Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Canadian court backs foresters in dispute with aboriginal group

Canada's supreme court has said that local government can continue to award licenses to use native lands, despite objections by aboriginal people

Andrew Griffin
Saturday 12 July 2014 11:04 BST
Comments
(REUTERS/Chris Wattie)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

An aboriginal group that challenged the power of local government to give companies licenses on traditional native land has had its request overturned by Canada’s Supreme Court.

The decision means that Goldcorp, a lumber company, and other companies like it will continue to be able to mine on land that was granted to them by local government.

The native group, known as Grassy Narrows First Nation, ceded the land under an agreement known as Treaty 3, which was signed in 1873. But they said that local government — in this case Ontario — should not be able to grant licenses to use the land for forestry, mining or others uses under that agreement.

Companies that use the land are said to have been nervous about the decision, after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of an aboriginal group in a similar case in late June. But that involved lands in which there was no treaty, and the 141 year old Treaty 3 includes clauses specifically relating to such lands.

The aboriginal group said that it would continue to fight the ruling and would seek to encourage Ontario to change its policies to support them. If the logging continues then the group could be unable to exercise its rights on the land, it said.

Treaties require that the government respect the harvesting rights of the aboriginal group on the land, according to a spokesperson for the group.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in