- once again, the media reports only the view that the "Indians are
getting too much", rather than the view that the problem with the
offer was that it was too little too late, a view which is also
held by the "public" - there are a number of publics on this issue,
as on many issues
- repeatedly described as an "overwhelming rejection" of the offer,
the votes have been split and the first vote was a narrow rejection
in one of the two votes held, with the other vote accepting the
agreement-in-principle (all this is about an agreement-in-
principle, which outlines the issues and provides a basis for
negotiation of the treaty itself)
- the "shared stewardship regime for Lake Temagami" was an
interesting twist to the word "shared" - representation was to be
2 Ontario representatives to 1 Teme Augama Anishnabai
representative; the shared stewardhip body currently in place, the
Wendaban Stewardship Authority, has a 1:1 ratio; it's also not
clear whether the new "shared stewardship" body will be advisory or
decision-making; Ontario has become very vague about the future of
the WSA, and it looks likely that it will be dissolved, its
territory partly reverting to the Crown and partly to the new
"shared stewardship" body; at the same time, an advisory committee
to the MNR planning for the whole area seems to also be making
plans that involve WSA territory
- this article is another example of the kind of economic myths
that the Province and the municipalities spout, repeatedly putting
out the notion that if it weren't for the caution, the economy of
the area would be booming; the caution has _not_ stopped any
logging activities in the area, or road building for the (stated)
purpose of logging; it has stopped the development of new mines and
the selling off of "crown land" for cottage development, which the
Province stopped years ago in the rest of the province anyway; the
mine that was operating in Temagami until a few years ago closed
not because the ore reserve had run out, but because Dofasco's
profit margin had dropped
- the Muncipal Advisory Group is opposed to aboriginal and treaty
rights, which is why they are opposed to the idea that "The
proposed settlement would have given the Natives various forms of
input on land use decisions within the entire 110 township land
claim, something MAG strongly opposed"; they are also mad as hell
that natives don't pay taxes, and that natives can hunt out of
season; much can be boiled down to an outright rejection of what
exists in law - the Mayor of Latchford and many of his cohorts just
DON't LIKE the law - not when it means that aboriginal people have
rights that non-native people don't have
- the "additional layers of bureaucracy when it comes to land use
decisions and economic development" is another familiar theme; the
municipalities and industry go on about it, and neither Ontario nor
the media ever clarify that statements of that kind are based on
misinformed and negative reaction to aboriginal rights and to
shared stewardship; that ilk of comments seemed to start around the
discussions around shared stewardship, and a shared stewardship
arrangement as part of the treaty agreement between Ontario and the
TAA, and were part of an overall attack on aboriginal rights and a
stall and block tactic in the public consultations about the treaty
negotiations