The cottagers have been told to vacate the buildings by the end of January. According to the Globe, "more jarring was the issue of building ownership: "You are not allowed to remove or dismantle any structures affixed to the land," said the letter, signed by Leea Litzgus, the department's Ontario director of lands and trusts services."
The cottagers feel that the buildings are theirs, because as the Owen Sound Sun Times reports:
Those leases with INAC direct that tenants receive 12 months notice if the land is to become unavailable for cottage rental purposes. They also give cottagers the right within 30 days to remove any buildings they erected on the leased land, after which they would become the property of the Crown.
Instead, and despite years of INAC assurances - one in an e-mail as recently as last November - that negotiations toward new leases were proceeding, the cottagers in a December letter from INAC were abruptly ordered out and given until Jan. 31 to collect their belongings.
INAC spokesman Brock Worobel said Wednesday the federal government does not have a position on cottage ownership, and he would not discuss terms of the expired leases with INAC on behalf of the First Nation land holders.
"The First Nation is of the opinion that the cottages are theirs," Worobel said. "We do not have a position on who owns the cottages and that needs to be decided in a court of law."
The Hope Bay cottagers are taking a very non-confrontational approach to this frustrating situation. They are appealing for meetings and discussion from both sides, but so far without results.
This conflict is far different from Caledonia inasmuch as the land is not in dispute. However, given the poor track record of both levels of government on that file, I can only wish the cottages of Hope Bay the patience of Job with regards to its resolution.
* * * *
46 comments:
Anyone who conducts business or makes any kind of deal with aboriginals is gambling with their money. Aboriginals are not subject to the law, they are above it, everyone should be aware of that by now, so if Canadians lose money or property to aboriginals - it's their own fault, we should have no sympathy for them.
Enlightenment abounds!
Anon... you are wrong, and somewhat of a callous fuck I might add.
In fact, any time you do business with the First Nations, you employ what is referred to as a "BCR", which stands for a "Band Council Resolution", which will allow you remedy depending on your situation, and is always done in advance of any business with the First Nations in question.
Secondly Joanne, I sympathize with you.
I'll tell you a story about a fellow, and what he did when all seemed lost in a similar situation, many years ago now:
This fellow and his family, we can call him Joe Montana for the purpose of the tale, once owned an A-frame cottage on the shores of Lower St. Mary's lake abreast of Glacier National Park.
It was your typical A-Frame,right out of a cottage country catolog, built completely from scrap lumber and fittings.
The entire inside and outside was cedar shaked, from the bottom to the top of the place, and in the middle inside was a wonderful fireplace 8 feet in diameter, with a hood rigged to a pully system which allowed you to raise or lower it depending on how much heat you wanted from the fire. It had a nice, large propane tank on the side of the structure, so that if you didn't want a fire, you could just use central heating, and of course there is nothing quite like a hot shower in the morning. All the comforts of home at the lake.
It was an pure and evil deathtrap, but one hell of a lot of fun to live in for Joe Montana. His friends and family had years and years of incredible memories stored up that shithole.
Joe Montana's Father held a 50 year lease on the land from the Blackfoot tribe, and went there every summer and on winter weekends because it was only 2 and half hours from Calgary...
Great fishing, great boating, water so clean you could see straight to the bottom 200 feet below, and so fucking cold a fellows balls jumped into his throat if so much as a toe hit the water... glacier fed lake of course.
Anyway, one day the Blackfoot had a vote for a new Chief and Council, roughly 20 years into the lease, and low and behold a new Chief and Council with a new agenda was elected for the first time in a decade.
Unfortunately, all those new councillors decided that they wanted lake front property, and they choose to attempt to change the price of the lease arrangements as a means of forcing the cottage dwellers out.
Needless to say, Joe Montana and a few of his drinking buddies cottage neighbors got together, hired a lawyer, and sued the band for breach of contract... and won.
This, needless to say, did nothing to endear Joe Montana to the local Indians, so they went an hired a Lawyer to help them oust the lakeshore dwellers.
Turns out the Band Council had the right to rescind the lease agreements by a unanimous vote of the council, after a pleblicite by the band.
Well, they succeeded, and promptly informed Joe Montana that he had 90 days to evacuate the property, and that everything on the property had been confiscated by the band. The structure, the dock, the boat attached to the dock, everything must be left intact.
Well... Joe had a hell of a temper back then, and was not one to lose gracefully, especially where it concerned his boat.
So one day he got together with another friend, who was also Blackfoot, and also happened to be an ex-vietnam vet. This fellow was a trained demolitionist, and one hell of a good drinking buddy. They cheerfully got hammered up together and Joe spent the night explaining that this would be the last time he'd be around the lake to get drunk and party with his friend.
Well, this was one Indian who didn't happen to agree with the Band Council, and was sorely upset to lose a friend of 20 years to politics and corrupt council members, and he vowed that he would not forget what was done to his friend.
After a lot of man-crying, hugging, and vows never to forget their friendship, Joe took off for Calgary, and never returned.
Needless to say, about a week after that get-to-gether, Joe Montana informed his wife that he was going to the bar, and wasn't sure when he'd be home. Mrs. Montana was very upset because Joe in fact didn't come home until the next day, smelling like booze and dirty as hell, with the owner of the bar he frequented, and a few of his friends from the lake.
Couple of days later, the sheriff of the county in which Joes cottage had been located, phoned Joes house wanting to speak to him. Unfortunately, Joe wasn't home, so the Sheriff informed Mrs. Montana that there had been an explosion at their cottage, and it had burned for 2 days, taking several of the neighbors cabins along with it. The sheriff wanted to know if he should salvage the remains of the boat, which had blown up and sank off the dock, or just leave it for Joe to look after.
Well, needless to say, Joe was surprised to hear about what happened, and phoned the sheriff and asked if there was any real reason to bother coming down, to which the sheriff replied that the fire had burned everything to the ground, and nothing was left. Joe made arrangements to give the boat to the sheriff in return for any clean up costs, and then phoned his insurance company to report what had happened.
Somehow, according to the insurance adjuster, the propane tank on the side of the cottage had blown up, perhaps from a leak or lightening strike, they weren't sure. Regardless, Joe got a cheque for $150,000.00 US in replacement costs, and the Band Council got a big fucking burnt out hole in the ground.
Moral of the story: There's more than one way to skin a rabbit.
Thats how the tale was told me Joanne, and thats how I'm telling it to you, so if you know anyone at risk in Hope Bay, let them know the fight is never over until they say it's over.
Nasty! Annon...makes me wonder just how much you actually know about doing business with native bands!
I believe you posted on this topic i December Jo..or was it you?
It's not a cut and dried situation there but as said earlier on the topic...
If I was in that situation I think there'd be gasoline involved in the resolution!
Right you are Joe Calgary!
We're all sitting here with bated breath for enlightenment now, Red Tory, after you've read Joe Calgary's story.....tick..tock...tick....tock....still no enlightenment.....hmmm
red tory - I am still waiting for your opinion on the fairness or unfairness of the situation described in Joanne's post. And, yes, I do believe treaties are signed contracts that all of us should live up to.
Joe Calgary, I rarely let anyone use the f-word here. Just a quirk of mine. On the other hand I know that you seriously reined yourself in with the language so I'll let it stand this time. ;)
Cute story. The Hope Bay cottagers would likely not get this opportunity because nobody can get in without a native escort and videotape.
Yeah, only used the "F" word twice... well, I've got a cold, so perhaps I'm a little off today. My thanks for your graciousness though:)
well, I've got a cold, so perhaps I'm a little off today
lol!! Get well soon, Joe Calgary.
Maybe his head exploded! Or maybe he got a job! Maybe both!
RT phone home!
QUOTE Anonymous said...
Anyone who conducts business or makes any kind of deal with aboriginals is gambling with their money. Aboriginals are not subject to the law, they are above it, everyone should be aware of that by now, so if Canadians lose money or property to aboriginals - it's their own fault, we should have no sympathy for them. END QUOTE
With that logic then no one should ever get married or rent an apartment then either! What would you say to a 40 year marriage that was GREAT right up until your spouse said that she hated you and wanted you out today.
That's exactly how we cottagers feel at the moment. Bewildered, and angry are just a few words that I can use to sum up what our "marriage" has become.
If you have never lived the good life we have enjoyed with the natives in the past then you certainly can't speak about "it serving us right". As well the law is THE LAW whether or not you're indian or not. If they steal from you, either them or the government is gonna pay for it. (monitarily)
Of that there is no question as our lease is a legal and binding agreement.
Regards
Cottage owner, Hope Bay
To Hope Bay Anon - I hear your pain and frustration and I feel sorry for you, but given the way the OPP and the McGuinty government deal with native issues, I don't hold a lot of hope (sorry) for your situation.
It is indeed strange that things have been so civil up until lately. One would wonder why the change in attitude?
Natives do feel that they are above the law (at least those in the Caledonia dispute do). The OPP does nothing to dispel that perception.
I wonder what would happen in a court challenge. I'm guessing that McGuinty would do whatever it took to placate all concerned (i.e taxpayes' money).
The last thing he wants at re-election time is a lot of publicity about unhappy natives, Caledonia residents and cottagers.
Hmmm. An anonymous dickwad is giving me a facetious tick-tock countdown... Well, I’d better get on that right way! Look, you can stop bashing me because as I’ve said before this issue really doesn’t interest me in the slightest bit whatsoever. Why Joanne harps on about this stuff is beyond me. I guess because it gets folks stirred up.
I responded to the initial comment made that struck me as being remarkably ignorant and, dare I say it, bigoted. I’m not sure what the deal is in your neck of the woods, but here there are plenty of aboriginal bands who are open for business and lots of them are pretty damn good at it too – veritable entrepreneurial wizards. And I’m not just talking about casinos. So that was the limited sum and substance of my comment. No need for a tic-tock counter, no need to challenge me to go do a pile of research. My point was simply that aboriginals are not all shiftless, lawless dipshits.
Now, back to your regular programming...
Oh I don't think that there are too many of us holding out any hope that we will be back "in" our cottages. The band ain't talkin' to anyone!
You wonder why we were so civil up until lately? It's called biting our tongue. Obviously if we came out 6 shooters firing we woulda been done immediately. By keeping it civil we were hoping to get extensions to the January 31st eviction date so that we didn't have to contend with moving with snow on the ground. Luckily for all of us we have had the winter we've had so far.
Many of us believe that there will be no extension given at all because of the stance of the chief. Still no one knows what his motives are. We also hear that his people are not rallying behind him. He may just find himself out of a position when the next election for Chief comes this summer.
You may be right (as Caledonia is showing) that the natives think they are above the law. The point is though that we will get our money out of this at fair market value. (before all of this started)
There is absolutely no way in a court of law that they could see it any other way. The government WILL BE picking up the tab on this I gaurantee! They have been the ones that have been handling all the leases and documentation for the last 40 years so it's an easy one for us on who we target will legal action. (even if it isn't the governments fault).
Heck I bet if you look at it right, you could right this off as a capital loss at tax time!
It's gonna be an interesting ride at any rate.
Keep your eyes peeled in the next few days as there are 2 more articles coming out in the KW Record and the Toronto Star regarding this matter.
Red Tory "Look, you can stop bashing me because as I’ve said before this issue really doesn’t interest me in the slightest bit whatsoever. Why Joanne harps on about this stuff is beyond me. I guess because it gets folks stirred up."
But not Red Tory....read the rest of his rant. (chuckle)....he is so very very logical and enlightened. What would the world be without him to enlighten the rest of us???? tsk tsk...
QUOTE Anonymous said...
Anyone who conducts business or makes any kind of deal with aboriginals is gambling with their money. Aboriginals are not subject to the law, they are above it, everyone should be aware of that by now, so if Canadians lose money or property to aboriginals - it's their own fault, we should have no sympathy for them. END QUOTE
With that logic then no one should ever get married or rent an apartment then either! What would you say to a 40 year marriage that was GREAT right up until your spouse said that she hated you and wanted you out today.
That's exactly how we cottagers feel at the moment. Bewildered, and angry are just a few words that I can use to sum up what our "marriage" has become.
If you have never lived the good life we have enjoyed with the natives in the past then you certainly can't speak about "it serving us right". As well the law is THE LAW whether or not you're indian or not. If they steal from you, either them or the government is gonna pay for it. (monitarily)
Of that there is no question as our lease is a legal and binding agreement.
Regards
Cottage owner, Hope Bay
sorry for the double post.
Cottage owner, Hope Bay...
I think it's great that someone directly involved has contributed here!
Can you tell us how the business of the recent ultimatum to get your stuff by the end of the month came about?
And what is the reasoning behind the natives apparent desire to appropriate the cottages?
Cottage owner, Hope Bay...
I think it's great that someone directly involved has contributed here!
Can you tell us how the business of the recent ultimatum to get your stuff by the end of the month came about?
And what is the reasoning behind the natives apparent desire to appropriate the cottages?
Cottage owner, Hope Bay...
I think it's great that someone directly involved has contributed here!
Can you tell us how the business of the recent ultimatum to get your stuff by the end of the month came about?
And what is the reasoning behind the natives apparent desire to appropriate the cottages?
PGP is stuck on stupid again or his keyboard just broke...
Double posts, triple posts - no worries.
It's all good.
Anon Dickwad -- But not Red Tory....read the rest of his rant. (chuckle)....he is so very very logical and enlightened. What would the world be without him to enlighten the rest of us???? tsk tsk...
My initial response was a simple remark that consisted of two words. How was the follow-up stating that all aborginals are not shiftless, lawless people a "rant" exactly?
There is absolutely no way in a court of law that they could see it any other way. The government WILL BE picking up the tab on this I gaurantee! They have been the ones that have been handling all the leases and documentation for the last 40 years so it's an easy one for us on who we target will legal action. (even if it isn't the governments fault).
I think you'll have more luck taking the government to court than the natives. Nobody but nobody would dare cross the natives these days. I'm suprised the rest of us are still all allowed to stay in this country!
Another aboriginal "negotiator" in action...
"Call me wacky... but when your best alternative to a negotiated agreement is shutting down legitimate businesses and threatening to kill people... isn't it time to back up a little and punt?"
*
If the consensus here seems to be that the Indians live outside the law, I was just wondered what law it is that they are exempt from? I mean, I understand there were leases, but that they all ended in 1995! I also understand that the cottagers all bought permits last spring which all expressly ended in October of last year. So, where is the surprise? How is it unfair for them to take possession of their land after the leases and permits expired?
How is it unfair for them to take possession of their land after the leases and permits expired?
I don't think anyone is questioning the natives' right to the land, Anon.
The issue is the buildings themselves.
In other media reports, the cottagers say their leases gave them 30 days from the end of the lease to remove their buildings, otherwise, they lose the building. The leases ended 12 years ago and no one removed their buildings. When the Crown sold the cottagers a permit last spring and told them their leases were over, still, no one removed their buildings. So, again, why is it unfair for the Band to keep the buildings? Are they not just following the agreement the cottagers themselves signed?
In other media reports, the cottagers say their leases gave them 30 days from the end of the lease to remove their buildings, otherwise, they lose the building. The leases ended 12 years ago and no one removed their buildings.
That's the first time I've heard of this. Do you have any references or links? Thanks.
Globe and Mail - "Hope runs out in cottage country"
January 10, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.ca/servlet/story/LAC.20070110.COTTAGES10/TPStory/?query=hope+cottage
"Specifically, the leases always acknowledged cottagers' ownership of their buildings and the right to remove them within a month of termination. "
There was also a piece in the Owen Sound Suntime from last Wednesday, which stated the same.
Anon, I did see those articles. So are you saying that the cottagers should have known to take the buildings off the land in the spring? Were they specifically informed to do so?
Well, if you knew you had 30 days from the and of your lease to take you building or lose it, and the Crown wrote you a letter saying the lease was over, what would you do? Would you blame the Indians if you failed to act?
Whatever the case may be, perhaps some of the above commentators may find that they have prejudged the issue. Specifically, it seems many have cast judgements without knowing all of the facts.
if you knew you had 30 days from the and of your lease to take you building or lose it, and the Crown wrote you a letter saying the lease was over, what would you do?
I don't think I'd be dismantling my cottage right away. I think I would be trying to contact the Crown and the native band to get the facts. If there was no letter issued specifically saying to get the building off the land in 30 days, I think I'd be hoping that negotiations would produce a new lease agreement.
Where are the lawyers in all this? Does the native side have a lawyer showing that the cottagers were given due warning to remove the buildings?
I personally have no vested interest in this. I don't have a cottage and I don't know anyone who does.
But if the natives are concerned about image, it is important to be seen as playing fair.
During the term of the lease, perhaps that is true. But afterward, isn’t that just gambling?
You say the cottagers heard nothing from the Crown or the Band. Is it really realistic to expect someone to write them and say, “Hey! You know that term of the lease you signed? The one which gives you the option to move your cottage or lose it? Well, you really should exercise that clause, because if you don’t, the building will belong to the Indians.”
Imagine this was about parking a car. Bob signs a contract with Colin which allows Colin to park his car in Bob’s yard. But if Colin leaves it there for more than 30 days after the end of the contract, then the contract says Bob can keep the car. One day Bob writes Colin a letter saying the contract is over. Do you really expect Bob to write another letter in 29 days telling Colin to move the car? If more than 30 days had passed, would it be ‘unfair’ for Bob to keep the car? What if 12 years had passed? You mentioned public image, and I wonder, what would you tell Bob?
Anon, it would be a matter for the courts to resolve. However, I think it would have been a show of good will for Colin to give Bob a warning via registered letter before taking the vehicle.
On the other hand, perhaps Bob was being somewhat naive to sign the agreement in the first place.
So, as a show of good will, you would just give away a car? I applaud the sentiment, but suspect most people aren’t that affluent.
Also, if the issue is unclear enough that a court will be needed to decide the matter, then perhaps the Band is not “above the law.”
To me, I think there are other sides to many of these issues. For example, I re-read some of the above notes, and I wanted to add a ‘fun fact’ to the discussion.
You know, of course, that if a Band has a land claim they can submit it to Government for consideration and possible negotiation. A nice, civilized way to resolve a dispute.
Did you also know that it takes AT LEAST 5 years just to have a lawyer from Justice appointed to read your claim? And, that waiting 10 years to have a government lawyer appointed is not unheard of? Submit your claim, and wait 5 to 10 years for an initial response.
These cottagers have waited less than 2 months to hear from someone and they are telling stories of burning down buildings. Imaging if they had to wait 10 years!
So, as a show of good will, you would just give away a car? I applaud the sentiment, but suspect most people aren’t that affluent.
Sorry, I think I got Colin & Bob mixed up in your example.
Well, this debate is now in the archives, so let me just say that I agree that native land resolutions move at an incredibly slow pace, which is frustrating for all concerned.
This case is not a land claim of course. It is more of a building claim. I'm guessing that the government will end up compensating the cottagers in some fashion for the lost structures.
When I said that natives are above the law, it was with reference to Caledonia, where the native protestors have come right out and said that. ie they have their own law and don't have to adhere to Canada's.
I think the natives in Hope Bay should do a bit better PR job with the media to try to get across their side.
Having said that, I have no financial interest in any of this. I hope that some kind of fair resolution comes about for all concerned. But thanks very much for your input. It's been quite interesting.
I have to wonder if the cottagers were allowed to remove the buildings, would they?
First of all, it wouldn't be easy to remove the building, remember they would be able to destroy the lot/trees etc to get them out.
Secondly, it would expect it to be expensive, especially if it is to be moved any distance.
Finally, one would need to buy a lot, put in a foundation, etc to put the building on.
Also, there would be cleanup costs... Wells to cap, septic system that might need to also be removed, etc
I have to wonder if the cottagers were allowed to remove the buildings, would they?
I guess you would have to ask them.
I have to wonder if the cottagers were allowed to remove the buildings, would they?
First of all, it wouldn't be easy to remove the building, remember they would be able to destroy the lot/trees etc to get them out.
Secondly, it would expect it to be expensive, especially if it is to be moved any distance.
Finally, one would need to buy a lot, put in a foundation, etc to put the building on.
Also, there would be cleanup costs... Wells to cap, septic system that might need to also be removed, etc
There are some interesting points in this topic at the following cite:
http://sbp.teledyn.com/node/675
Thanks anon at 10:16:11 AM EST.
Very interesting indeed. Good points in the Comments section as well (for both sides).
Also, here:
http://www.therecord.com/home_page_front_story/home_page_front_story_938807.html
It would be helpful if the various anonymous people could identify themselves with a number or penname or something. The only number already taken is anonymous #83. Thanks.
from anon #1
i was the 1st anon poster (and cottage owner). for any of the non believers that think the cottagers sat on their duffs for 12 years with their thumb up their a$$ i got news for ya....
the government has been promising us a lease for ALL of that time! as a matter of fact the lease is done, with at least one copy of it in the hands of a cottage owner (in draft format). as well the band voted IN FAVOUR of ratifying the new lease. it was COUNCIL that didn't send it through.
as you can see none of this is the cottagers fault, or the band's fault (as a whole) or really the governments fault either. the blame falls squarely on the band council.
if you think i am making any of it up i guess you'll have to wait until the chief opens his yapper and qualifies me. i wonder why he hasn't said anything yet? hmmm. (maybe it's because he knows he's wrong)
it will be interesting to see if the chief gets re-elected in july.. hmmm.
Blame… it is understandable you would want to find someone to blame; other than yourself. I think the swearing, disrespect and belittling the First Nation’s leadership is also understandable, though regrettable.
As to the election, politics is always quite interesting. How that changes your situation, however, is not clear to me. Do you expect a new Chief to be elected on the platform, "Give away the cottages! Charge Low Rents!"
Post a Comment