Monday, October 26, 2009
Everywhere is Genocide?
Indigenous People Across Latin America Protest Spanish 'Genocide'
By Agence France-Presse
October 13, 2009 "AFP" -- GUATEMALA CITY - Tens of thousands of indigenous people took to the streets across Latin America on Monday to protest the anniversary of Christopher Columbus's 1492 discovery of the Americas.
Columbus Day is celebrated as the Day of Hispanic Heritage in Latin America, but protesters marked the holiday as a reminder of the atrocities Spanish conquistadors wrought on indigenous people throughout the region.
In Guatemala City, 19-year-old demonstrator Imer Boror was killed and two were wounded as Maya Indians blocked entry points into the capital to protest their government's mining policies.
Protesters were marching on what they called the Day of Dignity and Resistance of the Indian People, protest leader Juana Mulul told AFP, saying the movement "is purely in defense of Mother Earth and our territory."
In a gesture toward reconciliation with indigenous groups, a special roundtable appointed by President Alvaro Colom after the incident was to meet with 14 poor farmers late Monday to discuss their demands.
Aparicio Perez of the Farmers Union Committee (CUC) said representatives would ask the government to annul mining, hydroelectric and cement concessions because "multinational companies are taking over natural resources, which have long been the source of life for rural families."
According to government statistics, 42 percent of Guatemala's 12 million inhabitants are Indians, although some groups put the figure at over 60 percent.
In southwestern Colombia, some 25,000 people set out from several towns and cities in Valle del Cauca department to protest President Alvaro Uribe's environmental policies and his alleged broken promises to their communities.
They planned to join up Friday in a larger demonstration of some 40,000 in the department's capital of Cali.
"We're demonstrating against the degradation of the planet... against President Alvaro Uribe's neglect" of indigenous communities, National Indigenous Organization of Colombia member Feliciano Valencia told reporters.
Indigenous people, who represent three percent of Colombia's 45 million inhabitants, accuse the conservative Uribe administration of failing to enact social programs and release state funds it promised indigenous communities when it came to power in 2002.
They also protested being regular targets of guerrilla, paramilitary and drug trafficking violence, despite their professed neutrality in the country's ongoing internal conflicts.
During an extraordinary session held at the National Pantheon, the Venezuelan National Assembly passed a bill proposing a "Day of Indigenous Resistance" to be held throughout South America.
National Assembly Speaker Cilia Flores hailed the event as proof lawmakers were "working with all the people and with a revolutionary government to build a new nation."
At the National Pantheon, where the remains of Venezuelan heroes are buried, dozens of indigenous representatives gathered in a demonstration organized by the ruling Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to protest the "genocide of the (Spanish) empire" 500 years ago.
A group of indigenous people kept the Panama-Costa Rica border closed for several hours in the morning at the Sixaola border crossing and later protested in front of the Spanish embassy.
Several thousand native activists were joined by environmentalists, farmers and students for protests across Panama demanding respect for their land rights and rejecting energy projects that "do not respect the autonomy of indigenous people" and cause "forced evictions."
"The arrival of the Spaniards in the Americas in 1492 brought about the destruction of the Indian way of life and broke a series of political and economic institutions that has since driven us into poverty," said Cecilio Guerra before burning a Spanish flag close to the presidential palace.
According to Guerra, over 21 hydroelectric concessions and nine mining projects are affecting indigenous communities.
© 2009 Agence France-Press
By Agence France-Presse
October 13, 2009 "AFP" -- GUATEMALA CITY - Tens of thousands of indigenous people took to the streets across Latin America on Monday to protest the anniversary of Christopher Columbus's 1492 discovery of the Americas.
Columbus Day is celebrated as the Day of Hispanic Heritage in Latin America, but protesters marked the holiday as a reminder of the atrocities Spanish conquistadors wrought on indigenous people throughout the region.
In Guatemala City, 19-year-old demonstrator Imer Boror was killed and two were wounded as Maya Indians blocked entry points into the capital to protest their government's mining policies.
Protesters were marching on what they called the Day of Dignity and Resistance of the Indian People, protest leader Juana Mulul told AFP, saying the movement "is purely in defense of Mother Earth and our territory."
In a gesture toward reconciliation with indigenous groups, a special roundtable appointed by President Alvaro Colom after the incident was to meet with 14 poor farmers late Monday to discuss their demands.
Aparicio Perez of the Farmers Union Committee (CUC) said representatives would ask the government to annul mining, hydroelectric and cement concessions because "multinational companies are taking over natural resources, which have long been the source of life for rural families."
According to government statistics, 42 percent of Guatemala's 12 million inhabitants are Indians, although some groups put the figure at over 60 percent.
In southwestern Colombia, some 25,000 people set out from several towns and cities in Valle del Cauca department to protest President Alvaro Uribe's environmental policies and his alleged broken promises to their communities.
They planned to join up Friday in a larger demonstration of some 40,000 in the department's capital of Cali.
"We're demonstrating against the degradation of the planet... against President Alvaro Uribe's neglect" of indigenous communities, National Indigenous Organization of Colombia member Feliciano Valencia told reporters.
Indigenous people, who represent three percent of Colombia's 45 million inhabitants, accuse the conservative Uribe administration of failing to enact social programs and release state funds it promised indigenous communities when it came to power in 2002.
They also protested being regular targets of guerrilla, paramilitary and drug trafficking violence, despite their professed neutrality in the country's ongoing internal conflicts.
During an extraordinary session held at the National Pantheon, the Venezuelan National Assembly passed a bill proposing a "Day of Indigenous Resistance" to be held throughout South America.
National Assembly Speaker Cilia Flores hailed the event as proof lawmakers were "working with all the people and with a revolutionary government to build a new nation."
At the National Pantheon, where the remains of Venezuelan heroes are buried, dozens of indigenous representatives gathered in a demonstration organized by the ruling Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to protest the "genocide of the (Spanish) empire" 500 years ago.
A group of indigenous people kept the Panama-Costa Rica border closed for several hours in the morning at the Sixaola border crossing and later protested in front of the Spanish embassy.
Several thousand native activists were joined by environmentalists, farmers and students for protests across Panama demanding respect for their land rights and rejecting energy projects that "do not respect the autonomy of indigenous people" and cause "forced evictions."
"The arrival of the Spaniards in the Americas in 1492 brought about the destruction of the Indian way of life and broke a series of political and economic institutions that has since driven us into poverty," said Cecilio Guerra before burning a Spanish flag close to the presidential palace.
According to Guerra, over 21 hydroelectric concessions and nine mining projects are affecting indigenous communities.
© 2009 Agence France-Press
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Canada has no history of colonialism? WTF?
Really Harper, Canada has no history of colonialism? By Harsha Walia 28 Sep 2009 "We also have no history of colonialism..." - Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On the heels of a massive exercise of U.S. police repression against G20protestors, including use of a wartime sonic acoustic weapon also beingutilized in Iraq, Stephen Harper made the above declaration during a pressconference in Pittsburgh where it was announced that Canada would be hostingthe next G20 meeting in 2010. Perhaps Harper and I are not on the same page - is colonialism not definedas the practice and processes of domination, control, and forced subjugationof one people to another? As most bluntly stated by Duncan Campbell Scott,Head of the Department of Indian Affairs in the 1920's: "Our objective is tocontinue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not beenabsorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question." I expect Harper has read the federal government's own report on the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples, which explicitly lays out Canada'simposition of a colonial relationship (indeed, that is the heading of one ofthe chapters) on Indigenous people. Measures employed include the IndianAct, residential schools, forcible relocation including to reservations, theimposed Band Council system, institution of a pass system (which wassubsequently borrowed by apartheid South Africa), germ warfare, outlawing ofceremonies such as the potlatch and traditional activities such as fishing,failed treaty processes, and other forced assimilation polices including theAct for the Gradual Assimilation of Indian Peoples. Considering that his government has so ardently voted against it, it wouldbe safe to presume that Harper is aware of the 2007 United NationsDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. If Canada has no history ofcolonialism, then what else could possibly explain that Canada - along withother settler states such as Australia - have yet to sign on to theDeclaration? Other than the glaringly obvious and painful reality ofcolonization, what would make the Declaration "unworkable for Canada", asstated by the Harper government? This Declaration, endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the 144 memberstates, recognizes that "Indigenous peoples have suffered from historicinjustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession"and therefore affirms that "Indigenous peoples have the right ofself-determination". According to the Declaration, thisincludes: the right to autonomy and self government, right to maintain andstrengthen political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions,collective right to live in freedom without being subjected to acts ofgenocide, and right to redress and compensation for the lands, territoriesand resources confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without free,prior and informed consent. And was it not Harper's government that finally issued an official apologyfor residential schools which separated children from their families,communities, and culture in order to 'take kill the Indian in the child'. Ithas been extensively documented that children suffered unimaginableabuses- including sexual violence, physical beatings, emotional andpsychological torture, and death - in residential schools. The traumas ofthis colonial legacy continues today with Indigenous peopledisproportionately experiencing poverty, poor health, incarceration, youthsuicides, unprecedented levels of violence against Indigenous women, childapprehension, and substandard levels of access to basic needs includingwater and homes. Indigenous people from Akwasasne, Tyendinaga, Six Nations, AthabascaChipewyan, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Secwepemc, and many more are forced to throw up blockades to halt environmentally devastating mineralexploration, clearcut and logging practices, and resource extractionactivities that continue to infringe on their lands. Clearly, Harper hasnot been blind to these very public struggles that his government iscomplicit in criminalizing as Canada becomes notorious for a growing groupof Indigenous political prisoners, prisoners of Canada's colonial democracy. So obviously what Harper meant to say was the more factually accurate:"Canada has no history of colonialism, except for the ongoing internalcolonization of Indigenous people and the external colonization andoccupation of, amongst others, the people of Afghanistan. Not one to breakwith history, my government too has been making strides in asserting greaterdominance over Indigenous peoples lives, lands, and governance. " At least we can take some comfort in the fact that Harper is just anotherhypocritical and self-serving politician and not a history teacher.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Water on the moon!!!
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?rn=222561&cl=15721093&ch=
WATER ON THE MOON
BILLIONS OF GALLONSjavascript:void(0) OF ICE!!!
WATER ON THE MOON
BILLIONS OF GALLONSjavascript:void(0) OF ICE!!!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
IF ON:Y
Message from Leonard Peltier - September 2009
Share
Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 12:10pm
The United States Department of Justice has once again made a mockery of its lofty and pretentious title.
After releasing an original and continuing disciple of death cult leader Charles Manson who attempted to shoot President Gerald Ford, an admitted Croatian terrorist, and another attempted assassin of President Ford under the mandatory 30-year parole law, the U.S. Parole Commission deemed that my release would "promote disrespect for the law."
If only the federal government would have respected its own laws, not to mention the treaties that are, under the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, I would never have been convicted nor forced to spend more than half my life in captivity. Not to mention the fact that every law in this country was created without the consent of Native peoples and is applied unequally at our expense. If nothing else, my experience should raise serious questions about the FBI's supposed jurisdiction in Indian Country.
The parole commission's phrase was lifted from soon-to-be former U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley, who apparently hopes to ride with the FBI cavalry into the office of North Dakota governor. In this Wrigley is following in the footsteps of William Janklow, who built his political career on his reputation as an Indian fighter, moving on up from tribal attorney (and alleged rapist of a Native minor) to state attorney general, South Dakota governor, and U.S. Congressman. Some might recall that Janklow claimed responsibility for dissuading President Clinton from pardoning me before he was convicted of manslaughter. Janklow's historical predecessor, George Armstrong Custer, similarly hoped that a glorious massacre of the Sioux would propel him to the White House, and we all know what happened to him.
Unlike the barbarians that bay for my blood in the corridors of power, however, Native people are true humanitarians who pray for our enemies. Yet we must be realistic enough to organize for our own freedom and equality as nations. We constitute 5% of the population of North Dakota and 10% of South Dakota and we could utilize that influence to promote our own power on the reservations, where our focus should be. If we organized as a voting bloc, we could defeat the entire premise of the competition between the Dakotas as to which is the most racist. In the 1970s we were forced to take up arms to affirm our right to survival and self-defense, but today the war is one of ideas. We must now stand up to armed oppression and colonization with our bodies and our minds. International law is on our side.
Given the complexion of the three recent federal parolees, it might seem that my greatest crime was being Indian. But the truth is that my gravest offense is my innocence. In Iran, political prisoners are occasionally released if they confess to the ridiculous charges on which they are dragged into court, in order to discredit and intimidate them and other like-minded citizens. The FBI and its mouthpieces have suggested the same, as did the parole commission in 1993, when it ruled that my refusal to confess was grounds for denial of parole.
To claim innocence is to suggest that the government is wrong, if not guilty itself. The American judicial system is set up so that the defendant is not punished for the crime itself, but for refusing to accept whatever plea arrangement is offered and for daring to compel the judicial system to grant the accused the right to right to rebut the charges leveled by the state in an actual trial. Such insolence is punished invariably with prosecution requests for the steepest possible sentence, if not an upward departure from sentencing guidelines that are being gradually discarded, along with the possibility of parole.
As much as non-Natives might hate Indians, we are all in the same boat. To attempt to emulate this system in tribal government is pitiful, to say the least.
It was only this year, in the Troy Davis, case, that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized innocence as a legitimate legal defense. Like the witnesses that were coerced into testifying against me, those that testified against Davis renounced their statements, yet Davis was very nearly put to death. I might have been executed myself by now, had not the government of Canada required a waiver of the death penalty as a condition of extradition.
The old order is aptly represented by Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who stated in his dissenting opinion in the Davis case, "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable."
The esteemed Senator from North Dakota, Byron Dorgan, who is now the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, used much the same reasoning in writing that "our legal system has found Leonard Peltier guilty of the crime for which he was charged. I have reviewed the material from the trial, and I believe the verdict was fair and just."
It is a bizarre and incomprehensible statement to Natives, as well it should be, that innocence and guilt is a mere legal status, not necessarily rooted in material fact. It is a truism that all political prisoners were convicted of the crimes for which they were charged.
The truth is the government wants me to falsely confess in order to validate a rather sloppy frame-up operation, one whose exposure would open the door to an investigation of the United States' role in training and equipping goon squads to suppress a grassroots movement on Pine Ridge against a puppet dictatorship.
In America, there can by definition be no political prisoners, only those duly judged guilty in a court of law. It is deemed too controversial to even publicly contemplate that the federal government might fabricate and suppress evidence to defeat those deemed political enemies. But it is a demonstrable fact at every stage of my case.
I am Barack Obama's political prisoner now, and I hope and pray that he will adhere to the ideals that impelled him to run for president. But as Obama himself would acknowledge, if we are expecting him to solve our problems, we missed the point of his campaign. Only by organizing in our own communities and pressuring our supposed leaders can we bring about the changes that we all so desperately need. Please support the Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee in our effort to hold the United States government to its own words.
I thank you all who have stood by me all these years, but to name anyone would be to exclude many more. We must never lose hope in our struggle for freedom.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,
Leonard Peltier
Share
Sunday, September 13, 2009 at 12:10pm
The United States Department of Justice has once again made a mockery of its lofty and pretentious title.
After releasing an original and continuing disciple of death cult leader Charles Manson who attempted to shoot President Gerald Ford, an admitted Croatian terrorist, and another attempted assassin of President Ford under the mandatory 30-year parole law, the U.S. Parole Commission deemed that my release would "promote disrespect for the law."
If only the federal government would have respected its own laws, not to mention the treaties that are, under the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, I would never have been convicted nor forced to spend more than half my life in captivity. Not to mention the fact that every law in this country was created without the consent of Native peoples and is applied unequally at our expense. If nothing else, my experience should raise serious questions about the FBI's supposed jurisdiction in Indian Country.
The parole commission's phrase was lifted from soon-to-be former U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley, who apparently hopes to ride with the FBI cavalry into the office of North Dakota governor. In this Wrigley is following in the footsteps of William Janklow, who built his political career on his reputation as an Indian fighter, moving on up from tribal attorney (and alleged rapist of a Native minor) to state attorney general, South Dakota governor, and U.S. Congressman. Some might recall that Janklow claimed responsibility for dissuading President Clinton from pardoning me before he was convicted of manslaughter. Janklow's historical predecessor, George Armstrong Custer, similarly hoped that a glorious massacre of the Sioux would propel him to the White House, and we all know what happened to him.
Unlike the barbarians that bay for my blood in the corridors of power, however, Native people are true humanitarians who pray for our enemies. Yet we must be realistic enough to organize for our own freedom and equality as nations. We constitute 5% of the population of North Dakota and 10% of South Dakota and we could utilize that influence to promote our own power on the reservations, where our focus should be. If we organized as a voting bloc, we could defeat the entire premise of the competition between the Dakotas as to which is the most racist. In the 1970s we were forced to take up arms to affirm our right to survival and self-defense, but today the war is one of ideas. We must now stand up to armed oppression and colonization with our bodies and our minds. International law is on our side.
Given the complexion of the three recent federal parolees, it might seem that my greatest crime was being Indian. But the truth is that my gravest offense is my innocence. In Iran, political prisoners are occasionally released if they confess to the ridiculous charges on which they are dragged into court, in order to discredit and intimidate them and other like-minded citizens. The FBI and its mouthpieces have suggested the same, as did the parole commission in 1993, when it ruled that my refusal to confess was grounds for denial of parole.
To claim innocence is to suggest that the government is wrong, if not guilty itself. The American judicial system is set up so that the defendant is not punished for the crime itself, but for refusing to accept whatever plea arrangement is offered and for daring to compel the judicial system to grant the accused the right to right to rebut the charges leveled by the state in an actual trial. Such insolence is punished invariably with prosecution requests for the steepest possible sentence, if not an upward departure from sentencing guidelines that are being gradually discarded, along with the possibility of parole.
As much as non-Natives might hate Indians, we are all in the same boat. To attempt to emulate this system in tribal government is pitiful, to say the least.
It was only this year, in the Troy Davis, case, that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized innocence as a legitimate legal defense. Like the witnesses that were coerced into testifying against me, those that testified against Davis renounced their statements, yet Davis was very nearly put to death. I might have been executed myself by now, had not the government of Canada required a waiver of the death penalty as a condition of extradition.
The old order is aptly represented by Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who stated in his dissenting opinion in the Davis case, "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable."
The esteemed Senator from North Dakota, Byron Dorgan, who is now the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, used much the same reasoning in writing that "our legal system has found Leonard Peltier guilty of the crime for which he was charged. I have reviewed the material from the trial, and I believe the verdict was fair and just."
It is a bizarre and incomprehensible statement to Natives, as well it should be, that innocence and guilt is a mere legal status, not necessarily rooted in material fact. It is a truism that all political prisoners were convicted of the crimes for which they were charged.
The truth is the government wants me to falsely confess in order to validate a rather sloppy frame-up operation, one whose exposure would open the door to an investigation of the United States' role in training and equipping goon squads to suppress a grassroots movement on Pine Ridge against a puppet dictatorship.
In America, there can by definition be no political prisoners, only those duly judged guilty in a court of law. It is deemed too controversial to even publicly contemplate that the federal government might fabricate and suppress evidence to defeat those deemed political enemies. But it is a demonstrable fact at every stage of my case.
I am Barack Obama's political prisoner now, and I hope and pray that he will adhere to the ideals that impelled him to run for president. But as Obama himself would acknowledge, if we are expecting him to solve our problems, we missed the point of his campaign. Only by organizing in our own communities and pressuring our supposed leaders can we bring about the changes that we all so desperately need. Please support the Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee in our effort to hold the United States government to its own words.
I thank you all who have stood by me all these years, but to name anyone would be to exclude many more. We must never lose hope in our struggle for freedom.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,
Leonard Peltier
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
GOVERNMENT GRANTS - APPLY PEOPLE
TIME.com
Today: Canadian Citizens Benefit From Government Grants
Tough economic times have opened up the flood gates to government sponsored private grants, and they're going fast!
Posted by Brad Tuttle Monday, September 14 2009
10 Comments • Trackback (1) • Related Topics: jobs of the future , Working from home, safe jobs, Money, how to quit your job , thrive in this economy, top 10 jobs, 60k+ a year jobs
Find funding to help you start up a business, pay for education, pay medical bills, and much more.
f you live in Canada and you have been wanting to work from home, you might be in luck. Each year, the Canadian Government gives out billions and billions in
Grants to people just like you. Very few people are actually aware of the grant application process, which means a high number of applicants are successful.
To thousands of Canadians this means that they will soon have a safe and bright future benefiting from one of the fastest growing and adaptive government systems in the world.
In the middle of this recession that this country and the world is going through, the Canadian Government has been looking for ways to stimulate spending and increase business confidence.
This is money that is entitled to ordinary, hardworking Canadians just like you and is sitting there waiting for qualified applicants to claim their share.
In the past, the process of researching available government grant programs would take days - even weeks - to find even a handful of grant programs that you might qualify to apply for.
One woman who received a $12,000 grant was quoted as saying "After being at my factory job for 10 years and never getting a raise I knew I'd have to go back to school. But when I looked into it, there was no way I'd be able to pay the tuition, books, or living expenses while I went!"
Thousands of Canadians are already breathing a sigh of relief and enjoying time with their families, not agonizing over their finances... all because they received government grants that they applied for and were entitled to receive.
After receiving his grant another man said: "We got noticed that we were being foreclosed on and there was no way we could get the money to get out of it. After we used the software, we found government assistance right away and got a check that covered our late payments and then some. We're now all caught up with our mortgage and can finally breathe easy!"
First you will need to apply for a government grant kit. Ther are a limited amount of kits available, all distributed through local websites in your area, which will cost you around $2 of shipping and handling.
They say this charge is made to cover shipping costs but also to separate the people that are serious about being a part of this program.
Once you have ordered your kit (if you are lucky enough to qualify) then you will receive a package that will contain all the instructions you need to start applying for government grants
To apply for your government grant here are the three steps:
Step 1: See if you qualify for a Grants Money Kit, and pay the $2.95 for shipping. (The shipping cost allows them to screen for serious people).
Step 2: Follow the directions on your package and start applying for government grants.
Step 3: Start cashing the checks that are sent to you, and start spending the money!
Associated Links:
Grants Money Official Website
* Print
* E-mail
* Comment
* Digg
* Twitter
* LinkedIn
* Buzz Up!
* Facebook
* MORE
Comments (10)
Post a Comment »
*
1
Hi, single mom here, Took me a bit longer than you said to receive my grant-- 44 days. But in the end it was worth it, I receive $13,000. I cannot explain how much this has bettered my life, especially in these exceedingly tough times.
Diane H.
September 14 2009
at 1:52 pm
*
2
The timing of this couldn't be better, my wife and I are struggling too and this could be our answer.
Mark S.
September 14 2009
at 1:51 pm
*
3
where do i goto apply for the grants??
Mikey M.
September 14 2009
at 1:50 pm
*
4
Just go here and fill out the quick form... I think it costs $3.95 to get the paperwork shipped though.
Stephen A.
September 14 2009
at 1:49 pm
*
5
im so stoked. i actually got $5500 from this... how many can you apply for each year?
Davis L.
September 14 2009
at 1:49 pm
*
6
My husband and I are upside down in our mortgage, and received our grant 31 days after we applied. This is an unbelievable program. I cannot thank you enough. Thank you so much.
Miriam A.
September 14 2009
at 1:48 pm
*
7
I got my grant after just one month of waiting... apparently some people have gotten theirs even quicker than that.
Damo
September 14 2009
at 1:47 pm
*
8
Has anyone tried this yet? Looks promising.
Thomas H.
September 14 2009
at 1:44 pm
*
9
Laid off and living in new york. Need some income, and this came through in the clutch. This will give me atleat another month of job searching. $3765!.
Wanda M.
September 14 2009
at 1:43 pm
*
10
Well, I'm definitely interested... this could be just what I need right now. I just signed up I hope they accept me!
Sheila R.
September 14 2009
at 1:42 pm
Add Your Comment:
Click here to cancel reply.
Comments temporarily closed due to server overload.. Will be back shortly
Go To Government Grants Page »
How To Apply For A Grant:
(In 3 Simple Steps)
*
*
Step 1:
See if you qualify for a Government Grant Kit
*
Step 2:
Get your Grants Money free trial
*
Step 3:
Deposit your checks!
"Canadian Citizens Benefit From Government Grants" Latest User Reviews
ON BLOGS ACROSS THE INTERNET
1. "...I read this and had to order this kit, not gonna miss out on such an opportunity"
2. "...Very excited, looks like a real and long term opportunity, I'm glad I got the kit on time"
3. "...I put it to work right away and was amazed at how much I qualified for!"
4. "...The Government saves the day!"
5. "...Wow for just paying shipping costs I can't believe I got all this material and instructions.. very cool!"
6. "...I always kept hearing these stories of people getting free grant money.. just got the kit and I see how they do it now.. Very excited about the future!"
7. "...Didn't get exactly how the Government chose beneficiaries and how they gave away free money...I got my kit now and it's making more sense now."
8. "...I just put a deposit down for my first house, I never thought getting that money be so easy!"
Interesting Information About Goverment Grants:
o
Even though government grant money is available to be applied for by anyone who qualifies, this information is not always made readily available to the public. The GrantsMoney Funding Kit gives you the "insider secrets" so that you are able to find the right grant for you, find out if you qualify quickly, and "cut in line" to get your money fast using the step-by-step guides and information that we provide you with.
"Canadian Citizens Benefit From Government Grants" Associated Links:
*
Grants Money Kit
Logo
© 2009 TimesInsider Inc. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | RSS | Newsletter | Timesinsider For Kids | TimesInsider.com
Subscribe | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Reprints & Permissions | Opinion Leaders Panel | Help | Site Map
This is an Advertisement
I do not work for the Canadian Government and the Canadian Government does not sponsor, endorse, and is in no way affiliated with this website. All trademarks are owned by their respective owners. This publication provides the Author's opinions and neither the Publisher nor the author intends to render legal, accounting, financial, business or other professional advice with this publication. With regards to licensing of a business enterprise, any legal accounting or tax matters. Author and publisher is an Affiliate of the company offering the business opportunity and are remunerated by advertiser. Author and publisher strongly suggest that the reader seek the services of appropriate licensed business, financial and or legal professionals before proceeding with any actions and comply with the local, state and federal licensing and guideline requirements which the reader resides or conducts business. The Publisher and Author disclaim any personal liability, loss or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application of the offer, either directly or indirectly, of any advice, information, or methods presented in this publication. Individual comments are unedited and not the opinion of Author or Publisher and not liable for their comments and opinions. Author or Publisher is not associated with the Canadian Government. *INCOME CLAIM WARNING: Testimonials do not result typical result. Photographs or images are depiction of individuals and payment methods. These income examples are representative of some of the most successful participants in the program. Some individuals purchasing the program may make little or NO MONEY AT ALL. These claims are not a guarantee of your income, nor are they typical of average participants. Individual results will vary greatly and in accordance to your input, determination, hard work, and ability to follow directions. No person or company can guarantee profits or freedom from loss. By using this website you are agreeing to our Earnings and Income Disclaimers.
Read full terms and conditions
Today: Canadian Citizens Benefit From Government Grants
Tough economic times have opened up the flood gates to government sponsored private grants, and they're going fast!
Posted by Brad Tuttle Monday, September 14 2009
10 Comments • Trackback (1) • Related Topics: jobs of the future , Working from home, safe jobs, Money, how to quit your job , thrive in this economy, top 10 jobs, 60k+ a year jobs
Find funding to help you start up a business, pay for education, pay medical bills, and much more.
f you live in Canada and you have been wanting to work from home, you might be in luck. Each year, the Canadian Government gives out billions and billions in
Grants to people just like you. Very few people are actually aware of the grant application process, which means a high number of applicants are successful.
To thousands of Canadians this means that they will soon have a safe and bright future benefiting from one of the fastest growing and adaptive government systems in the world.
In the middle of this recession that this country and the world is going through, the Canadian Government has been looking for ways to stimulate spending and increase business confidence.
This is money that is entitled to ordinary, hardworking Canadians just like you and is sitting there waiting for qualified applicants to claim their share.
In the past, the process of researching available government grant programs would take days - even weeks - to find even a handful of grant programs that you might qualify to apply for.
One woman who received a $12,000 grant was quoted as saying "After being at my factory job for 10 years and never getting a raise I knew I'd have to go back to school. But when I looked into it, there was no way I'd be able to pay the tuition, books, or living expenses while I went!"
Thousands of Canadians are already breathing a sigh of relief and enjoying time with their families, not agonizing over their finances... all because they received government grants that they applied for and were entitled to receive.
After receiving his grant another man said: "We got noticed that we were being foreclosed on and there was no way we could get the money to get out of it. After we used the software, we found government assistance right away and got a check that covered our late payments and then some. We're now all caught up with our mortgage and can finally breathe easy!"
First you will need to apply for a government grant kit. Ther are a limited amount of kits available, all distributed through local websites in your area, which will cost you around $2 of shipping and handling.
They say this charge is made to cover shipping costs but also to separate the people that are serious about being a part of this program.
Once you have ordered your kit (if you are lucky enough to qualify) then you will receive a package that will contain all the instructions you need to start applying for government grants
To apply for your government grant here are the three steps:
Step 1: See if you qualify for a Grants Money Kit, and pay the $2.95 for shipping. (The shipping cost allows them to screen for serious people).
Step 2: Follow the directions on your package and start applying for government grants.
Step 3: Start cashing the checks that are sent to you, and start spending the money!
Associated Links:
Grants Money Official Website
* Comment
* Digg
* Buzz Up!
* MORE
Comments (10)
Post a Comment »
*
1
Hi, single mom here, Took me a bit longer than you said to receive my grant-- 44 days. But in the end it was worth it, I receive $13,000. I cannot explain how much this has bettered my life, especially in these exceedingly tough times.
Diane H.
September 14 2009
at 1:52 pm
*
2
The timing of this couldn't be better, my wife and I are struggling too and this could be our answer.
Mark S.
September 14 2009
at 1:51 pm
*
3
where do i goto apply for the grants??
Mikey M.
September 14 2009
at 1:50 pm
*
4
Just go here and fill out the quick form... I think it costs $3.95 to get the paperwork shipped though.
Stephen A.
September 14 2009
at 1:49 pm
*
5
im so stoked. i actually got $5500 from this... how many can you apply for each year?
Davis L.
September 14 2009
at 1:49 pm
*
6
My husband and I are upside down in our mortgage, and received our grant 31 days after we applied. This is an unbelievable program. I cannot thank you enough. Thank you so much.
Miriam A.
September 14 2009
at 1:48 pm
*
7
I got my grant after just one month of waiting... apparently some people have gotten theirs even quicker than that.
Damo
September 14 2009
at 1:47 pm
*
8
Has anyone tried this yet? Looks promising.
Thomas H.
September 14 2009
at 1:44 pm
*
9
Laid off and living in new york. Need some income, and this came through in the clutch. This will give me atleat another month of job searching. $3765!.
Wanda M.
September 14 2009
at 1:43 pm
*
10
Well, I'm definitely interested... this could be just what I need right now. I just signed up I hope they accept me!
Sheila R.
September 14 2009
at 1:42 pm
Add Your Comment:
Click here to cancel reply.
Comments temporarily closed due to server overload.. Will be back shortly
Go To Government Grants Page »
How To Apply For A Grant:
(In 3 Simple Steps)
*
*
Step 1:
See if you qualify for a Government Grant Kit
*
Step 2:
Get your Grants Money free trial
*
Step 3:
Deposit your checks!
"Canadian Citizens Benefit From Government Grants" Latest User Reviews
ON BLOGS ACROSS THE INTERNET
1. "...I read this and had to order this kit, not gonna miss out on such an opportunity"
2. "...Very excited, looks like a real and long term opportunity, I'm glad I got the kit on time"
3. "...I put it to work right away and was amazed at how much I qualified for!"
4. "...The Government saves the day!"
5. "...Wow for just paying shipping costs I can't believe I got all this material and instructions.. very cool!"
6. "...I always kept hearing these stories of people getting free grant money.. just got the kit and I see how they do it now.. Very excited about the future!"
7. "...Didn't get exactly how the Government chose beneficiaries and how they gave away free money...I got my kit now and it's making more sense now."
8. "...I just put a deposit down for my first house, I never thought getting that money be so easy!"
Interesting Information About Goverment Grants:
o
Even though government grant money is available to be applied for by anyone who qualifies, this information is not always made readily available to the public. The GrantsMoney Funding Kit gives you the "insider secrets" so that you are able to find the right grant for you, find out if you qualify quickly, and "cut in line" to get your money fast using the step-by-step guides and information that we provide you with.
"Canadian Citizens Benefit From Government Grants" Associated Links:
*
Grants Money Kit
Logo
© 2009 TimesInsider Inc. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | RSS | Newsletter | Timesinsider For Kids | TimesInsider.com
Subscribe | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Reprints & Permissions | Opinion Leaders Panel | Help | Site Map
This is an Advertisement
I do not work for the Canadian Government and the Canadian Government does not sponsor, endorse, and is in no way affiliated with this website. All trademarks are owned by their respective owners. This publication provides the Author's opinions and neither the Publisher nor the author intends to render legal, accounting, financial, business or other professional advice with this publication. With regards to licensing of a business enterprise, any legal accounting or tax matters. Author and publisher is an Affiliate of the company offering the business opportunity and are remunerated by advertiser. Author and publisher strongly suggest that the reader seek the services of appropriate licensed business, financial and or legal professionals before proceeding with any actions and comply with the local, state and federal licensing and guideline requirements which the reader resides or conducts business. The Publisher and Author disclaim any personal liability, loss or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application of the offer, either directly or indirectly, of any advice, information, or methods presented in this publication. Individual comments are unedited and not the opinion of Author or Publisher and not liable for their comments and opinions. Author or Publisher is not associated with the Canadian Government. *INCOME CLAIM WARNING: Testimonials do not result typical result. Photographs or images are depiction of individuals and payment methods. These income examples are representative of some of the most successful participants in the program. Some individuals purchasing the program may make little or NO MONEY AT ALL. These claims are not a guarantee of your income, nor are they typical of average participants. Individual results will vary greatly and in accordance to your input, determination, hard work, and ability to follow directions. No person or company can guarantee profits or freedom from loss. By using this website you are agreeing to our Earnings and Income Disclaimers.
Read full terms and conditions
Saturday, September 12, 2009
YAY someone in BC is STANDING UP!!!
Penticton Indian Band Chief Jonathan Kruger is wondering why a letter sent to the four host nations expressing concern over the Olympics is generating national attention.
At the heart of the matter is a letter sent to the Four Host Nations Society, representing the Lil’wat, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, in whose traditional territories the 2010 Olympics are being held.
“We wrote a letter to the four host nations, not to Canada,” said Kruger. “It was a respectful letter saying we don’t support the Olympics.”
Response to the letter was immediate, with the Penticton Indian Band’s name being removed from the list of communities on the official torch relay route.
Kruger said he doesn’t know why they did that, adding that while the PIB wasn’t supporting the Olympics, the torch relay was supported by the Okanagan Nation overall, confirmed by a vote of Okanagan chiefs.
“We respectfully accept that, so I don’t know what the big deal is. Then the Globe and Mail labels us like we’re part of the militants,” referring to an article in the national paper listing the PIB along with other, more aggressive groups opposing the Olympics.
“I don’t know anyone in our community that’s planning to block any roads,” he said. “I really didn’t like the fact they tried to smear our community’s name as a militant band towards the Olympics.”
Kruger thinks the band is getting national attention because they are the only First Nations band to have written such a letter. The letter expressed concern over Canada not supporting the UN declaration on indigenous peoples, B.C failing to follow through on the new relationship and the fact that while the four host nations shared in 2010 legacy funding, other communities in B.C. didn’t.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Mcleans.ca
Enough with drinking water
Healthy people don't have to drink nearly as much as they think
By Cathy Gulli
When it comes to water, there’s nothing clear about how much we need to drink or even what good it does us. Still guzzling eight 8-oz. glasses a day? There’s no scientific proof everyone requires so much. Urine should be colourless? That’s a sign you’ve chugged too much. Thirst means you’re already dehydrated? Not even close.
“I want to squash that notion. It’s baloney,” says Heinz Valtin, professor emeritus of physiology at the Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, N.H., in a recent podcast produced by the American Physiological Society. He should know. His seminal 2002 study, “ ‘Drink at least eight glasses of water a day.’ Really? Is there scientific evidence for the ‘8 x 8’?” is often cited by other researchers investigating how much water we should consume daily. Now, many physiologists are debunking the most common assumptions about water intake. Valtin’s conclusion: healthy people who live sedentary lifestyles in temperate climates don’t have to drink so much.
So how did this belief get so widespread? One theory suggests it was a misinterpretation of the 1989 “recommended dietary allowance” (RDA) data produced by the Institute of Medicine, says Samuel Cheuvront, principal investigator at the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Those stated that for every calorie expended, one millilitre of fluid was to be consumed. Assuming everybody kept a 2,000 calorie diet, which is the reference often used to calculate RDAs, says Cheuvront, that equals two litres, which is 64 fluid ounces—or eight 8-oz. glasses.
The recommendations “never said that was what everyone required,” says Cheuvront, but people just “latched on.” Over the last two decades, there has been “a major cultural change” in our obsession with good hydration, adds Mark Knepper, chief of the kidney and electrolyte metabolism lab at the National Institutes of Health in Bethseda, Md. “Somehow we all survived without carrying around water and chugging every 10 minutes,” he says. Toting water, wrote Valtin in his study, has become akin to a “security blanket.”
That’s misguided, experts say, and they’re worried we’ve developed tunnel vision when it comes to how we replenish our bodies. “It’s a myth that in order to hydrate ourselves we need [only] plain water as opposed to water found in any other food or beverage,” says Susan Barr, a professor of nutrition at the University of British Columbia, who was part of an Institute of Medicine panel that established 2005 water intake recommendations. She is a proponent of plain water because it contains no calories, but Barr says that all kinds of fluid count, including juice, pop, beer and even mild diuretics such as coffee and tea. There’s even water in foods such as chicken and bread, Barr adds.
Rather than slavishly choking down eight glasses of water, these experts say we should take a more enlightened, individualized approach to hydration. How much we each need depends on factors such as our diet, level of daily physical activity, how hot it is, where we live, our size and even our personal health issues. Fortunately, when we need to drink, our bodies send us a signal far more clear and accurate than any formula: thirst. “When the salt level goes up in your blood, so does your thirst,” says Knepper. The most useful way to know the state of your water balance, he explains, is by taking a sip. “Everyone has had that experience [where] you get some cold water and boy, does that taste good. So you can tell if you need that water by how it tastes when you try it.”
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Canada is planning to offer our Aboriginal Post Secondary Funding as a new loans based program, there is a treaty, the JAY TREATY research it
148,379 members in Toronto, Ontario - 33,170 Online Now
| 
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
KITCHENUHMAYKOOSIB INNINUWUG GOES INTERNATIONAL
(Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug – August 24, 2009) The Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) appeals to the United Nations for help. Mr. James Trusler, President and CEO of Platinex mines sent a letter to Chief Donny Morris of KI advising them that Platinex will be going back into Nemeigusabins Lake (mining site) near Big Trout Lake on Tuesday, August 25, 2009.
Chief Donny Morris responded by sending a letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty pressing him for a meeting to talk about the Platinex situation. Chief Morris said, “The province has not called one meeting on this controversy since last year.” He said, “This is a bad sign.”
Chief Donny Morris and his people will be out at Nemeigusabins Lake on August 25, 2009. Chief Morris said, “We will engage in peaceful demonstration out at the proposed mining site.”
Chief Donny Morris said, “I sent a letter to the Ontario Provincial Police on this matter.”
In September 2008, KI made a submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Early Warning and Urgent Action regarding the fact that Ontario is not recognizing the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and that the Chief and Council were sentenced to 6 months in jail for standing up for their rights and stopping mining exploration in their area.
The Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug situation was under consideration by the United Nations CERD, Working Group on Early Warning and Urgent Action in February 2009. CERD sent a letter to Canada in March 2009 asking questions about Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and requesting these questions be answered by July 31, 2009. Canada did officially respond to the United Nations.
Chief Donny Morris has reviewed Canada’s response and has issued his own letter to CERD and requesting that mining activities in his territory be stopped until the whole issue of Aboriginal and Title is dealt with. Chief Morris said, “If you cannot get justice at home, you need to go international.”
Contact: Chief Donny Morris
Councillor Samuel Mckay
Office of the Chief and Council
Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug
P.O. Box 329
Big Trout Lake, Ontario P0V 1G0
Phone: 807-537-2263
Fax: 807-537-2574
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Imposing Injunctions
Good afternoon everyone,
As most of you know by now, we got the moratorium for 1 year.
At this time, I have to thank my lawyers, Chris Reid and Peter Rosenthal who represented me in my case to oppose the injunction. At that time, we were able to come to a resolution and agree to an adjournment on the understanding that these issues would be on the County Council Agenda, 1) The Moratorium 2) The Injuction/Lawsuit (Against me and Anne Ritchie Nahuis and 3) The IPC Inquiry to the Calibrated Modflow
The results of this effort are (as well as the efforts of the Outreach teams, the letter campaigns, and hundreds of individuals who worked hard to ensure the vote passed);
1) Council voted in favor of the moratorium for 1 year. 22/10
2) The Injunction stays in place, the lawsuit has been dropped.
3) County Council voted to have a judicial review of the IPC Order requiring the County to do everything in its power to compel Jagger Himms to release the model, this included legal action.
Also, a quick note, On September 5th, 2009 we will be having a Legal Defense Fundraiser at Yorkies in Penetanguishene. We will be having a silent auction on that day starting at 11 pm. Donations for prizes would be greatly appreciated and can be dropped off at the Protest Camp or at Yorkies c/o Cindy York, Owner. (More details to follow)
59 Main Street, Penetanguishene, ON L9M 1S8
Telephone : 705-549-0648
As you can see, we have two major victories resulting from the Council meeting on the 25th. The dropping of the lawsuit against me and Anne and the Moratorium. Everyone is welcome to attend the Moratorium Celebration Potluck on Saturday at 5 pm at the Protest Camp.
A big miigwetch to the thousands of support of the Stop Dump Site 41 campaign. Please be sure and visit our website at www.stopdumpsite41.ca
Regards,
Vicki Monague
Deepening Our Roots - Good Work Cailey!!!
The Minister of Natural Resources, Donna Cansfield, released her decision today, Thurs. Aug. 27 2009, to NOT issue a stop work order on the proposed culvert/road crossing for the Hanlon Creek Business Park. The decision was released as the “Salamander Protection Plan”. It allows construction to continue under some limited "protective measures"...
Please see www.hcbp.wordpress.com for the full update and info on letter writing efforts!
We are especially hoping that this bad news will bring together all of us on Saturday in order to discuss next plans:
* Saturday August 29th from 11 - 4, at Goldi Mill park.
The event is called: *"Deepening our Roots: Developing Networks of Resistance in Guelph and Southern Ontario. it is a potlcuk and a social, drop in when you can! We will also have speakers from Six Nations, Tyendinaga, and Site 41. It will be a family friendly event, with games and food. Please come!!
* Also on Saturday theres a fundraiser concert for hcbp-related legal fees. its at edvideo (40 baker st, downtown guelph) beginning at 7pm, wiyj music and speakers- please come out!
We Can No Longer
Event: MAPUCHE PROTEST - PROTESTA MAPUCHE
"Because we can no longer remain silent unto these murders, this injustice and plunder..."
What: Protest
Host: The Women's Coordinating Committee Chile-Canada
Start Time: Friday, September 11 at 12:00pm
End Time: Friday, September 11 at 2:00pm
Where: Chilean Consulate
To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/n/?event.php&eid=124925672734&mid=1023862G24812d2bG6925225G7
Legitimate Leadership
More proof has emerged of Indian Affairs’ attempts to crush the small First Nation of Barriere Lake in north-western Quebec. Under court-order, the federal government has been forced to release a private report written for Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl by an ex-top Diplomat in late 2007. The report lays out a wide-ranging set of schemes to undermine Barriere Lake’s Customary Chief and Council and ensure that the community’s Trilateral agreement never takes on life. It demonstrates what the community has known for a long time but which the Department of Indian Affairs has always publically denied: the federal government has refused to implement the Trilateral agrement because it fears it would throw into question their Comprehensive Claims process, which amounts to a modern-day land grab.
The analysis below lays out the full implications of the report.
Meanwhile, Indian Affairs continues to refuse to recognize the legitimate Customary Chief and Council of Barriere Lake, re-selected under their Customary Governance Code in June 2009. This has severly hampered the community's ability to advocate for their rights and see that the Trilateral agreement is implemented. Please take a few minutes to write the government to demand they recognize and start dealing with Barriere Lake’s legitimate leadership:
http://barrierelakesolidarity.blogspot.com/2009/07/action-alert.html
--Barriere Lake solidarity collective
Another Smoking Gun:
Top Diplomat’s report to Minister laid out strategy for government subversion of Algonquin community
By Martin Lukacs
A document recently released under court-order reveals a former prominent diplomat officially advised Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl to undermine the elected leadership of the Algonquin community of Barriere Lake and quash their signed Trilateral agreement – a course of action then pursued by Strahl and the Department of Indian Affairs. The advice revolves around the threat that the agreement’s implementation would pose to a key government policy controlling unsurrendered native lands.
The report to Strahl was prepared by Marc Perron, a representative for the Minister during an alternative dispute resolution process between the federal government and the small First Nation in the fall of 2007.
Before leaving retirement to take on special roles for Indian Affairs, Perron gained a reputation as a straight-talker during decades of service in high-level diplomatic positions with Foreign Affairs in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. His bluntness even landed him in trouble in the mid-1990s, when he was forced to resign as ambassador to Mexico after accusing the country’s government of widespread corruption. True to style, his report to Strahl is free of the bureaucratic obfuscation typical of Indian Affairs’ officials, and thus offers a highly revealing profile of their mentality and mode of operation towards Barriere Lake.
Despite the report’s variance with government pronouncements, the conclusions are not original but shaped and informed by extensive consultations with officials within Indian Affairs and the federal and provincial governments. Whether his report was actually followed by Indian Affairs or simply reinforced their existing plans, it is a vivid demonstration of the extreme and even illegal measures Indian Affairs is willing to consider to ensure that Indigenous communities do not strongly assert their rights.
Perron’s recommendations to the Minister amount to a full arsenal of tactics of subversion: banish the possibility that the federal government will respect the landmark Trilateral agreement they withdrew from in 2001; fine-tune the government’s comprehensive land claims policy used to extinguish native land rights, despite its violations of international and domestic law; sow internal divisions and foster opposition to the legitimate leadership within the community; cut off their professional consultation services; and strike a side deal with Quebec that ensures the provincial government doesn’t implement their part of the Trilateral agreement.
Perron was unable to maintain the confidence of Barriere Lake during the alternative dispute resolution, mainly because he refused to give fair hearing to the community’s concerns about the federal government’s decision to renege on the Trilateral agreement. The 1991 pact, signed between Barriere Lake and Canada and Quebec, was intended to give the community a decision-making role in the management of their traditional territories and benefits from extensive resource extraction [1]. Perron stepped down soon after, but not before submitting a series of recommendations in a report exclusively to Minister Strahl on December 20, 2007. This document was only released to lawyers acting on behalf of the Elder’s Council of Barriere Lake in the spring of 2009, under court-order.
Containing Barriere Lake’s Defiance
In his report, Perron paints a picture of an irrational, suspicious and confrontational community, defaming their decades of peaceful political campaigning as “blackmail tactics used over the years to obtain concessions or funding from one government or another.”
Framing his analysis, he describes Barriere Lake’s approach to negotiations over rights to their traditional territories:
The former chief clearly indicated that the ABL [Algonquins of Barriere Lake] had no interest in comprehensive claims. They hoped to maintain Federal responsibility (and their obligations) and to obtain rights and co-management on the territory (including royalties)…
A question we could ask: why bother negotiating a land claims agreement when we can obtain benefits (at least partially) through a partial accord like a trilateral agreement? Other First Nations would be justified in questioning this matter. And it’s the current overall comprehensive lands claims and self-government negotiations which could be questioned. [emphasis mine]
Indian Affairs, in their public pronouncements and media messaging, have always stuck to a set script: they pulled out of the Trilateral agreement because it cost too much money and had not produced tangible results. Perron reveals the real reason: Barriere Lake’s success in forging a viable alternative to Comprehensive Lands Claims negotiations, offering a model for other First Nations to follow, could jeopardize the government’s agenda.
Such open defiance of one of the pillars of Canadian government policy would be reason enough to warrant active subversion of the community. In negotiating the Trilateral agreement, Barriere Lake's precise intent was to avoid the Comprehensive Land Claims process, the Canadian government’s modern-day land grab. It is an imposed, one-size-fits-all negotiating process for First Nations who have never signed away their title in historical treaties. A pre-condition for entering the process is that the First Nation surrender their rights to their traditional territories; they are then allowed to negotiate the terms of surrender, receiving small parcels of their land, some access to natural resources, and small monetary sums. Several bodies at the United Nations have regularly condemned this policy of “extinguishment,” which violates international law and also illegally ignores rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, such as the historic 1997 decision of Delgamuukw that recognized the existence of the Aboriginal title of First Nations. But the Canadian and provincial governments have poured billions into the process to secure agreements known as modern-day treaties, extinguishing Indigenous rights to traditional territories and securing legal “certainty” for government and corporate investment and economic development.
While the successful implementation of the Trilateral agreement wouldn’t single-handedly upend the Comprehensive Claims process, Perron notes accurately that it could initiate a domino effect among other First Nations negotiating over their unsurrendered Title. The stakes are highest in British Columbia, where most lands are not covered by treaty. This passage reveals that Perron and Indian Affairs are keenly aware that if other First Nations believed it were possible to break the negotiating mould pressed on them, the cost for the federal and provincial governments – in political control and money – would be steep.
Knowing they couldn’t change the Comprehensive Claims policy on their own, the Barriere Lake Algonquins negotiated a kind of interim (in Perron’s words, “partial”) agreement that would allow them to make gains in economic self-sufficiency and control over their lands while forestalling the government’s drive for the extinguishment of their land rights. The Trilateral amounts to a consultation and accommodation plan that grants them a decision-making role over their traditional territories, requiring federal and provincial recognition of an area of resource co-management over 10,000 square kilometers and a share of the revenue from the extensive resource extraction on their lands. Hydro, forestry, recreational hunting and tourism take out $100 million annually, while the community has never received a cent. Complimentary agreements signed with the federal and provincial government would also entail expansion of their reserve, connection to the hydro-grid with a transition fund to help community members pay for the added hydro expenses (though the reserve sits on a reservoir that flooded their land decades ago, it is still off the hydro-grid), and infrastructure developments in the community, which lacks a high-school, community centre, and suffers massive housing shortages.
Quashing the “Mythical treaty”
But within the report’s same page, Perron derides the belief that the Trilateral even amounts to an “agreement,” denies the existence of the benefits he has just described, and recommends quashing the agreement in no uncertain terms:
This agreement does not constitute a treaty or an accord other than a partial financial agreement. INAC did well by withdrawing from this program which provided meager tangible results for the community…
I RECOMMEND that, under no circumstances, should INAC accept a re-involvement in the trilateral agreement but more importantly, that at no time should they agree to a specific reference, in a financial agreement, to this mythical “treaty” which essentially served to feed the illusions of the population and comfort its promoters in their ideology.
The leadership of the ABL and their councilors will continue to want to breathe life into this unbelievable illusion. It’s their basic right. What I state here is that under no circumstances should INAC or any other Federal instances contribute to perpetuate this utopia.
The “illusions” of Barriere Lake’s leadership, however, are in line with the conclusions reached by respected Quebec Superior Court Judge Rejean Paul, the only jurist to offer a legal opinion about the Trilateral in a political arena. Judge Paul mediated between the Quebec government, logging companies and Barriere Lake in 1992, when Quebec was allowing the companies to ignore their consultation obligations under the Trilateral agreement. In his mediation report, Judge Paul concluded that the Trilateral, if tested in court, might be accorded the status of a “treaty,” and at the very least was a “solemn agreement” binding on the signatory parties. On top of that, when the Canadian government signed the agreement they recognized their “fiduciary obligations,” the legally enforceable duty to act in the best interests of First Nations. Despite written pledges from a former Indian Affairs’ Minister to continue the funding because of delays caused by the provincial and federal governments, Minister Robert Nault unilaterally pulled out of the agreement in 2001, leaving the government’s fiduciary obligations to Barriere Lake unfulfilled. But the passion with which Perron dismisses the notion that the Trilateral agreement is a binding agreement may of course have more to do with political expediency than questions of legality. It is a striking admission of the government’s desire to prevent the viability of any agreement that breaks free from their negotiating dictates, and allows a First Nation to regain some control over their traditional territory and benefits from their own wealth without extinguishing their land rights.
Instead of promoting respect for a binding agreement, Perron proposes re-jigging the Comprehensive Claims policy to secure the federal government’s objective of extinguishment:
I RECOMMEND, in the long term, that INAC’s policy on access to comprehensive land claims and self-government for the Algonquins be reviewed.
In the 80’s, many Algonquin communities expressed their desire to be involved in a comprehensive claim. Three communities, Barriere Lake, Timiskaming and Wolf Lake opposed such a process….
Several Algonquin spokespersons have long since been ready to undertake negotiations and expressed much frustration for being kept out of the loop since a small group of ideologists and doctrinarians prefer confrontation to dialogue, theory to development.
It is time, it seems, for the department to relax its regulations and provide, for those communities who wish, the opportunity to get involved in a process that will allow them to attain, for some of them, their full potential. There already exists examples where these regulations have been adapted, specifically involving the Innu. We could hope that results and successes in other communities would inspire the same for the ABL.
Because Aboriginal title is held at the Nation rather than band level, Indian Affairs has preferred to negotiate comprehensive claims with entire Nations of native communities. But Barriere Lake’s “small group of ideologists,” holding fast to principles of basic justice and domestic and international law, are clearly an obstacle. They’ve prevented other Algonquin communities from reaching their “full potential” – that is, abandoning their rights. In situations like these, where the government has been unable to secure everyone’s participation, just as in their negotiations with the Dene and Innu Nations, they’ve opted for the more selective approach advised by Perron. This allows them to pick off First Nations, community by community, securing the extinguishment of title by those means.
Carrots and Sticks: Undermining the Customary Council
Apart from retooling the Comprehensive Claims policy, Perron proposes short-changing the community with some investments in social programs and services and minor infrastructure development, as an alternative to fulfilling their obligations under the Trilateral agreement:
I RECOMMEND that we invest in the individual, in education and training programs for teens and adults, young mothers (caretakers), disease prevention, the fight against drugs and safety and assistance for the Elders. There are some excellent programs that are well targeted which must be expanded.
He also recommends the expansion of their reserve, connection to the Hydro-Grid (but without the transition assistance fund), and the construction of housing and a new school.
Having laid out an acceptable investment plan to Indian Affairs, Perron focuses his analysis on Barriere Lake’s traditional leadership, which has maintained a strong negotiating position since signing the Trilateral agreement almost twenty years ago, refusing to accept anything less than its full implementation:
…my analysis of the past twenty years shows, without a doubt, that the community leadership is at the heart of the problems. I conclude that there is little or no possibility of remedying the situation unless there is a complete change in leadership. Such a change must come from within the community and not from governmental agencies or institutions.
With the necessity of a leadership change in mind, Perron lays out a plan to use the above investment projects as a ploy to undermine Barriere Lake’s Chief and Council and their determined negotiating stance:
The worthwhile projects must be presented to the population so that they have the opportunity to appreciate them without the presence of the consultants who are like distorted mirrors and undermine the real development of the community. Of course, the projects cannot be carried out without the Band Council’s approval but repeated refusals of reasonable projects could eventually bring about the necessary changes by the community itself. There is no other way. The changes must come from within the community. Certain individuals to whom I spoke to advised me to recommend guardianship or trusteeship of the community. I don’t believe that this is possible and it would only perpetuate the condescension of the ABL who have already suffered enough from the ideology that contributes to their isolation and introversion. [emphasis Perron’s]
Perron is advising that the government foster community opposition to the Council by extracting refusals for “reasonable projects” – that is, projects that fall well short of the signed undertakings and legal obligations of the federal government as part of the Trilateral agreement. Knowing the leadership will reject these projects, the government will be able to stoke community frustration with the lack of any development and thus build enough internal pressure to bring about “necessary changes” – a cowed Chief and Council willing to relent on the Trilateral’s implementation, or a new leadership content to focus on minor community investments. Perron’s idea about “guardianship” or “trusteeship” far exceeds the statutory powers of the federal government, but it offers a taste of the extreme and arbitrary powers he believes Indian Affairs is willing to exercise.
Indian Affairs seems to have acted on much of Perron’s advice. In March 2008, Indian Affairs decided to oust Barriere Lake’s Customary Chief and Council, recognizing individuals from a minority faction who claimed to follow the community’s customary leadership selection process. As another secret government document revealed, Indian Affairs recognized that this scenario offered “improved collaboration of the new council with INAC,” a “new council less dogmatized," and a "new environment more favourable to the development of the community" – language that clearly echoes Perron’s analysis and prescriptions [2]. Since the ousting, the government-backed Chief’s activities have practically matched the program of action advocated by Perron: a focus on increased government programs and services and housing repairs, while leaving the Trilateral agreement to flounder.
To further undermine the leadership, Perron recommends that the government “terminate the funding for consultation services and be firm and coherent in relationship with present leadership.” Consultation services allow Barriere Lake’s leadership to receive professional advice about government policies, and are offered by the Algonquin Nation Secretariat, a Tribal Council representing Barriere Lake along with Timiskaming and Wolf Lake. Simply cutting the funding for consultation services would have been blatantly illegal. But this objective was partially achieved by other means. In April 2008, the government-backed Chief pulled out of the Algonquin Nation Secretariat, which gave Indian Affairs the opportunity to drastically cut their funding, effectively rolling back consultation services.
This has occurred just as the six other Algonquin communities represented by the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council (AANTC) are preparing to negotiate under the Comprehensive Land Claims process. At the same time, the Atikamekw Nation now want to discuss the territorial overlap they have with Barriere Lake with the two Algonquin Tribal Councils, though not with Barriere Lake, allowing Indian Affairs to bypass the community’s legitimate leadership entirely.
Hand in Hand with the Province: Sabotaging the Agreements
Perron’s recommended strategy for subverting Barriere Lake is completed by his suggestions for federal collaboration with the provincial government:
I also RECOMMEND that a high level consultation process between INAC and the Quebec Native Affairs be organized as soon as possible. To be discussed at the meeting would be not only the current situation in Rapid Lake, but a medium and long term strategy in regards to the ABL.
Indian Affairs seems again to have followed Perron’s advice. As access-to-information requests revealed, Indian Affairs conducted a meeting with officials from Quebec Native Affairs (Secrétariat aux affaires autochtone) and the Quebec police (Surete du Quebec) in late February, 2008, though the subjects discussed remain unknown. When Barriere Lake community members refused to accept the legitimacy of the Indian Affairs-backed Chief after his recognition in early March 2008, and blockaded the reserve’s access road to prevent his entry into the community, the provincial government sent riot squads and police officers to forcibly impose his authority on the reserve.
During the policing operation in Barriere Lake, Indian Affairs conducted daily conference calls with the Ministry of Public Security and Quebec Native Affairs. The provincial government was later willing to spend $200,000 to forcefully break up two peaceful blockades set up by community members on the highway outside their reserve in the fall of 2008, and to assign extra police officers to monitor Barriere Lake.
The provincial government’s willingness to do the police work for the federal government can probably be explained by their unwillingness to implement their part of the Trilateral agreement and a complimentary Bilateral agreement they signed in 1998. But Perron’s analysis indicates that the federal government feared Quebec’s compliance, and had reason to actively deter it:
The Provincial government must soon respond to the recommendations (7) jointly presented in June 2006 by Mr. Ciaccia, special government representative and Mr. Lincoln, the representative for the ABL. Submitted in 2006, the government still has not responded on its content. A few recommendations pose serious problems to the Federal authorities:
· Concerns regarding the trilateral agreement
· Recognizing a main territory for the Algonquins
· Acknowledging overlapping with other communities
· Expansion of the reserve becomes a land base. [emphasis mine]
Since 2006, Quebec has stalled on implementing the recommendations issued by the above representatives – those of major concern being the recognition of co-management rights to 10,000 square kilometres and $1.5 million a year in resource-revenue sharing. Such requirements pose a threat to the federal government’s ambition to complete comprehensive land claims agreements, as previously discussed. In addition, Quebec should be slated within the framework of the Trilateral agreement to oversee the community’s connection to the hydro-grid, along with the creation of a transition fund, the expansion of the reserve, and housing construction – developments that would all require federal co-operation in their implementation, because of overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. Perron highlights Indian Affairs’ fear that if Quebec discovered the political will to comply with the agreement, it might demand that the federal government cooperate in the implementation of their own side of the deal. Perron’s next recommendations suggest a tactic to avert this possibility:
Other recommendations will require INAC’s cooperation and support. In fact, housing programs already exist within INAC but must be carried out through future programs which, for the Federal’s part, should not be part of the trilateral agreement or new MOMI. To avoid confusion, I RECOMMEND a high level consultation process to arrive at a mutually acceptable strategy and, if possible, establish a Federal-Provincial working group charged with the expansion of the reserve, bringing in electricity and building homes, according to the responsibilities of each government. It’s only after this stage that the leadership and community should be consulted.[emphasis Perrons’s]
Perron is advocating that the federal government initiate a high level consultation process with the province not to jointly implement the signed agreements, but to steer the province away from its obligations so as to “avoid confusion” – that is, to keep the federal government’s hands clean of the Trilateral agreement. A “mutually acceptable strategy” would be based on reserve expansion and infrastructure investments explicitly outside the framework of the Trilateral agreement. Once it has succeeded in this regard, Perron recommends the governments deign to consult with the community, casting contempt on the idea that Barriere Lake is an equal partner in an agreement with the two levels of government.
It is unclear whether such a secret high-level consultation process was actually initiated after Perron issued his recommendations, but the federal and provincial government’s actions over the last two years certainly seem to confirm as much. Quebec has continued to refuse to implement the Trilateral and Bilateral agreement, and has intimately cooperated with Indian Affairs in criminalizing community members in a transparent attempt to cripple their ability to assert pressure on the governments.
No matter to what degree Perron’s recommendations were actually formally adopted by the federal government, his report is a chilling indication of the lengths to which Indian Affairs will go to crush a native community fighting for their basic rights.
Notes
[1] Perron received his mandate to enter into discussions with Barriere Lake after community members caused the government some embarrassment by camping out in large numbers on Parliament Hill in the summer of 2007, the day before the National Aboriginal Day of Action and a few days before Canada Day celebrations. At the time, Barriere Lake had launched a legal challenge of Indian Affairs’ 2006 decision to strip the community of control over their financial affairs, handing them over to an outside consultant who had ignored the community’s input and mismanaged their funds. This third-party management system had been imposed on the community on the basis of a deficit that Barriere Lake’s lawyers argued would be non-existent if the federal government had simply honoured and implemented a series of agreements signed over the last two decades.
The Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs Michael Wernick met with community representatives outside the parliament, agreeing to suspend the court case and enter into a process with a special ministerial representative, who would issue recommendations for government action.
From the start of discussions, however, it was clear Marc Perron intended to serve the government’s agenda. Then the community discovered that Perron was also negotiating a Comprehensive Claim with the Attikamek Nation in northern Quebec, on behalf of the federal government. This raised obvious concerns about conflict-of-interest: the Attikamek have claimed territory that overlaps with Barriere Lake’s documented areas of historical land-use, and Barriere Lake has always refused to enter the process that Perron was negotiating under with the Attikamek.
[2] Martin Lukacs, “Minister's Memo Exposes Motives for Removing Algonquin Chief,” Dominion Paper, March 27, 2009 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2560
Collectif de Solidarité Lac Barrière
*******************************************
www.solidaritelacbarriere.blogspot.com
barrierelakesolidarity@gmail.com
514.398.7432
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)