Monday, December 05, 2011

Daily Digest December 4 - 5, 2011




Vacation airlift wasn't MacKay's first search-and-rescue flight in region
Defence Minister Peter MacKay has defended a controversial 2010 Canadian Forces chopper airlift
from a Newfoundland fishing camp as a rare chance to see search-and-rescue crews practice their craft –
a story since contradicted by military email records.
Peter MacKay says no helicopter 'retasked' to fly him

Seven things we learned from the first NDP leadership debate
      Paul Dewar and Robert Chisolm need to work on their French,
Nathan Cullen distinguishes himself with humour
and Peggy Nash may win this thing.
Tim Harper: Gloves stay on in polite NDP debate debut
Wherry: The Commons: First impressions hastily made
Leadership candidates play nice in both languages
NDP leadership hopefuls sell vision for economy in first debate
First NDP leadership debate fails to shake up race; no big winners, losers  



Though the 9/11 attacks occurred more than a decade ago, Congress continues to exploit them to pass evermore draconian laws on "terrorism,"
with the Senate now empowering the military to arrest people on U.S. soil and hold them without trial, a serious threat to American liberties,
says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
For the full story, go to:
$7.7 Trillion to Wall Street - Anything to Keep the Banksters Happy!
Thom Hartmann, Truthout: "Do you know who Elizabeth Duke is? How about Donald Kohn or Kevin Warsh? No? Well - you should. Because while Congress was debating back in 2008 whether or not to bailout banksters with a $700 billion blank check - these guys and girls were just doing it. They were funneling $7.7 trillion to Wall Street under the table - without one constituent phone call - without worrying about one election - without having to give one explanation."
Read the Article

>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<<



From: Jeff Bogaerts
Subject: 2001 Health Care Salaries Ontario

Hmmm. Wonder what the 2011 figures would be, eh?
From: Larry Kazdan
To: Letters Editor
Subject: Letter to Editor re: Military did not mislead on MacKay flight: spokesman, December 3, 2011, Ashley Fitzpatrick 

Re: Military did not mislead on MacKay flight: spokesman, December 3, 2011, Ashley Fitzpatrick

Peter MacKay, winched by a chopper,
explains it with a great big whopper.
Says it was just for training -
a belief that requires some straining.
Actually it's just a "guise",
truth it seems is otherwise.
He's an important VIP,
and so deserves an aerial taxi.
Peter MacKay, our frequent flyer,
admit you're such a  frequent liar!

From: Ray Strachan
Subject: Couple of Comments

(Welcome back Joe)
On the question of how entangled do we want Harper to take us to ensure the loss of Our Sovereignty to The USA
There was a small sampling in a poll by The Calgary Herald Dec 2.
Yes, closer ties , 18.18 percent.
No, closer ties, 81.82 percent.
Even if this was a cross country poll with the same percentages,   what could we suppose it would mean to The Conservative Government of Canada.???
Another unrelated topic,
Article in Saskatoon Star Phoenix by Ken Rosaansen quoting a Professor of The College of Agriculture  ,University of Saskatchewan,
The abandonment of The Single Desk Canadian Wheat Board will cost Canadian  Farmers from between 400 and 600 Million Dollars in lost revenues.
In actuality the two articles are related.  Mr. Harper acts simply as Judge and Executioner. Forget the voting aspect .
Oh, and I swear to God it is not MY numbers that are contained in the above articles.
Ray Strachan

From: Mahmood Elahi
To: "Kate Malloy" <>
Subject: Fw: To stem domination by a single province, Ontario should forego more seats

Ms Kate Malloy
Editor, The Hill Times
Copy to: Hon. Marc Garneau MP: You are right to oppose increasing number of seats in the House of Commons on the basis of population. It will only add to the domination of Canada's most populous province of Ontario. As inventors of democracy --- the ancient Athenians --- had shown us democracy is not simply about majority rule. It is also about public participation in the political process and about protecting the minority.
               Mr. Duff Conacher, Founder of Democracy Watch.
To stem domination by a single province, Ontario should forego more seats
Re "Conservative, NDP find common enemy in Liberal proposal to keep House at 308," (Nov. 28).
Canada's small population of 33 million are heavily concentrated in Ontario (13 million) and to a much lesser extent in Quebec (7 million). As a result, Ontario dominates the electoral process. It may be recalled that the Liberals, led by Jean Chretien, formed three back-to-back majorities by winning 100 of Ontario's then 103 seats, despite losing most seats to the Reform/CA in the West and to the Bloc in Quebec. After sweeping Canada's most populous province, the Liberals needed only marginal seats elsewhere to form a majority. Similarly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper formed his first majority government by winning more seats in Ontario that total number of seats he won in the West. Again, Ontario decided the outcome of the election.
With Ontario already dominating the electoral process, allowing it more seats because of growing population will further skew the electoral process. If democracy is mainly about representation by population (rep by pop), then our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system that allowed Mr. Harper to form his majority government despite winning only 40 per cent of popular support is not democratic.
However, democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. When the inventors of democracy --- the ancient Athenians --- allowed the majority to rule, the poor majority imposed heavy taxes on the rich minority. To stem any tyranny of the majority, they created the Athens Council, composed of 500 citizens chosen through lottery to represent a cross-section of the people. The Athens Council had the power to override any decision that ignored legitimate concerns of the minority.
As we don't have any non-partisan citizen's forum to counter any tyranny of the majority, allowing more seats on the basis of rep by pop will only add to the domination of the most populous province. To stem such domination by most populous states, the United States allows 2 seats each in the elected Senate to all states irrespective of the size of their population. This is why Alaska, with only half a million people, has the same number of Senate seats as California with 30 million people. Without such equal representation in the Senate, states with smaller population would have little voice.  Allowing Ontario more seats on the basis of rep by pop will only add to its total domination. In fact, for the sake of balance, we should alow more seats to the Maritime provinces than their population warrant. For the sake of balance, Ontario should forego any increase in its already huge number of seats in the House of Commons.

From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: Van Loan's defence of dirty tricks debases Tories and degrades democracy

Joe--when I first glanced at the picture of Harper I thought he was behind bars(not a bad thing?) but then realized it was Harper behind bars but not prison bars but behind the bars of his controllers--those who call the shots for our 'government'!

Why is anyone surprised that one Party works against the other rather than working for Canadians?  This is smoke and mirrors and anyone that pays attention is falling into the game playing.  Where did all the money for that Reserve go?  That isn't as important as phone calls? 

I am happy that the young are not voting--that shows they have more common sense that we do.  They refuse to play a stupid game that they pay for.  Voting is not democracy any longer--it is just another smoke and mirrors game to make us believe we have democracy.  Maybe there is hope for Canada?  At least the young people are not so easily fooled.

ps--welcome back Joe--you were missed!

From: "Jim Calvert"
Subject: Re: Daily Digest December 3, 2011

Welcome back Joe:
The rant about the government controlling the press, quoted from the StarPhoenix really says a lot more than they intended doesn't it?
The editorials that appear in this space represent the opinion of The StarPhoenix. They are unsigned because they do not necessarily represent the personal views of the writers. The positions taken in the editorials are arrived at through discussion among the members of the newspaper's editorial board, which operates independently from the news departments of the paper.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Apparently its a mortal sin for Prime Ministers and governments to try to control bureaucrats and the press...
But it's ok for the senior management at the StarPhoenix to dictate what the editorial writers will be allowed to write!
Sounds like the same thing to me.
I have always felt that the bureaucrats need to be controlled. We get to elect the government but then they are stuck with whoever is left in place in the bureaucracy. If the elected representatives want to change something the are dragged into the dirt by the media for partisan control.
I think it's time for a whole lot more changes to unelected positions so the people know when they change the government, there will actually be some change.
Jim Calvert
Parry Sound Muskoka

From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: CWB bill will require sober thought    DD

Joe--what people don't understand is the control Cargill, Monsanto et al have over the farmers and the CWB did nothing to protect the farmers from this but went along with the game.  Obviously Cargill et al already own all areas of farming

Farming's New Feudalism
Farming's New Feudalism
Percy Schmeiser and Other Casualties of Industrial Agriculture's Drive to Own It All

Like thousands of others in southern Germany in the late 19th century, Karl and Anna Schmeiser worked long, hard days farming a baron's vast tracts of land to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. The baron owned the land, the draft animals, the equipment, and most of the crop—more or less as barons before him had since the Middle Ages. Also like thousands, Karl and Anna dreamed of a better life, and in 1890 they scraped together every last pfennig and left Germany forever, taking ship to the United States. Seeking cheap land and independence, they eventually moved northward to the prairies of western Canada, settling in Saskatchewan in 1904.

A century later, the land is no longer so cheap. The independence Karl and Anna found is threatened too, as grandson Percy Schmeiser and his wife Louise discovered in 1998. That's when Monsanto Corporation sued them after their canola seed was found to contain the company's patented, herbicide-resistant genes.* The case generated worldwide headlines, and an uncertain future for many farmers. Although the Schmeisers ultimately didn't have to pay Monsanto, the courts did find them guilty of patent infringement. The fact that a transnational corporation would persecute small farmers is troubling to many, and shows the depth and breadth of a decades-long transformation: the steady erosion of farmers' practice of developing and saving seeds. "Neither I nor my parents or grandparents ever envisioned farmers losing control of their seed," Schmeiser says.

Moreover, that's just the tip of the canola stalk. The privatization of seed is but one part of the steady consolidation of economic power throughout agriculture. Large agro-industrial and retail corporations have now secured toeholds in every phase of the farming cycle: they own seed and seed patents, they control processing facilities, they dominate the retail sector, and they have even moved into financing farmers' operations. It's as if the barons have arisen from the grave and brought the old feudal system back with them. The corporations that control poultry and hog farming have already reduced many livestock farmers to contract labor, and grain farmers like Percy Schmeiser seem headed for the same fate.
 .  .  .
From: Beverley Smith <>
Subject: Re: Daily Digest December 3, 2011
To: Joe Hueglin <>

Welcome back-
There has been a lot on my issue
-some schools banned playing ball
-a few kids committed suicide due to bullying
-a kid from the school a block away overdosed on Ecstasy at a house party and died

I thought I'd do a perspective that is a bit more global.
Here it is


Basic needs

It is interesting to see programs about nurturing kids, with their goal of healthy bab\ies, healthy neighborhoods, kids not at risk, kids with 'high quality' early education. Who could object? Those are obviously good things, like world peace or a cure for cancer.

But the way to get there is not necessarily the one being promoted.  What do kids in fact need?  There are 3 answers I've run across that are worth considering

Abraham Maslow in 1943 in his book A Theory of Human Motivation said our most basic need is survival- food, water, sleep. The next one, after that one is met, is safety. The third is love, friendship. The higher level need of esteem, feeling respected is topped off by the last one, the lucky-if-you-get it one of self-esteem, creativity.

That all sounds logical at least at first. We give babies food, clothing, shelter and they survive.  Childcare centres have been scrambling recently to address what kind of food to give. Schools have banned junk food and many kids just walk down the street at noon to the nearest 7-11.  Parents who see kids have special dietary needs have raised concerns about respecting the type of food their child will bring though and even meeting a basic need like food is not all that easy. With budget challenged schools that contract out for food services, there have been complaints in the US about discount food not really being that nutritious.  This July a roach was found in an Orlando high school and in 2004 students fell sick with salmonella poisoning.  Putting aside those isolated problems, Stats Canada found in 2005 that one third of Canadian elementary students have food allergies, especially in the categories of peanuts, milk, eggs, tree nuts, wheat, soy, sesame seed and seafood.

But let's say we do meet that food need.. They we look at the safety one. We give kids a safe crib, playpen, room, playground.  Most childcare centres and schools work in area two.  If toddlers walk away from the centre as they did recently from one facility in Markham near Toronto or another in West Mifflin Pennsylvania scare parents silly for need two was not met.  We have recent controversy about banning hard balls from playgrounds in Earl Beatty public school in East York.   In February this year inspectors at a school in Moorestown New Jersey decided the 30 year old school playground must cut branches off all its trees so that the bottom seven feet of trunk were bare, for child safety. The kids used to play with the twigs but now, no. Not safe apparently.

Then we move up the third need - love.  Is this a need that only matters once the bottom two are fine / I beg to differ with Maslow on that one.  In Britain during world war two, babies were at great risk of dying during the bombing but researchers found that they suffered nearly no long-term ill effects of the trauma as long as through it all, even when evacuated and moved around, they remained with their mothers. For those babies, being with their mother was apparently need number one.

We do see that actually don't we? The need for love is so profound that even those who have lots of food and money commit suicide if they feel rejected by someone close. Why is that? Are they not then saying that the need for love is even  more basic to them than the need for food?  Many of us teachers are concerned at the high dropout rate from schools across the country.  Research has shown that often the kids who drop out are not actually doing that poorly in all subjects.  Their reasons for leaving are more often because they don't feel that school is an accepting place for them. When we hear of recent suicides of bullied students we are reminded again that the need for love and respect is for some kids way more basic than the need for food.  So Maslow is not completely right.

The second standard of needs though is a little lighter.   Sophie Tucker, born in 1886 and living to age 80, once said, "From birth to age eighteen, a girl needs good parents. From eighteen to thirty-five she needs good looks. From thirty-five to fifty-five, she needs a good personality. From fifty-five on, she needs good cash."

By that standard the needs shift over the course of a life and, one assumes, beyond basic survival needs, to get ahead a woman needs love, attractiveness, personality and money.  Tucker's observation about how the world judges women is tongue-in-cheek cynical but not necessarily inaccurate. The tabloids certainly choose for their covers women in the 18-35 demographic.  Awards for character, drive, personality tend to go to the 35-55 year olds.  She's not actually wrong.  But even she noticed that at the base is love, connection, having had good parents. She may mean 'connected and wealthy parents' but she may also have meant parents good at parenting, loving parents.

Often we hear of millionaires and inventors who rose to greatness from humble roots.  In fact you don't often hear of the very successful who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Why not? It may be that the root of real success in life, in terms of being creative, hanging in their despite obstacles, setting a goal and pursuing it, come from not the money you came from but the love and encouragement you came from.  Steve Jobs came from very humble roots. So did Wayne Gretzky.  So did in fact most of the people we greatly admire, and among kids that even includes Justin Bieber. What did they have?  Parents who cared.

What kids  need at the base is love, attention.  This is not something schools can offer. It is not something even daycares can offer, and what big institutions will give are the Maslow needs for one and two but not level three - and level three, it turns out, is actually level one.

There is another saying about what people need though.  It's about worrying. The saying goes "If you don't have money, you worry about food. If you have food, you worry about sex. If you have money and food and sex, you worry about health. If all of those are working for you, you worry about dying"  It is an interesting listing.

It implies again that basic survival comes first - food - and in our society money usually means money to buy food, clothing, shelter, the basics.  The second need in that list though is sex. That is code for attractiveness, and like Tucker's need stage two of life.

The third need identified though is health.  That's an interesting priority is it not?  It suggests that we can endure  poor health if the other two needs are being met, if we have enough food and survival needs are met, and if we feel close to at least someone.    So even though Maslow may have said that health is need number two, along with safety, it may be that in the real world, people every day endure illness, from colds to cancer, and are able to smile because for them they feel loved and that is a much more basic need than health.

I have sat by the bedside of some very seriously ill people.  My daughter at age 6 after serious kidney surgery, another daughter at age 4 with a fever of 40 and doctors mystified about why, my father after a serious heart attack.  In those moments there is no thought of money, food, clothing, shelter, nothing except love.  Love is the only thing that matters for survival if you get right down to it. and I like the saying" People with a why to live can bear almost any 'how'.

So when we look at how to give our best to kids, how to ensure their basic needs are met and that we even provide more than they need to give ethem the best we have, we must not ignore love.  If we give them food, shelter, safety however extremely diligently we do that, if they don't feel loved, if they are not with those who love them for most of their waking hours, we not meeting their basic needs.

Beverley Smith

From: "Stephen(dot)Leacock" <>
Subject: Is dismantling the CWB just a precursor to sov/association?
To: Joe Hueglin Daily Digest <>

Hi old chum,
Was trying to find Steve's old "Firewall" speech - maybe you recall ...was ending the Wheat Board a step necessary to "free the West" from the "Eastern Bastards:?
Or am I mixed up again ...

From: Anne Dickinson
Subject: Re: Daily Digest December 3, 2011

Hi Joe-
I sent a link to this story a while ago.(Well . this just makes me feel sick: Daily Digest Nov 14, 2011)

it is painful to me that people who are acting in my name as a Canadian citizen are so without honour.
The repeated references to the Star make it very clear that Kenny and all have found a  convenient way to get back at the Star and this reporter..
Sort of -"Give me your money or the puppy gets it"
A good opportunity to hit back at the media and silence a reporter who is getting under their skin; unfortunately it may well be at the cost of the life of a brave man
  who is wholeheartedly supported by the Canadian troops who Harper claims to champion.

"Over the past few months, your paper has repeatedly misled your readers about this program and specific applications received under it," Kenney wrote.

Anyone with a library card or an Internet connection, which I'll assume includes Kenney, can see for themselves that he is wrong. The Star has reported details of the special visa program several times in recent months, including in the first report on Sharifi in July, and soon after when Kenney admitted the effort was bogged down in bureaucratic delays.
There must be people of conscience in this government who will forgo their partisan urges to make political hay in a matter of life and death.
Anne Dickinson
From: Ray Strachan
Subject: Vancouver Stanley Cup Riots

Watched the 6pm news . Seems that all of law enforcement is amazed, that those taken to court in regards to the Vancouver Stanley Cup Riots were not quite as advertised.    Thugs, Gangsters,Anarchists.?       No,, mostly middle class, well educated young people, Canadians.
The fruits of our country`s labour is paying off.       We allow our  " Business sector" to invite Geo W Bush and  R (Dick) Cheney to enter our country for the purpose of telling us all they know. Yes sir,mass murderers, telling us all they know. And we, the people, are surprised ? ,or simply just stunned.

Ray Strachan

From: Radical Press <>
To: "Rafe Mair" <>
Subject: Re: Gitxsan sign with Enbridge

Hi Rafe and thanks of sending this information along. Given the scenario contained in my 2004 article below it's not that surprising to hear what just took place. There's been an ongoing struggle within the Gitxan nation between the government bought flunkies and the traditional chiefs for a very long time now. This is just the latest in a series of betrayals but it may also be the one that finally results in some resolution.



The Gitxsan: Betrayal of a Nation

by Arthur Topham
Jan. 27/2004

"We know that justice and generosity can flourish only in an atmosphere of trust. For if individuals and minorities do not feel protected against the possibility of the tyranny of the majority, if French-speaking Canadians or native peoples or new Canadians do not feel they will be treated with justice, it is useless to ask them to open their hearts and minds to their fellow Canadians." - Pierre Trudeau, April 17, 1982

The irony contained in the Globe & Mail's January 27, 04 front page story "PM's Throne Speech has native focus", I'm sure was not lost on the 50 Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan Nation and their 5000 band members living in the north-western region of central British Columbia.

Just weeks ago, on the 14th of January, this same group of frustrated, disillusioned, yet determined people, filed a lengthy and controversial Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and the federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Irwin Cotler citing a shocking list of grievances against an array of highly prominent B.C. judges, lawyers, law firms, politicians and corporations all linked to a host of crimes ranging from misconduct to deceit, bribery, corruption, obstruction of justice and complicity, the sum of which has devastated and endangered the 33,000 square kilometre area of their traditional lands.

First and foremost of the complaints is the conduct of B.C.'s Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald J. Brenner while presiding over the "restructuring" proceedings related to a large forest products company in Prince Rupert, B.C.; one in which the provincial government held controlling interest and declining revenues. That initial example, shown in great detail within the lengthy submission, exemplified at the onset the serious nature of the many other accusations of fault contained within the document, illustrating once again the seemingly endless challenges which have plagued the treaty process in B.C. for decades.

Readers may recall that it was this same First Nation that captured headlines across the country during the latter part of the Mulroney era when what the Claimants describe as "arguably the most important case in Canadian jurisprudence" the Gitxsan Wet'suwet'en land claims trial, known as Delgamuukw, finally concluded with judgment on March 8, 1991, after 374 protracted court days stretching over a three year period.

According to Ron Jackson and Robert Jackson, the two signatories of the Complaint representing the 50 Hereditary Gitxsan Chiefs and their people, the original Delgamuukw trial was a staggeringly complex and insidious deception that saw figures from all levels of government, the judiciary, industry and the media conspiring to foist upon the general public, and specifically the Gitxsan people themselves, a horrendous 'legal' hoax which would allow the B.C. government to further augment its power over the traditional territories of the  Gitxsan Wet'suwet'en for the benefit of all vested interests except the indigenous inhabitants of the region themselves.

The list of characters in this epic drama of alleged deceit and corruption is so inclusive that it leaves no stone unturned insofar as the various levels of government and the judiciary are concerned. In fact the list of adversaries aligned against this beleaguered Nation has, in the eyes of the 50 Hereditary Chiefs, virtually eliminated any possibility that the Gitxsan Complainants might receive justice in their home province.

As the Complainants themselves state in their opening Introduction to the CJC, para. VI  "Because the complaint not only implicates the BC Supreme Court Chief Justice and two other Supreme Court Justices, but also implicates and criticizes a frightening web of many others outside the jurisdiction of the Judicial Council (the BC Attorney General and Minister of Forests, Daniel Veniez, Skeena and New Skeena, West Fraser Timber, The Law Society of B.C., several "prestigious" law firms, numerous corrupt Gitxsan "leaders", and is seriously critical of Premier Gordon Campbell's office, BC - NDP leader Carol James office, I&NAC, B.C. Treaty Commission, senior RCMP officers and the media), this complaint is also being sent directly to the Minister of Justice for Canada. There is nowhere left in B.C. to turn for help."

Traditionally, among Indigenous peoples, the circle has always represented Life and is considered to be a sacred  symbol of the ways of the Great Creator. All things and events emerge from the great Mystery to traverse their various cycles and ultimately return once again to their source. How sadly ironic therefore that in all the years of negotiations that have taken place regarding their homeland, the Gitxsan people, like some lost tribe following and trusting their appointed leaders, should now find themselves back at the same point where they originally set out from only to realize at this late date that those in whom they had placed their trust and hope had betrayed them.

This is made succinctly evident in the Introductory statement of the Complainants (VIII): "After 15 years and countless $millions borrowed and spent in our legal system on Delgamuukw v. The Queen and another 5 years and more untold $millions borrowed and spent in the BC Treaty Commission, we have absolutely no practical result to show regarding our land claims except being told by the Supreme Court of Canada, 6 years ago, that we have to start all over - 20 years later - with a new trial. A new trial again in the B.C. Supreme Court, which we have every reason to believe, has already deceived and defrauded us and continues, as recently as December 9, 2003, to do so. The remarkable patience of the complainants and all the other Gitxsan people who have not been corrupted or collaborated with Government is exhausted…."

Complicity of course in this alleged betrayal of a nation required first an infrastructure to embody the planned treachery which the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs are now fully cognizant of. It also needed the willing assistance of insiders within the Gitxsan Nation in order that all the bona fide signatures were secured, the t's were crossed and the i's dotted, ensuring that all the parties involved felt justice had been served.

Those within the leadership of the Gitxsan who chose to play the role of 'collaborator' with the opposing parties involved were accordingly (as per the Complaint) bribed and persuaded to overlook specifics in the Delgamuukw document that, in hindsight, provided crucial licence to the various levels of government to fulfill their own agenda for the Gitxsan's territories.  After all, was that not the original intent in the creation of "Tribal Councils"? Was it not by design that these government imposed organizations were put in place decades ago to supercede the once Traditional systems of governance that the Indigenous peoples of B.C. had abided by for thousands of years? In this instance, as in many others, it proved to be an ingenious technique for acquiring control over Gitxsan lands,  resources and ultimately, the needed funding in order for negotiations to proceed in the first place.

One of the most contentious and perennial issues for the Gitxsan has been the vast forests of their region, a resource of inestimable value to the people who have lived there since time immemorial. Unfortunately not only the Gitxsan people saw in these natural resources a valuable asset. The B.C. government and its Ministry of Forests, reinforced by the Attorney-General's office and a phalanx of legal foot soldiers, also coveted these rich tracts of tremulous timber in order to increase provincial revenues and keep their corporate sponsors and tax-paying workers profitably employed. Thus, how to gain legal access to these otherwise indigenous-owned forests and, of course, other raw resources, became the driving force behind the government's subsequent involvement in Delgamuukw.

A legal document, such as Delgamuukw, with which the province might gain the upper hand in negotiating access to the Gitxsan's traditional property therefore became a top priority and one requiring the acceptance by the Gitxsan's own legal representatives of specific wording within the signed agreement which would allow government lawful leverage to pry apart, parcel and designate said territories for special corporate affiliates within the B.C. forest industry. That is why the deleterious wordings (which the Complaint details) were surreptitiously inserted so that future rulings, such as the current controversy involving the "restructuring" of Skeena Cellulose Inc. (now called New Skeena Forest Products Ltd.) could be enacted, if deemed necessary, by government interests.

There is a common expression that fish, left for over a period of three days in the open, will begin to transmit an uncompromising odour commanding the attention of every functioning nostril within the immediate vicinity. To extrapolate from that truism to the situation at hand, with respect to the daunting problems facing the Gitxsan Nation, it can only be said that this kettle of fish is ripe to the point of rot and in need of drastic intervention by the federal authorities.

Lest one begin to think for even a moment that the Indigenous Gitxsan case is unique let us look at a similar situation on the opposite side of the planet (in India) where another group of Indigenous people have been struggling for justice and sovereignty on their soils. There it's the ongoing fight to stop the flooding of lands by giant government dam projects.

In defense of their plight the internationally renowned Indian writer Arundhati Roy had the following fitting commentary to offer. In an article called, "Stop the DAMNing of the Narmada River!" her words ring out with a penetrating and clear resonance for the ears of all who fight for the right to live on their lands in peace and security. She says:

"To slow a beast, you break its limbs. To slow a nation, you break its people. You rob them of volition. You demonstrate your absolute command over their destiny. You make it clear that ultimately it falls to you to decide who lives, who dies, who prospers who doesn't. To exhibit your capability you show off all that you can do, and how easily you can do  it. How easily you could press a button and annihilate the earth. How you can start a war, or sue for peace. How you can snatch a river away from one and gift it to another. How you can green a desert, or fell a forest and plant one somewhere else. You use caprice to fracture a people's faith in ancient things - earth, forest, water, air. Once that's done, what do they have left? Only you. They will turn to you, because you're all they have. They will love you even while they despise you. They will trust you even though they know you well. They will vote for you even as you squeeze the very breathe from their bodies. They will drink what you give them to drink. They will breathe what you give them to breathe. They will live where you dump their belongings. They have to. What else can they do? There's no higher court of redress. You are their mother and their father. You are the judge and the jury. You are the World. You are God.

Power is fortified not just by what it destroys, but also by what it creates. Not just by what it takes, but also by what it gives. And Powerlessness reaffirmed not just by the helplessness of those who have lost, but also by the gratitude of those who have (or think they have) gained.

This cold, contemporary cast of power is couched between the lines of noble-sounding clauses in democratic-sounding constitutions. It's wielded by the elected representatives of an ostensibly free people. Yet no monarch, no despot, no dictator in any other century in the history of human civilization has had access to weapons like these.

Day by day, river by river, forest by forest, mountain by mountain, missile by missile, bomb by bomb ­ almost without our knowing it, we are being broken."

The Gitxsan Nation has played by the rules of the governing system and found that system to be inherently flawed and wanting. This final quest, the collective Complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council and the federal Minister of Justice, cannot be ignored further nor can its repercussions be underrated. A Sovereign Nation, the Gitxsan, has been betrayed by the very institutions whose fiduciary responsibilities have been written down since the Proclamation of 1763. There is no question any longer that these complaints need to be given the highest possible scrutiny and redress. Justice delayed is justice denied. Let us not fail the Gitxsan people a second time.