MIKE PEARSON
The Sachem
Sept 2, 2006
It doesn't seem like a tough question to me, but no one at Aboriginal Affairs can answer it.
With the end of summer just around the corner, native occupiers at Douglas Creek Estates are preparing for the colder weather ahead. They want to upgrade some of the half-built homes at the site and are even asking for donations of building supplies.
But there's a problem here that few have picked up on so far.
We know for a fact there is a moratorium on construction at Douglas Creek Estates. The province imposed this order back on May 18, when Henco owned the land, and a ministry spokesperson has confirmed this week the moratorium remains just as valid today as it was then.
Or is it?
When asked point blank whether native occupiers would be in breach of the moratorium if they "winterized" homes at DCE, Lars Eedy could not provide a straight answer.
Eedy, a spokesperson for the Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs, said "I'll have to get back to you on that," when interviewed on Aug. 31.
Later the same day, Rosemary Sampson, another ministry spokesperson, contacted me to make sure my question was being addressed. She too could not provide the information I was looking for, but promised a more substantial response prior to our next publishing date.
She said the answer to my question may be affected by the appeal of a judge's order. As we all should recall, Justice David Marshall argued the contempt of court issue should remain in place, even though the province has bought the land from Henco. A panel of judges have ruled the the contempt is no longer valid because the province now owns the land. The appeal for a stay of Marshall's ruling continues on Sept. 25 and 26.
I personally don't see the connection here. Even if natives are permitted to stay at the site, why would they be exempt from a moratorium on construction?
It's one thing to ignore trespass to property law. The province, as owner of the land, can waive their right to prosecute trespassers if they so choose. Of course, you could argue that we as taxpayers are the true owners of this land and we should be the ones who decide who can stay on the property. But let's just put that argument aside for now.
If there's a moratorium on the land, shouldn't it apply to everyone? Is this not a black and white issue or am I missing something?
When the moratorium was first imposed on the land Henco said they were never notified. Even though a court ruled they were the rightful owners of the property, they were still forbidden from hammering a single nail at the site for an indefinite period.
For some reason, there appears to be some doubt over whether this same moratorium applies to natives who continue to carry out their reclamation. Whether their land claim is valid or not is really beside the point here.
It's a simple question that strikes at the heart of what many of us have been asking for weeks.
Does the rule of law apply equally to all in Caledonia?