Contradictions of the dominant societies laws…who are truely the Immigrants in Canada?

The Dakota Comprehensive Claim case is still dragging its way through the court-ordered break to allow negotiation… or as we joke, the “non-negotiating phase”.

The court cannot make Canada actually negotiate, all it could do was call them on their claim that they would “negotiate or litigate, but not both” which they kept using as an excuse/threat to get the Dakota to stop the case entirely. The judge cleverly forced them out on this by saying “o.k. I’ll wait, and give you six months of negotiating time. If you haven’t negotiated in good faith by that time, it comes right back into court.”

By using delays (including the election) this six-month period has been stretched out to nearly a year, and the judge’s time limits won’t expire until December, at which point no doubt the Canadian Government will call for a Christmas break.

However, it will help a little because the Canadian Government’s demonstrating bad faith to the court itself.

The attorney for the Crown in this matter has disappeared from the case for some reason, and the Dakota have been informed that a new one is being appointed — more delays.

In the meantime, the Canadian Government has got itself caught in another contradiction of their own making… which has to do with the “Sioux Valley Self-Government Agreement.”

The background here is bureaucratic inertia, both in the meaning of slow, and also in the meaning of grinding along anyway. Twenty years ago the Government (Liberal) started encouraging these “Self-Government Agreements” as a kind of treaty-annex under the new constitution. The idea is that when one is signed by First Nation, Province and Federal government, that all three parties agree to devolve certain legal powers to the First Nation level. Sioux Valley was actually one of the very first to start down this path, but has gone only very slowly since for a number of reasons. Last month, its agreement was finally signed.

“Aboriginal self-government” as a concept in the Canadian constitution today flows from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it says that all Canadian aboriginals have an inherent right of self-government.

In practice, to define exactly what that means in each case, the different levels of government and any given First Nation negotiate and then sign a “Self-Government Agreement.”

In signing this document, the Government of Canada has admitted that the Dakota (of Sioux Valley at least) are “Canadian Aboriginals” else they could not have exercised this constitutional right.

But… in the Dakota Comprehensive Claim case, the Government of Canada takes the position that all Dakota (including Sioux Valley) in Canada have no rights because they are “American Refugees.”

So, the Government of Canada has therefore taken a position in one case which is completely opposite the position they took in the other case. It can’t be both.

One could argue that the lawyers were different, or that the departments were different (Attorney General vs. Indian Affairs) and it could be said that this is simply a temporary confusion that will get straightened out. But, it is the very same negotiator — Sheldon Peltz — in both cases. Also it is the same Prime Minister Stephen Harper and he likes to control everything.

Therefore, there is only one of two possible answers:

1) The Government of Canada has taken a frivolous position in the Comprehensive Case that deliberately wastes the court time because it knows it is a false logic;


2) The Government of Canada has committed a fraud in the case of the Sioux Valley Self-Government Agreement because it believes these Dakota people could never have had this right.

or both.

About Looking Back Woman-Suzanne Dupree

Tetuwan Lakota scholar, educator, historian, Sun Dance participant, Cannunpa carrier, cultural & spiritual preservationist, journalist-writer and fraud investigator.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Contradictions of the dominant societies laws…who are truely the Immigrants in Canada?

    This is solely my opinion, HakiktaWin, from research into the issue of Canadas position that the Dakota are immigrants within their own age old traditional Tetuwan territories.
    Recent archival facts show the Dakota were already present upon these Tetuwan lands prior to contact with the Brits, & later worked for the Brits, having written logged items dispensed to the Dakota recorded in the archives in Ottawa, such as uniforms, weapons, etc….this shows clearly that the Dakota were already present on their lands when the Brits arrived, thus the Brits were the immigrants in these territories, NOT the Dakota….no matter how these historical facts are manipulated by the dominant society today.

    The recently completed Keystone and Alberta Clipper projects (which both follow the route indicated on the map in solid dark orange you will see after clicking on the link to Turtle Talk) traversed the tradtional Dakota terrtory within Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and in Manitoba’s case specifically that land subject to the Dakota comprehensive claim. (It diagonals roughly half-way between Turtle Mountain and the Trans-Canada Highway.)

    Both companies involved purchased the acquiescence of the various Dakota bands in dropping public opposition to the project, although the two companies followed markedly different paths in their attitude and tactics.

    Trans-Canada Pipeline was at one time a Canadian Crown Corporation, which was privatized during the 1980s and is now despite its name essentially an American owned company. (Or perhaps its Chinese and Arab owned by now, but at any rate it’s not a Canadian company any more.)

    Enbridge is the other company which frequenty parallels Trans-Canada’s routes as governments prefer to have these pipelines grouped into rights-of-way.

    Both companies have been in the news for conflict with environemntal and native groups at different times and in different provinces, territories or states.

    Both companies bought goodwill through making community development, education and business grants to communities along the pathway — even at some distance, but usually within about 50 miles of the actual pipeline. Both companies intially were opposed before the National Energy Board and in court by different consortiums of Dakota/Lakota/Nakota groups in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

    Trans-Canada took a much more adversarial attitude and fought the Dakota in public through several court actions, which ultimately were unsuccessful for the Dakota because the issue of the comprehensive claim has not yet been proven in court. It is my understanding — though difficult to prove — that TransCanada paid bribes to several Dakota chiefs along the way to break rank with the majority at critical moments, and these same chiefs have been the ones to side with the Government of Canada against the other Dakota. It is my belief that Trans-Canada handed out possibly a million dollars in such bribes, but I cannot prove this.

    Enbridge took a completely different tack and ultimately a much cheaper one. They simply agreed to contribute $20,000 to the Dakota’s research costs [hiring me] to work on the comprehensive claim. Only $10,000 of this was paid over because the two chiefs (out of five in Manitoba) whom Trans-Canada purchased raised a stink about this, and demanded that the money not be used for the comprehensive claim and should be divvied up among them… so the second $10,000 was instead split five ways to the communities. (The Manitoba Dakota consortium came up with an additional $15,000 to keep the research going through other budgets and donations. They were denied the usual funding streams because the Government insisted they were “American Refugees” and didn’t qualify.)

    It may seem cheap of Enbridge — and it was — but the Dakota chiefs in the majority, and myself, cannot ignore the fact that when no one else would support the Dakota comprehensive claim — at a critical moment Enbridge did. Consequently, I don’t think you’ll ever see public opposition from the Dakota chiefs against Enbridge.

    So, including the lawyers fees in the various cases, Trans-Canada spent millions to fight the Dakota comprehensive claim while Enbridge spent $20,000 and supported it.

    One of Enbridge’s conditions was that the Dakota would never ever publicly thank them or admit that it was Enbridge who made the Manitoba Dakota comprehensive claim possible. … a claim which may eventually come to a half billion dollars from the government, anywhere from 35 to 250 square miles of land… and establish a legal basis in the future for collecting natural resource revenues.

    Cheap or not, I think it shows that Enbridge had the better long term business sense. And it’s not cheap for them in the long term because they know perfectly well that if the Dakota win their claim, they could end up paying taxes to the Dakota. However, if it comes to that, their rival Trans-Canada will have to pay the same taxes.

    Trans-Canada Pipelines cannot be trusted, and it is my feeling that they will both fight in court and resort to bribes.

    During the National Energy Board hearings on the two pipelines, the Government of Canada persuaded 8 out of 9 Canadian “Sioux” bands not to oppose them before the hearings, by promising that the Government would negotiate settlements. After the pipelines had been approved, the Government simply stopped negotiating. One band — Standing Buffalo in Saskatchewan — fought the action all the way through the Federal Court of Canada, and was refused a hearing before the Supreme Court. (Again, not having proved the comprehensive claim first was a fatal weakness.)

    At least one band in Saskatchewan (White Cap) and two in Mantoba (Birdtail and Dakota Tipi) were bought off by the Federal Govermment with favourable programs, while the others were sidlined mostly by being too disorganized. However, three in Manitoba (Canupwakpa, Sioux Valley and Dakota Palins Wahpeton) launched a new court case — this time arguing the comprehensive claim to “prove” that the Dakota people qualify as “Canadian aboriginal.” This last case is the one I spent more than two years on, and which is now before the Federal Court of Canada.

    The difference in tactics this time between the three Manitoba bands, and what Standing Buffalo tried before is that Standing Buffalo’s case required that the court assume as a given that there was such a thing as a Dakota traditional territory, and while they used oral history very well, they did not corroborate the oral history with historical or textual evidence. The present case’s tactics is to prove the issue of traditional territory first, by using oral history as the outline narrative framework into which the textual evidence is then interpreted.

    … made possible by Enbridge Oil.


  2. Oglala Lakota set conditions for Keystone XL…/3653-oglala-lakota-set-conditions-for-keystone-xl-pip…
    8 hours ago – s planned Keystone XL Pipeline prompted Oglala Sioux Tribal President John Yellow Bird Steele to call a meeting with federal and corporate …

    The issue of this oil pipeline… which is NOT Canadian owned, (one should be aware of this fact, it is US owned or by someone else, NOT CANADA)
    …though, Tetuwans in Canada have been manipulated by Government Canada to allow this on their lands in Canada, US Tetuwan Nations are opposing it being built through their US Treaty lands…maybe why Obama signed the Executive Order earlier this year that any privately owned rural lands & 1st Nations Reservation lands could be seized by the Feds for US interests…who actually owns TransCanada should be addressed!


  3. It said the State Department “refused to look at the most important safety issues, such as how to avoid spills like we’ve had in the Gulf, the Kalamazoo River, the Yellowstone River, and from TransCanada’s Keystone I pipeline.

    “Even if there were no safety or environmental problems, the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest, because the Keystone XL pipeline is an export pipeline,” WORC said. It urged members to “Tell President Obama not to approve a pipeline that means taking land from U.S. farmers and ranchers so multinational oil companies can export more oil products overseas.

    WHO OWNS THE TRANSCANADA PIPELINE….It certainly is NOT CANADA, who does own it…
    ask that question before believing it is an export pipeline owned by Canada.


Comments are closed.