David Donnelly on Anti-SLAPP Bill 52 Controversy
Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act, was debated at Queen's Park again this week. Bill 52 is designed to prevent SLAPP suits (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), where deep-pocketed corporations bring frivolous lawsuits against grassroots critics (often citizen’s groups and environmental groups) in order to intimidate and silence them. MPP Jagmeet Singh (Bramalea-Gore-Malton) began the debate, commenting:
“It’s my pleasure to continue debate on this important piece of legislation. What I discussed earlier was how important this bill was in terms of protecting public participation. It’s, again, a hallmark of our society that people need to be able to participate in discourse, particularly on matters that impact their communities, so it should go without saying that people should be encouraged, not discouraged, from participating in issues that affect where they live and how they live. This law will address that.” (http://ow.ly/KUkeW)
Although Bill 52 has wide support across all political parties, controversy has arisen over whether the Bill should protect all alleged SLAPP suit victims currently before the Courts.
If enacted as written, the anti-SLAPP “freeze” provision (reproduced below) applies only to potential SLAPP suits started on or after December 1, 2014. The previous version of this Bill, which died in the House when the June 2014 election was called, would have applied to ongoing litigation.
David Donnelly was asked for his take on this issue by Brian Platt of QP Briefing. While David`s preference is for Bill 52 to apply to ongoing lawsuits, the opposing view can be justified too:
“It’s not a black-and-white issue, because if you brought a lawsuit under one set of assumptions, I think you can make the claim that you should be able to see the action through under the law of the day, but any disappointment we feel over the retroactivity change is more than made up for in the euphoria that this bill is finally going to start protecting people.”
Read Platt’s March 26, 2015 article “Concerns of favouritism raised after retroactive provision scrubbed from nuisance-lawsuit bill” at http://www.qpbriefing.com/2015/03/25/concerns-of-favouritism-raised-after-retroactive-provision-scrubbed-from-nuisance-lawsuit-bill/. (Subscription service)
Want to learn more about anti-SLAPP legislation? Read Donnelly Law’s summary of Bill 52.
Anti-SLAPP Bill Reintroduced in Legislature
On December 1, 2014, Minister Madeleine Meilleur reintroduced legislation to protect public participation and freedom of expression from SLAPP lawsuits, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act, is an important bill designed to prevent SLAPP suits, where deep-pocketed corporations and developers bring frivolous lawsuits against grassroots critics (often citizen’s groups and environmental groups) in order to intimidate and silence them. Ontario’s previous Attorney General, the Honourable John Gerretsen, introduced a nearly identical bill in June 2013. On introducing Bill 52 to the Legislative Assembly, Minister Meilleur stated “As members will recall, the proposed Protection of Public Participation Act seeks to balance the protection of public participation and freedom of expression and the protection of reputation and economic interests.”
Bill 52 is designed to stop potential SLAPP suits dead in their tracks. The key section is the “freeze” provision in section 137.4, which gives the target of a potential SLAPP suit the power to automatically stop related proceedings e.g. a development application before the Ontario Municipal Board:
"If the responding party has begun a proceeding before a tribunal, within the meaning of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and the moving party believes that the proceeding relates to the same matter of public interest that the moving party alleges is the basis of the proceeding that is the subject of his or her motion under section 137.1, the moving party may file with the tribunal a copy of the notice of the motion that was filed with the court and, on its filing, the tribunal proceeding is deemed to have been stayed by the tribunal." [Emphasis added]
This means the alleged SLAPP suit must be resolved before the administrative tribunal proceeding is resumed, thereby delaying the issuance of approvals to a developer using SLAPPs to prevent people from speaking out. This section of the Bill should discourage potential SLAPP suits. While the party that filed the potential SLAPP suit can ask the Court by way of motion to lift the freeze on the administrative tribunal proceeding so it can proceed, this motion requires extra time and money, and removing the freeze is not guaranteed (subsection 137.4(4)).
If the Court finds a law suit is indeed a SLAPP suit, the court can order the costs of the SLAPP suit victim e.g. lawyer’s fees be covered by the other party under section 137.1 of the bill, as follows:
Costs on dismissal
(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.
Costs if motion to dismiss denied
(8) If a judge does not dismiss a proceeding under this section, the responding party is not entitled to costs on the motion, unless the judge determines that such an award is appropriate in the circumstances.
Damages
(9) If, in dismissing a proceeding under this section, the judge finds that the responding party brought the proceeding in bad faith or for an improper purpose, the judge may award the moving party such damages as the judge considers appropriate.
If passed as currently drafted, Bill 52 will apply to potential SLAPP suits started on or after December 1, 2014.
Background
Four years ago, the Ontario government empanelled the anti-SLAPP Advisory Committee to advise it on how to address SLAPP suits. The Advisory Committee produced a report to the Attorney General that is reflected in Bill 52. If Bill 52 is enacted, Ontario will join Quebec, the only other province with anti-SLAPP legislation.
Since then, over 60 municipalities, academics, the Ontario Bar Association, Environmental Defence and over 150 other environmental organizations have expressed support for anti-SLAPP legislation.
Read the Environmental Defence Blog here.
View the Attorney General's Press Release here.
Greenbelting Halifax: One Step Closer to Reality
On November 17, 2014, Halifax Regional Municipality (“HRM”) issued a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for a qualified firm to “go beyond the conventional parks planning approach” to develop HRM’s Greenbelting and Open Spaces Priorities Plan. Donnelly Law will review the Greenbelting RFP to ensure HRM Staff is ambitious with its plan to protect and connect HRM’s natural heritage, cultural landscapes, open spaces, and agricultural lands. Our HRM Alliance, a group of organizations from the Halifax area, envisions a Greenbelt that establishes a permanent development boundary around Halifax to control sprawl, reduce servicing and infrastructure costs, connect green spaces and provide public access to the coastline. Over the past several years, David Donnelly and Donnelly Law have been supporting the terrific work of Our HRM Alliance and the Halifax Ecology Action Centre (“EAC”) in advocating for the establishment of a Greenbelt for Halifax.
As part of the Greenbelt planning exercise, David Donnelly and Bruce Lourie (President, Ivey Foundation) were invited to deliver the 2011 Carmichael Lecture, the premier civic discussion of policy and urban design for Halifax. David has also presented at Our HRM Alliance workshops, sharing his experience on establishing Ontario’s Greenbelt Plan, which will mark its 10th Anniversary next year.
Private Member’s Bill to Repeal the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act Defeated on Second Reading
On October 21, 2014, MPP Jack MacLaren (Carleton-Mississippi Mills) introduced Bill 32, the Bob Mackie Act¸ 2014, into the Ontario Legislature. The purpose of Bill 32 is to repeal Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”). The NEPDA was passed in 1973 by the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Bill Davis. The Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) was approved by Premier Frank Miller’s (Progressive Conservative) Cabinet on June 12, 1985. The NEPDA and NEP “provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as compatible with that natural environment.” (s. 1, NEPDA) The NEP regulates a range of development, from residential housing to aggregate extraction to recreational uses. Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment is a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve, significant landform and working countryside recognized as a significant landscape provincially and internationally.
The NEP is subject to a formal review in 2015. The Niagara Escarpment Commission and Ministry of Natural Resources have begun their preparations for the formal review. The 2015 NEP Review will be coordinated with the provincial review of the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Review.
Bill 32 is named after Mr. Bob Mackie (now deceased), a past governor of the Ontario Landowners Association and president of the Niagara Landowners Association.
On November 6, 2014, MPP MacLaren (Progressive Conservative) moved second reading of Bill 32, Bill Mackie Act, 2014, repeal the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Act Development the Ontario Legislature. Bill 32 was defeated on second reading by a vote of one for and 44 against, including Conservative MPPs.
Halton Region Passes Unanimous Resolution to Legislate Against SLAPP Suits
In a unanimous 20-0 vote, Halton Region Councillors voted to send a message to Premier Kathleen Wynne, asking that she re-introduce Bill 83, An Act to Amend the Courts of Justice Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest. The Resolution reads in part: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton advise the newly elected Premier of the Province of Ontario, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, and its local members of Provincial Legislative Assembly of its support for the protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 and request that Bill 83 be re-introduced forthwith in the Legislature"
The Resolution was most likely adopted in response to two recent events: Members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition (and Donnelly Law clients) were SLAPPed with a $100,000 defamation lawsuit for speaking out against continued dumping of large amounts of fill, contrary to Burlington’s by-laws; and Burlington Council recently also unanimously adopted a Resolution asking Queen’s Park to make anti-SLAPP legislation a priority for the new session.
Read the recent article in the Hamilton Spectator found here.
Halifax Regional Municipality 5-year Regional Plan Approved by Council
For Donnelly Law’s client the Ecology Action Centre (“EAC”), the regional plan’s commitment to a Greenbelt and Public Open Spaces Priorities Plan is considered a major achievement for Halifax. “I feel much more hopeful about the future of this city as we emerge from this process. […] it is great to see planning and a regional plan be taken seriously inside and outside of City Hall” said Mark Butler of the EAC.
Greenbelting – legislation that protects large tracts of land from development– was featured by environmental lawyer David Donnelly and Ivey Foundation President Bruce Lourie in their keynote address at the 13th Annual Carmichael Lecture in Halifax, on March 6th, 2011. Since then, the two have been an integral part of HRM’s RP+5 by providing on-going expertise and advice to the EAC, HRM Alliance, and the Region.
“It was a long time in the works, but we’re very pleased it has passed. We think the plan is significantly strengthened from seven and a half years ago” said Raymond Plourde of the EAC.
While there is still a long way to go in terms of development, the settlement between the Region, City, and stakeholders is a significant step forward. As Mayor Mike Savage put it, “I don’t think you should ever let perfect be the enemy of better. And this is much better”.
David Donnelly, Margaret Atwood and Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association to Premier Wynne: Stop the Midhurst Development
On Sunday June 22, 2014, David Donnelly joined Margaret Atwood and the Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association (“MRA”) in asking Premier Wynne to close the Midhurst development loophole. David spoke at the “Celebration of Rural Living”, along with Margaret Atwood, Shirley Boxen (Food and Water First), and Sandy Buxton (MRA), emceed by Dale Goldhawk. Listen to David’s remarks here.
Midhurst, a small village in the Township of Springwater (north of Barrie), is home to about 3,500 people. In January 2013, the Province added a new provision to the regulation implementing the Places to Grow Act, making room for an additional 25,000 people on prime agricultural land, upstream of the Minesing Wetlands, a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance.
Learn more about the proposed development here.
Donnelly Law on the Recent Oak Ridges Moraine Victory
On January 27, 2014, the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) denied a planning application submitted by Mr. Peter Eliopoulos to allow a massive outdoor wedding/banquet facility in King Township in the Countryside Area of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (the “ORMCP”). The decision was featured in the Toronto Star, with David Donnelly saying: “Putting large-scale, car-dependent commercial activities in some of the most beautiful and natural country in southern Ontario would have been a big mistake,” said lawyer David Donnelly, who represented local residents at the OMB hearing. “If you believe that King Township is horse country and not paintball country, then this is a big decision for the Oak Ridges Moraine.”
The parking lot alone would host up to 600 people plus staff, making it the largest parking lot in King Township. The banquet and wedding proposal included three garden areas with tent-like structures (solid floors and three solid sides). The outdoor event/banquet facility would be operated by a business that runs several other event venues with package deals for weddings and bar mitzvahs.
The property, at 3550 18th Sideroad, King Township, has been the subject of controversy for years. Over many years, a long canal and pond were bulldozed on the site, in contravention of the Township’s Site Alteration By-law, creating a “water feature” that extends over one kilometre-long and is estimated to have the same capacity as 14 Olympic size swimming pools! The property was downgraded from Prime Agricultural to Rural in 2013.
King Township Council voted unanimously on August 26, 2013 to oppose the application. The Stewards of the Moraine (the "Stewards") was also opposed to the application, and received party status at the OMB.
The Oak Ridges Moraine, one of Ontario’s most significant landforms, is protected by the ecologically-based ORMCP. The Stewards is pleased by the decision of the OMB that halted in its tracks an inappropriate development that could have set a dangerous precedent for more inappropriate development on the Moraine, just a few short months before Ontario begins its mandatory review of the ORMCP.
The OMB hearing focused only on whether the outdoor banquet facility was permitted by the ORMCP i.e. is the outdoor banquet facility a “major recreational use”? The ORMCP defines major recreational use as “recreational uses that require large-scale modification of terrain, vegetation or both and usually also require large-scale buildings or structures, including but not limited to the following: golf courses, serviced playing fields, serviced campgrounds, and ski hills.”
The OMB heard three days of expert planning evidence from three planners, including Mr. Robert Lehman, a highly respected planner with more than 40 years’ experience, on behalf of the Stewards. The planners focused on one key question: can a wedding be considered a major recreational use?
The Applicant’s professional planner, Mr. Jim Dyment, MCIP, RPP, testified in his evidence that a wedding is a “recreational activity”. Under cross-examination by the Stewards’ lawyer, Mr. David Donnelly, Mr. Dyment stated that a wide variety of activities could be construed as “recreation”, including dating, courting, playing cards, sitting in quiet meditation or even attending a book club can be considered “recreation” per the definition in section 6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. The planners for King Township and the Stewards held a different opinion: the proposed use was predominantly commercial and not recreational. Mr. Gerrit de Boer, a lay witness for the Stewards, shared this opinion and was quoted in the OMB Eliopoulos decision at paragraphs 19 to 21:
"A wedding is a celebration of life where two people commit to each other by taking vows. It is not recreational. And I would have never gone out with my wife if her father thought going out on a date was a major recreational event."
The OMB summed up Mr. Boer’s evidence as follows:
"It was Mr. de Boer's contention that the proposal represented a commercial venture of a type that would not be allowed under the ORMCP. While Mr. de Boer was not an expert witness on land use planning, or even weddings, the Board found his observations interesting.
The OMB agreed with Mr. de Boer, the Stewards and King Township: “the proposed banquet/wedding/event facility is not a recreational use as anticipated by the Province in the ORMCP” (Eliopoulos Decision at paragraph 31).
While this may seem like an academic debate over a simple definition, approval of the Eliopoulos outdoor banquet facility could have had profound consequences for the Oak Ridges Moraine. If this outdoor banquet facility were approved under the guise of being “recreational”, it could open the door to a whole suite of development applications that the ORMCP did not anticipate in the Countryside Area. To the Stewards’ very great surprise, some in King Township consider the definition of “major recreational use” to be very broad. The Applicant’s planner, Mr. James Dyment, seemed to argue that paintball, go-carts, laser tag and other borderline outdoor recreational pursuits could be permitted in the ORMCP Area as major recreational uses.
This is not what the drafters of the ORMCP had in mind when they put the intent of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 into regulation i.e. the ORMCP, to protect farmland, headwaters and foster growth in suitable areas.
The clear intent of the ORMCP is to limit uses and the intensity of uses in the ORMCP Area. Any exceptions to the list should only be granted in very narrow and clearly analogous cases e.g. downhill vs. cross-country skiing. The purposes of the ORMCP include protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area, ensuring the Area is maintained as a continuous natural landform and environment for the benefit of present and future generations, and providing for continued development within existing urban settlement areas. The Eliopoulos OMB decision reinforces the strict conservation mandate of the ORMCP.
This case is also a cautionary tale, decided before the ORMCP 2015 review kicks into high gear. On December 6, 2013, after the hearing, the Stewards wrote to King Township, commenting on the current Official Plan review as follows:
Given the different views on “recreation” and “major recreational use”, it would be prudent for the Township to bring greater specificity to recreational policies in the ORMCP Area through its Official Plan Review. To ensure the Township remains an “idyllic community of communities” over time, the Township should define permissible recreational uses and strengthen its recreational policies, keeping in mind subsection 8(2) of the Act, which allows the Township to be more restrictive than the ORMCP in its Official Plan.
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 subsection 8(2) allows municipalities to adopt stricter policies for environmental protection of the Moraine.
The ORMCP 2015 Review will provide an opportunity to reconsider what types of development should be permitted on the Oak Ridges Moraine. In so doing, Moraine advocates must ensure their voices are heard, loud and clear. The Stewards hopes this victory before the OMB is the start of a successful ORMCP Review.
OMB Victory on the Oak Ridges Moraine in the Toronto Star
Environmentalists cheer Oak Ridges Moraine decision
Rachel Mendelson
The Toronto Star
February 11, 2014
“Putting large-scale, car-dependent commercial activities in some of the most beautiful and natural country in southern Ontario would have been a big mistake,” said lawyer David Donnelly, who represented local residents at the OMB hearing. “If you believe that King Township is horse country and not paintball country, then this is a big decision for the Oak Ridges Moraine.”
Read the Toronto Star article on this victory achieved by Donnelly Law’s client the Stewards of the Moraine Inc., here.
David Donnelly on CBC Radio: Aggregate Pits in Ontario's North
On Friday, December 13, 2013, David Donnelly was interviewed by CBC Thunder Bay. Residents and property owners outside Thunder Bay are asking Taranis Construction to reduce its operating hours and noise at a new gravel pit.
"In the north it seems to be open season on putting these pits in where in many cases either don't belong, or the operators should be more responsive to local concerns,?" said David Donnelly, legal counsel for the Toronto-based Environmental Defence group.
Click here to listen to David's interview with CBC Thunder Bay on action residents could take, including calling the local Ministry of the Environment office. Listen to an interview with a local resident and read more about this situation from the residents' point of view here.
Niagara Escarpment quarry fight before judicial review
Environmentalists are anxiously awaiting a potentially precedent-setting verdict in a fierce conflict over a proposed quarry on protected Niagara Escarpment lands south of Collingwood, not far from the picturesque Blue Mountains.
The case, which began with Walker Industries’ initial application nearly a decade ago, is now before a judicial review, with a decision expected in the coming months. If approved, some warn it will tip the balance toward those who wish to exploit the riches of the escarpment — and undermine the protections put in place 30 years ago to preserve it.
“Protection of the escarpment began because of the growth of the aggregate industry,” said Ruth Grier, former NDP environment minister and local resident. “This is one example that shows there are huge loopholes in that protection.”
Read the full article here:
Anti-SLAPP Bill launched in Ontario: A Big Step Forward for Democratic Rights in the Province
Toronto - Today, environmental groups applauded a proposed new law that would allow Ontario citizens to speak out to protect the environment and their health without fear of damaging lawsuits meant to intimidate them. Yasir Naqvi, Member of Provincial Parliament for Ottawa Centre, today tabled a private member’s bill – the Protection of Public Participation Act - that targets Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are civil suits of dubious merit, generally intended to censor, intimidate or silence critics and prevent individuals from voicing concerns about public interest issues. Often in the form of defamation suits, they stifle citizen participation in public decision-making.
"These suits impede public participation in the democratic process and expose SLAPP victims to unnecessary financial and emotional costs," said Hugh Wilkins, staff lawyer with Ecojustice. "Ontario is stronger when its citizens can exercise their right to clean land, air and water without fear of a SLAPP."
These types of lawsuits have been used when citizens report environmental violations, file complaints with government agencies, work to educate the public about an issue, or speak at a public meeting. In 2010, the Attorney General convened an expert advisory panel that strongly recommended the enactment of anti-SLAPP legislation. The bill tabled today adopts the recommendations of that panel, which include a faster process for dismissing SLAPPs, strong disincentives for initiating them, and guidelines for judges on how to address them.
The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Ontario Bar Association have all called for anti-SLAPP legislation.
"When a company sues an organization or individual in order to intimidate them, we all lose. Ontario needs people unafraid to advocate for a healthier and more vibrant society," said Shane Moffatt, a campaigner with Greenpeace Canada.
"Lawsuits without merit that are meant to bully people from exercising their rights must be stopped," said Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. "There is no place for that type of conduct in our society."
SLAPPs are on the rise in Ontario. An example was the almost $150 million in lawsuits filed against multiple opponents of the Big Bay Point mega-marina, in Innisfil, on Lake Simcoe. All the suits were either dropped or dismissed by the courts for inactivity, with costs against the developer.
"Ontario residents’ rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights are violated every time a SLAPP chills a fair and open environmental decision-making process," said David Donnelly, counsel to Environmental Defence. "Many jurisdictions in North America have banned SLAPPs after having to put up with frivolous cases that never reached a judge or jury," Donnelly added.
"Anti-SLAPP legislation will save costs for the justice system by ensuring the early dismissal of these meritless lawsuits," said Ramani Nadarajah of the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). "The private member's bill will protect citizens and groups who are engaging in public debate and is vital to Ontario's democracy."
Black Out Speak Out: Take Action
wp-content/uploads/2012/06/website_en2.jpg
Right now, Parliament is pushing through a bill to weaken many of the country's most important environmental protection measures and silence the voices of all Canadians who seek to defend nature. Today it's our voice; tomorrow it could be yours. Here are the top five reasons to Speak Out:
- Charities are being targeted. The government is adding $8 million in new funding for the Canada Revenue Agency to audit charities like environmental groups in spite of the fact they have simply exercised their legal right to advocate for things like laws to fight global warming. This will have a chilling effect on democratic debate. What's more, under these new laws, citizen groups will likely be shut out of environmental reviews of big projects like oil pipelines. Key government agencies with expertise will also have less input. Well-funded backroom lobbyists and political operatives will have greater influence.
- Canadians' participation in Parliament is being disrespected. Instead of following the established process for making sweeping changes, which allows for thorough public debate, these changes are being shoehorned into a massive budget law. This drastically reduces the amount of consultation on a whole variety of topics. These changes will have serious consequences for all Canadians and our voices are not being heard.
- Nature is being put at serious risk. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is being replaced with a totally new law. Under it, Ottawa will play a much smaller role in protecting people from harmful projects, while retaining the right to basically rubber-stamp big projects that powerful oil interests want. And the new weaker rules are being applied to review processes that are already underway–so projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway tankers and pipeline project could get an easier ride.
- Too much power is in the hands of too few. The National Energy Board will no longer be able to say "no" to oil pipeline projects that are not in the public interest. Politicians in Cabinet will be able to overrule the expert energy regulator if powerful oil interests don't like its decision. Permits that allow the destruction of habitat for fish and threatened or endangered species will now be issued behind closed doors without public scrutiny, if they are required at all.
- Trusted advisors to government that provide high-quality analysis for balanced policy are being ignored. The 2012 budget eliminates the funding for the last remaining government advisory body – the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE). The NRTEE provides analysis and advice on how to meet our international commitments to reducing greenhouse gas pollution. Many lakes, rivers and streams that provide habitat to fish will be at greater risk of destruction because of changes to the Fisheries Act contained within the budget implementation bill. Healthy fish habitat is important for fish and for the people and businesses that depend on them.
For more information, please download a list of the TOP 10 items of environmental concern in the 2012 budget bill (Bill C-38).
SHELLSHOCKED: Canadian Premiere hosted by Donnelly Law and Rodney's Oyster House
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE
For Immediate Release: March 26, 2012
Shellshocked: Saving Oysters to Save Ourselves Canadian Premiere on April 16 at Rodney's Oyster House in Toronto: Filmmaker and environmental experts discuss the importance of protecting North American waterways and oyster culture
Toronto, ON – On the heels of its successful U.S. debut, the Canadian premiere of Shellshocked: Saving Oysters to Save Ourselves will take place at Rodney's Oyster House on April 16th 2012 at 6:00PM. The screening will be followed by a Q&A with Director Emily Driscoll, and environmentalist and prominent Oysterman Rodney T. Clark. At the event, guests will be treated to a specially prepared oyster reception and tasting. Proceeds raised will be donated to Environmental Defence to further its work to protect and improve Canada's water ecosystems.
Shellshocked: Saving Oysters to Save Ourselves Canadian Premiere
WHEN: Monday, April 16th, 2012
WHERE: At Rodney’s Oyster House at 469 King Street West, Toronto
TIME: Doors open at 6PM, screening at 6:45PM
WHAT: Film screening and Q&A, featuring filmmaker Emily Driscoll, and environmentalist and "the Oysterman" Rodney T. Clark
PHOTO OPS: Great shots of oyster shucking, Emily Driscoll, Rodney T. Clark, guests enjoying oysters and bubbly
TICKETS: $77.50 per person. Includes oyster reception and tasting. Call 416-363-8105 ext.0 for ticket purchases or in-person at Rodney's Oyster House. NOTE: all proceeds are donated to Environmental Defence
INTERVIEW OPPORTUNITIES: Emily Driscoll, Director and Filmmaker, Rodney Clark, “the Oysterman” and owner of Rodney's Oyster House, and Environmental Defence Spokesperson, David Donnelly.
ABOUT THE FILM (www.shellshockedmovie.com): SHELLSHOCKED follows efforts to prevent the extinction of wild oysters, a keystone species that keeps our oceans healthy by filtering water and engineering ecosystems. Today, because of over-fishing and pollution, wild oyster reefs have been declared the most severely impacted marine habitat on earth and are functionally extinct. Now scientists, government officials, artists and environmentalists are fighting to bring oysters back to New York Harbor – the former oyster capital of the world.
ABOUT THE DIRECTOR (www.emilydriscollonline.com): Emily Driscoll is a science and nature documentary producer. Her previous documentary BUGGED: The Race to Eradicate the Asian Longhorned Beetle aired on PBS stations and screened at the Department of the Interior. She has a master’s degree from NYU in science journalism and is working toward a master’s degree in science documentary production from NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study. She’s written articles and produced videos for a number of science news publications. Emily also plays and produces videos about competitive badminton.
ABOUT RODNEY'S OYSTER HOUSE (rodneysoysterhouse.com): Rodney’s Oyster House, located at 469 King Street West is an iconic Toronto restaurant dedicated to preserving and celebrating oyster culture. Rodney Clark, "the Oysterman," has presented oysters in downtown Toronto since the late 1970's, and helms one of the Great Oyster Houses of North America. He has taken a leading role in promoting sustainable aquaculture with the opening of Rodney’s Oyster Depot on Prince Edward Island, over five years ago, and will talk about sustainable Oystering and the future of the oyster in North America, from the Rodney's perspective.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (www.environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is Canada's most effective environmental action organization. We challenge, and inspire change in government, business and people to ensure a greener, healthier and prosperous life for all.
-30-
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: Stephanie Kohls, Environmental Defence, 416-323-9521 ext. 232; 647-280-9521 (cell); skohls@environmentaldefence.ca
Environment Defence Weighs in on MNR Refusal to Disclose Material to PERL
On February 28, 2012, Dr. Rick Smith, Executive Director of Environmental Defence wrote a strong letter to Minister of Natural Resources, the Hon. Michael Gravelle, demanding the release of relevant MNR information about the Nelson Aggregate Co. proposed Adaptive Management Plan as it relates to the Harmer property. The required information is about an MNR decision that pertains almost exclusively to the Harmer property, not Nelson’s. As Dr. Smith wrote, "[t]o withhold information vital to PERL’s interest, while allowing complete access to Nelson, is unfair and contrary to the principles of open and transparent government."
Read the full letter here: Letter from Dr. Rick Smith to Minister Gravelle
Ontario's Growth Plan Amendment for Simcoe County? #Fail
Huffington Post, Politics, January 31, 2012 Co-authored by Claire Malcolmson and David Donnelly
There are new rules for growth in Simcoe County. On January 19 the Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure enacted Amendment #1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, also known as the Simcoe Sub-area Amendment. The Amendment is hailed as awin for developers and the County, and signals that the province has tired of trying to curb Simcoe's taste for rapid, uncoordinated growth of low-density bedroom communities.
Lying just north of Southern Ontario's Greenbelt, Simcoe County faces massive growth pressures fuelled by developers' land speculation, and high housing and development prices in Toronto. Implementing the Growth Plan in Simcoe County, Barrie, and Orillia has been painful for all involved. Simcoe County's 2008 Official Plan was so far from the province's direction that the province stepped in, first with a "vision" for Simcoe in 2009, and finally, January's first amendment to the Growth Plan.
After receiving numerous complaints from all sectors about the draft amendment number one, the province appointed Provincial Development Facilitator Paula Dill to conduct a further consultation. The consultations covered 59 meetings with stakeholders and included 176 written submissions. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Bob Chiarelli said, "All we heard was protect the lake, protect the natural environment, and we paid special attention to that."
However, it is our opinion that it is the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Plan, not the growth plan or this amendment, which protects the environment. For example, the province seems to be handing off responsibility for larger scale environmental planning in new strategic settlement employment areas by allowing the municipality to identify the natural areas for protection. This strategy does not guarantee a coordinated, regional approach to planning and protecting green space. On a positive note, the amendment "encourages" but does not require affected municipalities "to achieve greater efficiency and conservation in energy, water and wastewater management through building and community design." A little nod to a hopefully greener future.
Amendment one sticks to growth planning and clarifies important departures from the basic tenets of the growth plan. A significant change (and a win for developers) is that the county can determine how to distribute an additional 20,000 people, in approved settlement areas, above the 667,000 population target. A worrying implication is that a number of sprawling projects appear to be grandfathered without explanation, like the Midhurst Secondary Plan for 30,000 people north of Barrie in Springwater Township, which, under prior rules should have been stopped because its proposed population exceeded the township's population allocation from the growth plan.
Environmentalists have been alarmed for several years by two massive new development proposals that would pave prime agricultural land and Lake Simcoe watershed areas along Highway #400. We contend that this is unnecessary while tens of thousands of acres of lands already approved for employment purposes can be found elsewhere in Southern Ontario. Why, we have asked, build up the housing stock where there are no jobs? Why not concentrate housing in already built-up areas, closer to functioning employment areas, transit, and services? This was what the growth plan was supposed to do.
In the Simcoe sub-area, the province of Ontario has paved the way for new employment lands on agricultural land, and has effectively increased the population allocation. Panelists and local activists at AWARE Simcoe's January 21 anti-sprawl meeting agreed now that the Province has made the rules clear for Simcoe County, it is now time to focus on Councilors' and Mayors' decisions.
We must all insist that development decisions are made based on clear criteria such as reducing impacts on water and sensitive green spaces, the proximity of real, existing jobs, and the feasibility of public transit servicing. Part of the solution is for development to be as green as possible. People concerned about the Lake should oppose any new development in the Lake Simcoe watershed that does not reduce the traditional urban sprawl ecological footprint for water and energy consumption by at least 50 per cent. Were these criteria followed, much less development would leapfrog our beloved Greenbelt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/claire-malcolmson/ontario-growth-plan-simcoe_b_1242721.html
GGH Growth Plan Amendment 1 Release Anticipated
Novae Res Urbis, Vol. 15, No.3, GTA Edition By Kristine Janzen
Simcoe area planning and development stakeholders are anticipating the release of Amendment 1 to the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe tomorrow by infrastructure minister Bob Chiarelli. The technical briefing and luncheon is to take place at the Nottawasaga Inn Resort and Conference Centre.
The proposed amendment was released by the province in October 2010. It focused on identifying urban nodes in Simcoe County and in Barrie and Orillia where growth and intensifi cation should be directed. The amendment established population and employment growth allocations for nodes and other serviced settlement areas, as well as a process to assess the oversupply of land available for development. It also identified strategic employment areas along the Highway 400 corridor.
On November 1, 2011 the provincial development facilitator completed a comprehensive process, carrying out additional consultations with municipalities, and provided recommendations to the infrastructure minister.
While the province has not yet released any details of the final amendment or the provincial development facilitator’s report, some Simcoe area politicians are hopeful the results of several years of planning and consultation will have positive results.
“We are eager to see what the province has come up with. They’ve been tight-lipped on details,” commented Springwater Township mayor Linda Collins. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the township’s Midhurst Secondary Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board last fall after it was adopted by Simcoe County, citing inconsistencies with the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Anticipating the release of the amendment, a letter from Chiarelli was sent to stakeholders at the end of December announcing completion of the provincial development facilitator’s work and issuing an invitation to tomorrow’s event.
“After an extensive consultation process on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and some great work by the provincial development facilitator, the province has developed a shared vision for sustainable growth in the Simcoe Area. This vision supports job creation, increases planning certainty, and improves quality of life while focusing growth in existing communities and protecting farmland and green spaces. The path forward must now be the result of strong partnership and continued dialogue,” wrote Minister Chiarelli in a December 23, 2011 letter to stakeholders regarding tomorrow’s event.
“I believe that our “made-in-Simcoe” approach will allow Simcoe municipalities, Barrie and Orillia to approve development that makes sense for their communities, protects the natural environment, safeguards the water quality of Lake Simcoe and supports local agriculture. I look forward to sharing this approach with you,” wrote Chiarelli.
Meanwhile, the Town of Innisfi l is hopeful its suggestions, not included in the proposed amendment, will be recognized in the new policy. It proposes an urban node designation for Alcona, alternative intensifi cation target of 23 per cent and a new policy to recognize the importance of employment areas along the Highway 400 corridor beyond the 2031 planning horizon.
“If we were given that [urban node] designation [in Alcona], we would continue to look for more ways to become more urban and more multi-storey. Obviously, if [the province doesn’t] recognize that designation, it makes it more difficult to achieve our own urbanization agenda, which we’ve set out for Alcona in our strategic plan,” explained Innisfi l communications officer Michèle Newton in an interview with NRU.
Innisfil deputy mayor Dan Davidson questions the planning rationale behind including an urban node in Bradford West Gwillimbury, which does not have water services, and not in Innisfi l, which is currently sharing water with Bradford West Gwillimbury. He thinks political motivations are behind the amendment.
“We basically have all of the criteria for an urban node. We’ve got huge growth happening in that area, about 27,000 people when it’s completed. We meet about 98 per cent of the [provincial requirements] and we’re looking at transit for that area. We meet the criteria better than Bradford. I think the politicians are playing games. It tends to be considered a very conservative area, and I think we’re being penalized for that,” commented Davidson in an interview with NRU.
According to Davidson, an urban node designation would also help with infrastructure funding for the area down the road.
Allowing Innisfi l to expand the designated Innisfi l Heights employment area along the Highway 400 corridor with additional uses will allow the town to cater to a broader range of employment uses. Including more business services, light manufacturing and supporting commercial businesses in the area will help support residential growth and provide greater employment opportunities, explained Innisfi l mayor Barb Baguley in an interview with NRU.
The current boundary of the Innisfi l Heights employment area is 320 hectares and the town has proposed expanding it to a total area of 690 hectares.
“The employments lands [outlined in the proposed amendment for the Innisfi l Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area] are undersized for what the municipality has determined is required to be successful. We designated a larger area, a continuation of the existing area, that is pivotally important to the health and wellbeing of our municipality,” explained Baguley.
Smart growth advocates such as environmental lawyer David Donnelly (Donnelly Law) believe the amendment should focus on higher densities and a reduced ecological footprint for new growth, beyond what was initially proposed, to further restrict the impacts of sprawl in Simcoe.
“Most of the new development proposals in Simcoe County are stuck in a 1990’s mindset that will require new infrastructure funding the province simply doesn’t have. A simple benchmark for the amendment should be this: when the sidewalks of Simcoe County are as congested as Highway 400, we’ll have struck the right balance,” said Donnelly.
Stay tuned for more details and comments on the amendment in next week’s GTA edition of NRU.
Simcoe County’s new director of planning, development and tourism Dave Parks began his role Monday following the retirement of Bryan MacKell, who was involved throughout the consultation process. Parks was formerly the director of planning for Severn Township.
****
See the original article here: 120118NRG
La Nation Huronne Wendat et l'Université de Toronto Signent un Protocole d'Entente Visant le Rapatriement d'Ossements Humains et d'Artéfacts Ancestraux Provenant de l'Ontario
Wendake, le 29 novembre 2011 — Le Grand Chef Konrad Sioui, au nom de la Nation Huronne Wendat a signé aujourd'hui, avec l'Université de Toronto, un protocole d'entente assurant le rapatriement de restes squelettiques humains et d'artéfacts provenant de sites archéologiques en Ontario.
«Au milieu du vingtième siècle, l'Université de Toronto a pris part à des fouilles sur des sites archéologiques du sud de l'Ontario dans lesquels des restes squelettiques humains ont été trouvés, exhumés et transportés ultimement à l'Université. II s'est avéré que plusieurs ossements et artéfacts proviennent des ancêtres de la Nation Huronne Wendat, qui ont occupé une vaste portion du sud de l'Ontario pendant plusieurs siècles. En raison de guerres européennes et d'épidémies, la Nation Huronne Wendat a été forcée de quitter la partie sud de son territoire ancestral et de retourner plus haut sur la partie nord de son territoire national sur les rives de leur fleuve essentiel, le Saint-Laurent, près de Stadaconé (Ville de Québec) à la Seigneurie de Sillery où Wendake est maintenant situé. Les Hurons Wendat, les archéologues et les historiens ont identifié et documenté des centaines de sites Hurons Wendat en Ontario et au Québec, à travers le grand Wendake. Des douzaines de vastes villages agricoles cosmopolites semi-permanents (occupés par des milliers de gens) et leurs sites d'enterrements attenants ont été découverts, représentant un riche patrimoine culturel» a déclaré le Grand Chef Sioui.
L'Université de Toronto a complété en grande partie un inventaire et l'analyse reste à être complétée. La Nation Huronne Wendat recherche un rapatriement total des restes humains au cours de l'été de 2012 et les parties s'adjoindront la coopération de la Fiducie du Patrimoine ontarien et du Gouvernement de l'Ontario en ce qui a trait à toute composante du projet.
Le professeur Cheryl Regher, en présence de ses collègues de l'Université de Toronto et de Mississauga, a déclaré que la signature de cette entente historique marque une étape importante dans une nouvelle relation entre leurs institutions et la Nation huronne-wendat. Une première au Canada qui, selon elle, mérite d'être connue a l'échelle internationale.
Le Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat salue le travail acharné du Chef Gaëtan Sioui, responsable du dossier, de Me David Donnelly, de monsieur Luc Laine et de madame Heather Bastien grâce à qui ce protocole a été réalisé. Le Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat prévoit le ré-enterrement des restes de ces milliers de nos ancêtres au mois de juillet 2012, au même moment ou aura lieu la rencontre annuelle des Chefs de l'Assemblée des Premières Nations du Canada à Toronto.
Renseignements :
Melanie Vincent (418) 580-4442
___________________________________________________
The University of Toronto signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the Huron-Wendat Nation
The University of Toronto has signed a Memorandum of Understanding allowing for the repatriation of remains and artifacts to the Huron Wendat Nation. This MoU was signed at a ceremony in Wendake, near Quebec City on No. 29.
The University of Toronto sits on land that was the home of the Huron Wendat until the late 17th century. Primarily during the middle part of the last century, faculty, staff and students of the University participated in archaeological excavations of many sites in southern Ontario, sites that were the homes of Huron Wendat ancestors. As a result, today the university holds many remains and artifacts gathered from those locations.
While the approaches followed in those excavations conformed with the attitudes of academia and society at the time, those attitudes have changed. The Memorandum of Understanding allows for the repatriation of those remains and artifacts in a culturally and spiritually appropriate way as determined by the Huron Wendat people. The actual transfer of the remains will occur when the Huron Wendat Nation has secured a final resting place for the remains and artifacts, but the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding is an important step in the process. The Memorandum of Understanding further establishes a process of cooperation between the University of Toronto and the Huron-Wendat Nation for the continued development of knowledge regarding the history of their people. The university is grateful to the Huron-Wendat Nation for its commitment to preservation of knowledge and further research.
The agreement was signed on behalf of the university by Professor Cheryl Regehr, vice-provost (academic programs) and by Grand Chief Konrad Sioui, on behalf of the Huron Wendat Nation. Also present at the signing were Professor Meric Gertler, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science; Professor Amy Mullin, dean of the University of Toronto Mississauga, Professor Susan Pfeiffer of the Department of Anthropologyand Steve Moate, legal counsel to the university.
UofT News: http://www.news.toronto.edu/university-toronto-signs-memorandum-understanding-huron-wendat-nation
Ethan Hawke Joins Fight to Protect Gulf of St. Lawrence from Oil and Gas Drilling
November 23, 2011 – The battle to protect the Gulf of St. Lawrence from oil and gas development received a major boost this week when American actor, writer and director Ethan Hawke benevolently lent his support to the cause. Mr. Hawke, a landowner along the Gulf in Nova Scotia, was approached by coastal landowners, fishermen, Mi’kmaq leaders and concerned citizens who felt their voices were not being heard. Mr. Hawke joins a growing list of celebrities including Dr. David Suzuki, author Farley Mowat, actor and director Jason Priestley, and music composer Philip Glass who have also spoken out in support of a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. “The Gulf of St. Lawrence is truly unique in its beauty, culture and biodiversity; I feel it is important to support my east coast neighbours in their demand for a moratorium,” explains Mr. Hawke. “We should take every measure possible to avoid making the same mistakes that were made with the Gulf of Mexico and preserve these precious renewable marine resources for future generations. The time has come to take action on this important issue before it is too late.”
The David Suzuki Foundation, in collaboration with Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition and with the support of Mr. Hawke, is asking Canadian citizens to take action by demanding a moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf.
“Thousands of First Nations, Quebecois, Acadian and Gaelic coastal communities have historic precedence in these waters and have great interest in wanting to protect the Gulf’s multi-billion dollar renewable fishery and tourism industries,” affirms Mary Gorman, spokesperson for Save our Seas and Shores Coalition. “It would be foolish to consider risking a renewable global marine food supply that has sustained us for centuries, only to exploit unnecessary fossil fuels.”
Both Quebec and Newfoundland are currently exploring the possibility of drilling oil and gas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The province of Quebec, now under provincial moratorium, is in the process of conducting public consultations to assess the risk factors involved with oil and gas exploitation in the Gulf. The situation in Newfoundland has become increasingly alarming, with the province currently poised to move forward with an exploratory drilling at the controversial Old Harry prospect, located only 6km from Quebec’s jurisdiction, as early as next year. Similar attempts made by Nova Scotia to exploit the Gulf were halted a decade ago.
“The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a single body of water that should not be divided by man-made borders,” states Dr. Jean-Patrick Toussaint of the David Suzuki Foundation. “The Gulf is home to more than 2,200 marine species which spawn, nurse and migrate there year-round. Exploratory drilling could seriously impact the feeding and migration of fish like Atlantic salmon, herring, mackerel and cod as well as marine mammals like the endangered blue whale.”
Earlier this summer, numerous coastal communities and environmental groups asked federal Minister of the Environment Peter Kent to take leadership in overseeing the environmental implications and risks of permitting oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. However, the federal government ultimately delegated this responsibility to an unelected offshore provincial petroleum board.
“We are delighted and grateful to have Ethan Hawke graciously accept to support the battle to protect our Gulf,” adds Ms. Gorman. “We hope that his public support will help draw greater attention to an issue that could potentially impact the coastlines and economy of all five provinces bordering the Gulf, and which requires critical action.”
Concerned individuals and groups can sign the petition to demand a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by visiting the David Suzuki website: http://action.davidsuzuki.org/st-lawrence
- 30 - For more information, please contact: Manon Dubois, Communications Specialist David Suzuki Foundation mdubois@davidsuzuki.org, 514.679.0821 Mary Gorman Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition mjgorman@ns.sympatico.ca, 902.926.2128
Studying old bones — preservation or perversion?
Mary Ormsby, Feature Writer, Toronto Star
A cross-border battle is brewing over 500-year-old bones belonging to some of Ontario’s original inhabitants — a case descendents describe as academic grave robbing.
The Huron-Wendat Nation is demanding that Louisiana State University return the “stolen” remains of about 200 people. They say researchers improperly gathered the bones from an Ontario ossuary to use for unauthorized student research.
“It’s a feeling of loss — and I get angry a little bit too because (remains) have no business being in universities or museums,” says retired translator Heather Bastien of Wendake, Que., whose prehistoric ancestors first hunted, fished and farmed in southern Ontario 15,000 years ago.
The unusual dispute raises questions about the best way for academics to be culturally sensitive — particularly when studying human remains — in a CSI generation that considers bones a DNA treasure trove of clues to scientific, historic, medical and, sometimes, criminal puzzles.
Bastien, 79, is a Wendake Council representative who has been active in asserting Huron-Wendat rights in Ontario. Some of those rights, outlined in a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, mean First Nations people must be consulted before development begins in historic areas that might reveal burial grounds. If Huron-Wendat burial ossuaries (mass bone repositories) are accidentally disturbed — as has happened around the GTA — the nation must be notified immediately.
Bastien says a long-held belief in Ontario that Huron-Wendat were “extinct” — the group migrated to Quebec 350 years ago — has meant few tried vigorously to find them after their graves were unearthed.
That may have happened 21 years ago.
Archaeologist Heather McKillop is the LSU professor who oversaw the excavation and eventual export of bones from the Poole-Rose ossuary near Cobourg to Baton Rouge, La., where she teaches. She was given permission to do so by the native community geographically closest to the ossuary, the Alderville First Nation, which is not Huron-Wendat.
McKillop could not be reached by the Star despite several attempts over the past two weeks and a spokesperson for LSU said the school would not be able to comment. However, McKillop and co-author Lawrence Jackson described the Poole-Rose ossuary as fitting the Huron’s centuries-old Feast of the Dead burial-pit pattern in their 1991 report in the Ontario Archeological Society’s newsletter.
McKillop, described as a Canadian/American academic who studied at Trent University, has overseen student research on the ossuary remains until at least last year.
It’s not uncommon for universities and museums to have old bones.
The University of Toronto, for instance, has thousands of First Nations bones, most of which are Huron-Wendat, from archeological digs from the 1940s through the 1970s. Several years of repatriation negotiations are nearing a conclusion but details are confidential, according to a university spokesperson.
Helen Robbins, a social anthropologist and repatriation director at the Chicago Field Museum, said a scientific middle ground might be reached more often if academics and indigenous people were more “open and honest” with each other.
“There can be benefits with indigenous people getting more access to museums, learning about museums as well as museums learning more about the tribe they have the human remains of — and may have been sitting there for 100 years,’’ says Robbins, who has no connection to the Huron-Wendat /LSU matter.
Prior to European contact, the Huron-Wendat population swelled to about 40,000. They lived in an area from the southern horn of Georgian Bay to the northerly shore of Lake Ontario, and from west of Toronto to Cornwall and Prescott in the east.
Diseases brought by white settlers, including smallpox, devastated the once-mighty confederacy in the 17th century. A group of native survivors eventually migrated to Quebec in the mid-1600s, in part to escape conflict with other nations.
Today, Bastien said there are 3,000 Huron-Wendat in Canada and about 6,000 in the United States.
The Poole-Rose ossuary was carbon dated to about 1550. In typical ancestral Huron practice, many skeletons were de-fleshed and dismembered post-mortem. The measurement and comparison of cut marks on severed bones were among the studies conducted by McKillop’s graduate students.
When the ossuary was discovered by building contractors in 1990, it appears provincial law for investigating an unmarked gravesite was followed.
For remains deemed very old and aboriginal, there are two choices under the Ontario Cemeteries Act: One is to contact the closest First Nations group, which in this case was the Alderville First Nation. The second option is to consult with the most likely people descended from the dead.
Alderville’s then-chief Nora Bothwell and her council gave McKillop permission to excavate, export and study the remains. Bothwell told the Star the bones were expected to be repatriated and that she hadn’t initially known the skeletons were Huron-Wendat.
But McKillop “was likely aware at that time, or ought to have been aware, that the skeletons were ancestral Huron-Wendat,” claims a Sept. 16 letter sent to McKillop, LSU chancellor Michael Martin and provincial Tourism and Culture Minister Michael Chan. It was sent by Toronto lawyer David Donnelly, who represents the Quebec-based nation.
The letter states “this removal and subsequent experimentation was done without consultation with the Huron-Wendat First Nation” and there is no agreement between the school and the nation to “perform these unethical experiments.”
In an interview, Donnelly called the Ontario Cemeteries Act “antiquated and racist.”
“The fact is that for sensitive cultural heritage matters, the Ontario Cemeteries Act still treats aboriginal nations as being all alike. A statute that literally says talking to the closest Indian will do is despicable and illegal.”
Bastien hopes LSU officials will deliver the ancestral bones to Canada so they — and restless Huron souls — can be “returned to the earth” with a calming traditional ritual. A smudging ceremony with tobacco and sage will be performed by elders. Remains are then interred with beaver pelts, artifacts and “the three sisters” — corn, beans and squash.
“It is a special ceremony to quiet their souls,’’ Bastien says. “They’ve been roaming around for so long with no place to stay.”
The Feast of the Dead
Ancient Huron-Wendat ossuaries can contain the remains of hundreds who were honoured by the Feast of the Dead, a socially and spiritually important celebration held every 10 to 12 years.
Bones of those who died over that period were removed from raised wooden structures where they were originally laid to rest and prepared for burial. Dried flesh was stripped from the bones and burned, with skeletons disarticulated (severed at joints) and placed on beaver pelts. The ritual also signalled a village was packing up to move to another area.
French Jesuit priest Jean de Brébeuf, who lived and worked among the Huron-Wendat in the 17th century, wrote a detailed, eyewitness account about the Feast of the Dead in 1636.
“The decision having been made, as all the bodies are to be transported to the Village where is the common grave, each family sees to its dead but with a care and affection that cannot be described,’’ wrote de Brébeuf, in part, according to Martyrs’ Shrine archivist Steve Catlin.
“If they have dead relatives in any part of the Country, they spare no trouble to go for them; they take them from the Cemeteries, bear them on their shoulders and cover them with the finest robes they have.”
The Huron-Wendat believe buried bones are sacred because a person’s soul rests with the remains, while a second soul soars skyward.
__
Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1066828--studying-old-bones-preservation-or-perversion