and "threat to the resource" on a theoretical maximum of 15,000 traps in the spring fishery and 5,600 traps in the fall fishery set out in the EFAMP for a much wider geographical area, and not the 650 (or, if you will, 1,700) traps actually in use in Miramichi Bay today. Certainly, if the Mi'kmaq management plan has overallocated traps, this needs to be negotiated. However, according to the strange logic of the DFO, since 20,600 traps would not be "sustainable on a long-term basis," somehow 1,700 traps create an immediate conservation concern justifying infringement. This does not even come close to what the Supreme Court envisaged.
How significant is the Mi'kmaq lobster harvest? The federal government permits non-native commercial fishing interests in Atlantic Canada to use more than three million traps each year. Of these, non-natives in Zone 23 alone, which is the area covered by the EFAMP, have licences to 242,000 traps. Illegal non-native traps greatly inflate these numbers. If we accept federal estimates, the Mi'kmaq of Esgeno�petitj are using less than 1% as many traps as their non-native neighbours. Even if the Mi'kmaq set all the traps they ultimately want under their EFAMP plan, their Esgeno�petitj fishery would represent less than 8% of the local non-native commercial fishery. Were it not for the gravity of the present situation, these statistics would render federal claims about conservation laughable. As a Mi'kmaq fisherman asked in a recent interview with CBC, "So we are supposed to save the lobsters for [the non-natives]?"
If the conservation argument is so threadbare, why is the government so intent on shutting down the tiny Mi'kmaq inshore fishery? A clue may be found in an unlikely place: the Halifax Harbour. There, on the same day as the DFO "conservation" letters to Esgeno�petitj, Fred Sears of the Southwest Fishermen's Rights Association sneaked on to the Bluenose II and chained himself high up the mast. His message was twofold: DFO's policy of allocating resources to large offshore fishery corporations is driving small inshore fishers into bankruptcy, and this policy is simultaneously destroying the fish stocks.
In this regard, a brief passage in Mr. Dhaliwal's letter to the Esgeno�petitj Band is revealing. Mr. Dhaliwal states that he is responsible not just for conservation but also for "the orderly management of the fisheries, taking into account the state of the stocks and the interests of other users of the resource." These other interests, as the Bluenose II protest emphasizes, are large corporations, and not the small fishermen cynically valorized by DFO spokespeople in their rhetorical battle against the Mi'kmaq.
With an election just around the corner, the Liberals are evidently gambling that the violent suppression of Mi'kmaq rights will go unopposed by the public. In that, they have badly misjudged the decency and compassion of Canadians. Even worse, they are, in their obsession to show who is boss, setting in motion a process that could culminate, as it has in so many other multi-ethnic states, in a protracted and bloody civil war. That this has not already happened is thanks only to the admirable patience of the Mi'kmaq Nation and the rest of aboriginal Canada. The federal government must work in good faith for a peaceful resolution to the "lobster wars," and develop a comprehensive policy to resolve aboriginal nations' just claims to a share of natural resources, before that patience runs out.
William Hipwell holds a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada doctoral fellowship at Carleton University's department of geography and environmental studies.
Amherst, Nova Scotia - July 25, 2000
The Atlantic Policy Congress (APC) of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat Inc. and the Maritime Fishermen's Union (MFU) wish to make a joint statement regarding the desire of Hunt Oil, of Texas, to perform seismic testing this fall in the waters of Sydney Bight, specifically in the waters off Port Morien to Cape Smokey, without completing an extensive environmental assessment prior to exploring.
The APC Chiefs, in Resolution #47/99, demanded that two similar exploration surveys be stopped in the Port Hood to Cheticamp area last December, where a lease is held by Corridor Resources.
Now, the Canada/Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum board has chosen to by-pass the environmental assessment process regarding oil and gas exploration off its shores, and plan to issue these permits.
"These exploration permits will have major impacts on the eco-systems in those areas," said Chief Lawrence Paul, Co-chair of APC, "and may damage or destroy many of the fish stocks that are there."
"We are concerned about the lack of both the Federal and Provincial governments regulations to protect these inshore areas," said Chief Second Peter Barlow, Co-chair of APC. "The precedent they are setting by issuing these permits without conducting environmental assessments are endangering the marine life and the communities reliant on those resources."
"The commercial fishery in Sydney Bight is worth more now than it ever was and remains the backbone of the economy of coastal Cape Breton," said Jeff Brownstein, President of Local 6, Maritime Fishermen's Union. "Our groundfish stocks show signs of rebuilding, our crab stocks are booming and we have put into place conservation measures to improve our lobster fishery by doubling egg production. It is absolutely criminal to consider seismic exploration which could kill shellfish and fish eggs and larvae as well as disrupt their migration patterns."
The Atlantic Chiefs and the Maritime Fishermen's Union are demanding that Minister Dhaliwal put a halt to the issuance of these permits and live up to his responsibilities laid out in the legislation regarding protecting the habitat.
[ UPDATES ] [ Background ] [ Wider implications ] [ 2001 ]
2000 : [ Sept. 26th - Nov. ] [ Sept. 23rd - 25th ] [ Sept. 20th - 22nd ] [ Sept. 1st-19th ] [ August ]
[ Military actions against First Nations, 1995 ] [ Links to First Nations news, Canada ]
[ Return to MTN Contents ]