Wiky election code decision comes Friday as 'yes' and 'no' sides compete

by Sheila Bowes

WIKWEMIKONG-Mixed emotions and opinions were buzzing around Wasse-Abin Junior School last Wednesday as chief and council held an open house to discuss the community's proposed election code.

Not all were happy with the plan or the way it had been presented to band members.

"We feel like it's being rammed down our throats," said Gina Gasongi Simon, who now resides in the Ottawa area but returned home for the meeting.  "I feel like it's a violation to me and my mobility rights. Wherever I go, I am a Wikwemikong member, and I am proud of that. Many of us who are living off reserve were forced to do so for work, but yet my whole being wants to be there-I want to retire there, grow old there. This proposed election code limits my rights (by preventing off-reserve band members from seeking a position as chief and making it more difficult for them to vote) and it is very disheartening."

Ms. Gasongi Simon argued that the code violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "It doesn't treat people equally. It's treating people differently on the basis of residency, and that is discrimination. It also discriminates towards the poor, by charging an election fee."

Ms. Gasongi Simon, along with other critics such as band councillors Gladys Wakegijig and Raymond Jackson, feel the candidate fee is unwarranted.

In a letter issued by the councillors, they ask,"Where did the idea of $200 per chief and $100 per councillor come from?" They also state that "buying your way to a leader" is not part of First Nations custom.

The letter also questions the counting of ballots. According to the councillors, unrest occurred during the last election because ballots were counted behind closed doors and not witnessed by general band membership until the results were announced.

"How can we, especially mail-in voters, trust the integrity of these counters?" asked Ms. Gasongi Simon. "It should be done publicly."

Although some were strongly opposed, there were those among the crowd of about 70 (who attended the meeting throughout the day) who believed the code could prove positive.

"To move towards self-government would definitely be a step in the right direction," said Robbie Shawana, who also took part in the meeting.  "There are a lot of good points. I like the way it handles the appeals process." The new code would see that election appeals were handled by an appeal panel established prior to the election.  He did, however, point out that the code appeared "wordy" and that some would have trouble understanding it, as it seemed like there were too many rules.

"You can't please everyone," he said. "But it is definitely a move forward. Once approved, we can amend it."

The proposed custom election code, which began its development 10 years ago, would invest more power in chief and council.  If it is passed, the band will govern its own elections, and make all decisions on election processes. Appeals would be decided through a band-approved appeals process. It would also ensure a three-year term for chief and council,  as opposed to the current two-year term.

Candidates for chief, according to the proposed code, must be resident on-reserve for three years, at least 18-years-old and not convicted of an indictable offence. Movers and seconders for nominations have to be electors-band members aged 18 or over, regardless of residence. Nomination papers, candidates fees, and confirmation on criminal history must be filed by candidates who intend on running in the election.  Amendments to the election process would be decided by Wikwemikong members. Requirements for by-elections would be eliminated by offering vacant positions to candidates from the previous election, and involve no advance polling, as is currently mandated by the Indian Act.

Many continue to criticize the proposed code, however.

"This election code creates segregation," said Tom Peltier, a concerned Wikwemikong band member. "The chief is trying to eliminate the competition. Stanley Peltier, who regularly polls about 300 votes for chief, will be excluded from running because he lives off-reserve." Mr. Peltier went on to discuss the fact that M'Chigeeng, a reserve close in size, does not allow employees of the band to serve on council, because its code defines this as a conflict of interest.

"I hope that people turn this down completely," he said. "What they should have is a constitution. No nation on earth can pass a law without a constitution. Where does chief Robert Corbiere get power to do this?"

In a letter submitted to the Expositor, Yvette Trudeau contends that the code is a "step towards a totalitarian government. It picks and chooses who is going to be an ordinary resident of Wikwemikong. Our leaders are destroying the foundation that makes us Native. What happened to 'We are one nation'? Chief and council don't have the right to decide who's Native and who's not!"

On January 6, a referendum will be held to determine whether or not the code will be passed. "People haven't really come up to me and said whether it's good or bad," said Councillor Ron Manitowabi during the open house. "I guess no news is good news."

Green Bay fencing decision shares cost and responsibility

by Jim Moodie

GREEN BAY-If it's true that "good fences make good neighbours," as a character in the Robert Frost poem 'Mending Wall' memorably attests, then perhaps the costly, new, exhaustively-studied, 1,300-foot fence that's been mandated for a property line in the Green Bay area will finally resolve a long and bitter dispute.

Their last names may nestle closely together in the phone book, but for several years now Keith Harfield and Dave Harper have been very far apart on the issue of the fence (or lack thereof) dividing their properties in Bidwell Township.

Initially, because much of the area in question consists of a craggy bluff, very little fencing existed between the two properties, except in a gully where cattle were able to descend the hill. The bluff also traditionally acted as the de facto boundary between the properties, and was not historically disputed, because, as surveyor Gord Keatley notes, "the guy below had a hayfield, and didn't care about the bluff for pasture."

Mr. Harfield has owned his 100 acres on the top of the bluff, which he uses for pasturing cattle, since 1978, and says, "since I've had the property, the bluff line has always been the boundary."

But when Mr. Harper acquired the property below the bluff in 1995, he hired Mr. Keatley to survey the boundary line.

"It was on a concession line, but there was no original post," Mr. Keatley notes. "No surveyor had touched it before us."

In the absence of such a marker, the Survey Act instructs surveyors to mathematically split the land between the concession to the north and the one to the south, which Mr. Keatley did. Establishing the boundary on paper, in other words, was not difficult; physically cutting the line, on the other hand, was quite tricky. "I think that's the worst line I've ever cut," the surveyor remarks. "You're cutting up a steep hill on an angle."

The survey revealed that some of the bluff belonged to Mr. Harper, and that fragments of an old fence that existed along the rugged terrain were not consistent with the true boundary line.

Mr. Harper says he sought a judgment on a new fence that would follow the survey line because it would both clear up the boundary question and ensure that Mr. Harfield's cattle could not stray onto his property.

As is required through the Line Fences Act, a team of fence-viewers engaged by the Northeast Town visited the site. Through their inspection and deliberation, held in March of last year, it was determined that the new fence should follow the concession line established by the survey, except in one small area where the rugged terrain made this impractical. As well, they ordered that the costs of the fence-to consist of nine-strand woven wire-be borne by Mr. Harfield, since, of the two landowners, it was only he who kept livestock.

It was a decision which rankled Mr. Harfield in a number of respects. On the one hand, he was irked that he was excluded from the fence-viewing hearing, since it occurred at the home of Mr. Harper-whom police had instructed him to avoid due to a previous altercation.

More distressing to him, however, was a recommendation from the town that he cease using a section of the bluff that he would ordinarily utilize for calving. "The order stated that I couldn't use it until I put a new fence in," he notes. "I was in serious trouble because cows shouldn't calve in their wintering ground; this area, maybe 15 acres in all, is a nice dry area on the bluff, where they do well in the first part of spring."

The farmer claims he has lost 20 calves due to bacteria and scour because he was denied his usual calving area.

For these reasons, as well as the stipulation that he carry the full burden of fence-construction costs, Mr. Harfield appealed the original decision of the fence-viewers. The hearing occurred on September 12, with deputy-referee Fernand L. Dicaire presiding.

Northeast Town clerk Janet Moore says that, in her 15 years of municipal work, "this is the first time that I can recall (a fence decision) having gone to an appeal." She notes that, "in southern Ontario, this happens all the time, where there are disputes about fencing," but says it's a rare occurrence in the North.

The hearing did not make a judgment about the location of the property line, nor was it intended to. As Ms. Moore notes, "the Line Fences Act does not allow us to make any decision about where a boundary line is. That's a civil matter. All we can decide is what type of fence should be built, and how the cost of construction and maintenance should be split."

Questions of boundary lines, such as the one that occurred in Tehkummah last January concerning farmer Hugh Little's fence, are a separate issue settled through a Boundaries Act decision in Ontario court.

In the appeal hearing under the Line Fences Act, the referee upheld the fence-viewers' judgement "in respect to the material, construction of the fence, and location of the fence," in the words of the decision, but differed markedly in regard to how costs should be borne.

Instead of Mr. Harfield paying the full amount, the referee stipulated that the costs be effectively split, with each landowner responsible for 330 feet of common boundary fence. As well, he ordered that Mr. Harper pay 60 percent of the fees for the fence viewing, with Mr. Harfield contributing 40 percent. Costs of the hearing were to be shared equally between the landowners. Maintenance of the entire common boundary fence, according to the decision, will be the responsibility of Mr. Harfield.

Both landowners say they are satisfied with the decision.

For Mr. Harfield, it's a personal relief that he won't carry the full cost of the fence. But he also believes the decision represents "a victory for farmers" in general, "because any recreational landowner could require a farmer to put up a fence," and many farmers, still reeling from the BSE crisis, would find it extremely difficult to absorb new fencing costs.

Mr. Harper says he can also live with the decision. "The outcome of the hearing is acceptable to me, and I told everyone that I would abide by it," he says.

He remains bitter, however, about the lengthy and costly process to reach a resolution. He points out that he paid the full amount of the survey, and now is sharing the costs of fence construction and fence-viewing. "This whole thing is costing me $4,000, just to contain Keith Harfield's animals," he complains. "It's been a real pain in the ass, and it's cost taxpayers money," he adds.

The costs for fence-viewing are charged back to the landowners, however, while the cost of bringing a referee to Manitoulin to hear the appeal was covered by the province, Ms. Moore notes. That said, she admits that the fence fracas has "certainly been time consuming" for herself and other municipal staff, who would otherwise be devoting their energies to other concerns.

Nor has the issue been totally resolved. Another fence viewing occurred just prior to Christmas to ensure the landowners had held up their sides of the bargain, and, according to Ms. Moore, "unfortunately, it appears that neither side fulfilled their obligations."

She says "the fence-viewers made a determination, with directions for Mr. Harfield to complete his work with more support posts and to fill in gaps under the fence, which was not completed as of December 22."

Mr. Harper, meanwhile, "came up 22 feet short on his portion of the fence," she says.

This latest fence-viewing is the fourth to have occurred at the site, with the first happening in October, 2004, says Ms. Moore. And it's not over yet. "There probably will have to be one more," she indicates.

In the meantime, Mr. Harfield is slated to appear before the town's Administration and Finance Committee on January 10, regarding revenue he feels he has lost during the period when he was awaiting his appeal.

The dispute between the two Green Bay landowners may be atypical in its degree of bitterness, and its tangled path to a resolution, but it may also be a sign of similar situations that will increasingly arise in this region.

Ms. Moore notes that, in speaking with various people, including farmer Jack Myers-one of several fence-viewers the municipality engages-she has the sense that "you'll probably see a lot more of this as farmers get out of farming, per se, and rent out their property as pasture land. There aren't a lot of proper fences out there," she notes.

Good citizens rescue abandoned puppies

by Jim Moodie

EASTERN MANITOULIN-Jamie Ferguson and family received a special gift over the holiday: a squirming little bundle of white and brown fur which they've named Abby. But the act that precipitated the pup's arrival was anything but kind or generous. Abby is short for 'abandoned.'

Nor was Abby the only puppy to be heartlessly left to fend for herself last week. She was one of eight five-week-old siblings that an unknown individual dumped, in a box, at the side of the Bay Estates Road, likely on Wednesday night.

Purolator driver Dennis Bernatchez, of Nairn Centre, discovered the litter of orphaned pups on Thursday at around noon. He noticed the box on his way down the hill, but it wasn't until he was on his way back up that he realized it had a canine cargo. He encountered a puppy wandering in the road, and soon thereafter found five more in the nearby ditch.

Mr. Bernatchez loaded the box of six puppies in his vehicle and drove to Manitowaning, where he first visited the police station. Mr. Ferguson, manager of the Co-op store in the same village, heard about the arrival of the puppies through his wife, who works at the detachment office.

"She phoned me, and we decided to bring them over here," he says. "We had them in a box on the floor inside the store, and as people came in they would see them."

The store manager says it didn't take long to find homes for the outcasts. "We got them here Thursday afternoon, and by Friday they were all gone."

Only three went the first day, however, so on Thursday night Mr. Ferguson brought the remaining trio to his home. The Fergusons kept Abby for themselves, and the other two got new homes on Friday.

Unfortunately, those six waifs weren't the full extent of the litter. Two had wandered into the woods near Bay Estates Road, and hadn't been noticed by Mr. Bernatchez on Thursday when he stopped to inspect the box.

It wasn't until Saturday, around noon, that these final two were found, and by that time, one was dead.

Bay Estates resident John Savage explains that he and his wife were getting ready for a trip to the landfill, and while he was loading his truck with garbage, his wife, Sharon, went ahead on foot with the couple's own dogs to give them a bit of a walk.

"When I started up the hill to meet her, I saw Sharon coming down with something in her coat," he says. "I thought, frig, she's got a wounded seagull or something, because I could see a bit of white."

Turns out it was one of Abby's forgotten siblings, a sister, to be exact. "We brought it home, and when I went to look to see if there more, I found a male twin lying dead under a spruce tree," Mr. Savage says. He says it was obvious that the two had huddled together for warmth, and that the brother had only died recently.

"I was so mad," Mr. Savage says. "My wife was almost sick to her stomach, she was so upset."

Mr. Savage lay the limp pup on the floor of his truck cab, and turned the heater up, hoping it might miraculously revive, but it was too late. "He was a little male, not as chubby as the female, so that's probably why he didn't last," he says.

The Savages kept the female overnight, and applied some antibiotic ointment to the pup's feet to ease the pain of apparent frostbite. "Her paws were a dark red, and she kept chewing on them," he says.

The couple anticipated adding another pet to their household-they had already given the puppy a name-but before long they found someone who was really eager to take the orphan off their hands.

"I went into the Island IDA drugstore to get some worm medication for the dog, and Heather Mackenzie, a woman who works there, said she had heard about the puppies and went looking for a fluffy white female that had been in the box, but it was already taken," Mr. Savage says. "I said, 'Hey, we have a fluffy white female!'"

The Savages were somewhat sad to part with their new little friend, but happy to know that she, like the six other survivors, had been quickly embraced by concerned dog lovers on Manitoulin.

EDITORIAL

Signs of democracy in action kick off the year 2006

We're beginning the new year in interesting times on Manitoulin as we, with the rest of Canada, enter phase two of the federal general election campaign that will culminate, on January 23, with a national vote.

Closer to home, this Friday in fact, Wikwemikong band members are voting on a new band election code that, at least in some of its particulars, has stirred comment and even a vocal "vote no" initiate.

And Manitoulin continues to watch the Town of Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands, where the strike between the town council (as employer) and its unionized workers, continues into its third month. In fact, in a new initiative, lawns around Little Current have begun sporting neatly printed signs with the message, "It's about fairness. I support the striking NEMI workers," and these signs, political in their own way, far outnumber the handful of Liberal, NDP, and Green Party signs that have been erected around the same town.

So far, it seems, Conservative signs only adorn the candidate's campaign office in downtown Little Current.

At the end of the day, each one of these examples is political in that citizens are being asked (or, where they are displaying signs, are telling others) how they feel the First Nation, or the country, or the municipality should be run.

This is a great way to begin a new year, surrounded by examples of democracy in action.

It provokes thought and stimulates conversation and, in the case of the outdoor signs, adds to candidates' and town councillors' mental acuity as they count the signs supporting their own or their opponents' political viewpoints.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Northeast strike should have been settled by now

I suggest a public meeting so ratepayers hear both sides

To the Expositor:

How do I feel about the current labour dispute in Little Current? Very simply, enough is enough! This should have been settled long ago.

I have read the information sheets distributed by both parties-the "blue sheet" from the town and the "yellow sheet" from the unionized employees. One thing is abundantly clear: that neither source of information can be accurately representing the facts. In other words, one side or the other, or perhaps both, are stretching the truth or misrepresenting the true picture. This needs to be remedied.

This I do know: I attempted to discuss the situation with my councillor, and he immediately became very agitated, and then asked me, "Do you want your taxes to go up four percent to give these people what they want?" When I replied, "Yes, if that's what it takes to pay them a decent wage, and provide continued realistic benefits." He immediately stormed out of the room, and slammed the door so hard I thought it might have broken the glass. At the maintenance yard, while attempting to deposit trash and recyclables into (unlabeled) bins, another councillor stated, "It's not the town's fault. We tried to set up a meeting, and Mr. Bond said he was too busy." When I replied, "That's not what I hear from the employees," his reply was, "Well, that's not all they have lied about!" This kind of dialogue is going nowhere, fast!

Do I have a suggestion? Yes.

I would like to have a public meeting, at a time and place when it would be reasonable for both sides, and the ratepayers, to be present. A time-definite period (perhaps 20 minutes) could be given to each side to present their case. The floor would then be opened up to questioning. The meeting would have to be kept in order, with neither side allowed to degrade the other. I believe this would give both sides, and all interested ratepayers, an open opportunity to hear the perspectives of both sides, and the public would have the opportunity to ask questions in a non-confrontational setting.

How about it? Or, is democracy really dead?

Rob Paxton

Little Current

Off-reserve members being exiled from community

I encourage all members to vote this plan down

To the Expositor:

RE: "Critics call Wiky's election code flawed while chief says it has broad support," December 21.

I would like to title this letter 'Exiled band members,' as this is what the chief of Wikwemikong, Robert Corbiere, is in the process of doing if he proceeds with his plan to get rid of all the rights and entitlements that are due for all members of Wikwemikong. We are being driven out without a voice in our home community. 

If Mr. Corbiere feels that he has 'broad band support" for this plan, he is sadly mistaken, and I would certainly like to know what colour is the sky in his little world, because he has not approached all members of Wikwemikong with this plan. So, this statement is not true. Mr. Corbiere continues to fly under the radar to put this plan into place. He covers up the truth, keeping people in the dark and only telling the people on the reserve what they need to know. He continues to prey on these people's lack of information so they can't make a clear choice. He keeps them in the dark.

Many members of Wikwemikong had to leave Wikwemikong. We had no choice. Many members leave to go to school and when they have completed their studies they attempt to come home, only to find there is no housing, no jobs, and no opportunities. Many of these people are professional and skilled people. Many of these people, when they come homeâ are seen as intrudersâ and any attempt to use their knowledge and know-how are unwelcome-they are driven out.

I can see this plan to exclude all off-reserve band members as the final act of keeping us out. It is being written in stone, so to speak. In the long run it will only cause the extinction of Wikwemikong. Wikwemikong will stop being the political force it can be, as it will be run only by a select few who do not have the savvy to fight today's political climate. Many off-reserve members of Wikwemikong are aware of battles that Aboriginal people have today. Many off-reserve members have seen the writing on the wall. The days of holding out our hand and having the government hand us over the cash, is coming to a close. We have seen this in our health-care entitlements and we know that soon we will lose that completely.

I would encourage all members to look twice and vote this plan down. It is not a good plan. We need to think of our future and not only for today. We need to welcome back all our band members.

Shkeh-nah, shemm-nadoo, naad-mosh naung!

Sandra Fox

Sudbury

Election code a step towards totalitarian government

If not Indian, are we then castoffs, rejects?

To the Expositor:

This is a letter to the people of Wikwemikong.

My name is Yvette Trudeau. I'm writing to you because I'm very concerned about the chief's new election code. I'd received it on December 20, 2005. The chief's vote on the code is January 6, 2006. Chief and council aren't really giving us a chance to digest the information.

The code includes definitions for very simple terminology, but fails to define the provisions found in Part 2 of the code, "The Declaration as to Inapplicability of Sections of the Indian Act." The chief is asking us to sign off rights that aren't even explained to us!

In reference to Part 10, the area that concerned me the most, is that words like 'ordinarily,' 'ordinary,' and 'generally' are used when describing a residence used by an elector. They've chosen to not use the word 'Wikwemikong' in this section.

Therefore an elector's "ordinary residence" can be from his/her own point of view. But he/she will not be allowed to vote if they spend more time else where for work. Very confusing! Legal papers are not written under assumptions. They must be very specific.

In regards to Part 10, I'd like to emphasize that we are all citizens of Wikwemikong. As citizens we're allowed to vote. There are no grounds in this code stating limitations on being a citizen of Wikwemikong.

I feel that this code is a step towards a totalitarian government. It picks and chooses who's going to be an "ordinary resident" of Wikwemikong. Our leaders are destroying the foundation of what makes us Native. What happened to "We are one Nation"? Chief and council don't have the right to decide who's Native and who's not.

I have three brothers and two sisters off the reserve. None has received a copy of information regarding the code. I guarantee they will count as citizens when it comes to asking the government for more money.

If they aren't allowed to vote, will money they are entitled to be sent to them? City life is expensive. I'm sure their share of money will be put to good use.

If they're not Indian, what are they? Castoffs, rejects? What terminology will chief and council give them?

There is also no mention of conflict of interest in regards to the candidates for chief and council. If such a matter arises where someone is financially tied in with the band investments, for example, I think it should be dealt with appropriately. More importantly, indication of proof that the situation has been ratified should be presented to the public at a band meeting.

Remember, chief and council work for you, with your money. Not for themselves.

Please don't sign our rights as a people away. VOTE NO.

Yvette Trudeau

Wikwemikong

Send your Dear Dave letters to Box 369, Little Current, Ontario, P0P 1K0,