Latest news with #Indigenous rights
CBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CBC
She's fought for clean water for years and fears proposed Ontario permit changes will hurt First Nations
Makasa Looking Horse Henry remembers the moment she learned some people in her community had never tasted clean tap water. "A lot of people have to rely on buying water, not having any hooked-up water, piped-in water and running water in their households," she said. "This is a huge stressor on Indigenous women's mental health and Indigenous families' mental health." For the past eight years, Henry has fought for water sovereignty in a place that's been her home her entire life, Six Nations of the Grand River, which is near Brantford and is home to people from all six Haudenosaunee nations. Now, Henry says, a proposed regulation from the Ontario government could roll back years of advocacy and sideline voices of Indigenous communities like hers. "It's honestly really, really disappointing and disheartening," she said. It feels as if the proposal is designed to "keep Indigenous Peoples out of the decision-making from water extraction, and governing our own waters and governing our own lands," Henry added. The proposed regulation Under the province's current regulations, companies that want to extract groundwater must apply for a permit to take water, triggering environmental assessments, public consultation, a review of the purpose for taking water and a duty to consult Indigenous communities. Businesses that might want to take groundwater include agriculture, gravel mining and water-bottling plants. The proposed regulation would allow those permits to be transferred from one company to another without reapplying, so long as the intended use for the water and amount taken stays the same or declines. That means a business could be sold to a new owner who could inherit the water rights with minimal additional review. In an emailed statement from a Ministry of the Environment spokesperson, the province said this streamlines the permit approval process, potentially cutting months off the current approval wait time. The ministry said it would also continue to review all applicants in the streamlined process to ensure requirements are met. But according to critics, such changes to the process would bypass meaningful environmental checks. What's at stake Arlene Slocombe, executive director of Wellington Water Watchers, shares Henry's concerns. "The [Premier Doug] Ford government wants to make water-taking permits transferrable, meaning no input, no consent and no accountability if corporate ownership changes hands," she said in a phone interview with CBC News. "This move to change the water-taking permit process is essentially a water-grabbing tactic that would make water-taking permits functionally and potentially eternal once approved." Slocombe warns the regulation could lead to unchecked withdrawals from groundwater systems with unknown limits. "It's essentially like writing checks on a bank account that you don't know the balance of, and at some point, you run out," she said. "Nobody's really tallying exactly when that 'zero' mark happens." Slocombe said while most municipal wells supplying houses and businesses eventually return water to the watershed, facilities like bottling plants could permanently remove it by shipping it beyond the local ecosystem. Another major concern is the removal of the 30-day public comment period that currently accompanies water-taking applications. Slocombe said that when BlueTriton applied for its permit to run its Aberfoyle water-bottling operation, more than 32,000 people submitted feedback. Under the new rules, a permit transfer would not require any public input. Nor would it require consultation with Indigenous groups. "Again, something else that they're trying to push and take our voices out of the entire conversation," said Henry. "We're not going anywhere and they need to respect us as sovereign nations." The economics of water-taking Roy Brouwer, executive director of the University of Waterloo's Water Institute and an economics professor, said the province is undervaluing the true cost of its water. He said that when he moved to Waterloo region a decade or so ago, the cost was under $5 for 1,000 cubic metres of water (one million litres). Since then, the cost has increased, but not in a way that reflects limited supply or environmental impact. "They just added $500 like a round number, $500 on the permit," he said. "It has all the appearances of an administrative fee. And it doesn't necessarily reflect the scarcity costs of the resource now and into the future, benefiting multiple users," said Brouwer. He believes the transfer system, as proposed, ignores the fact that water is limited. Brouwer said he's also concerned about the environmental impact. "Over time … what you initially identified as a maybe limited or moderate ecological risk is perhaps a bigger risk because you actually do the pumping and you can actually observe what is happening to the natural environment." The fight in Aberfoyle Henry was a vocal critic of the former Nestlé bottling plant in Aberfoyle, later sold to BlueTriton and now owned by Ice River Springs. Despite it being part of the application process, indigenous consultation was minimal. "Nobody knew in my community that water extraction … was happening. And with the lack of consultation, not even the governments knew that that was happening either," she said. "Our people had no idea." Over the years, she's held groundwater awareness rallies — sometimes by herself — and delivered cease-and-desist letters on behalf of her band council. She said she secured those by "going to meetings at our long house and letting our clan mothers, faith keepers and chiefs know what was happening. And so they said deliver the cease-and-desist to them. And so that's what I did." Ice River Springs, an Ontario-based bottling company and the newest owner of the Aberfoyle water-bottling facility, has yet to apply for its water-taking permit. In an emailed statement to CBC News, executive vice-president and co-owner Sandy Gott said the company "supports initiatives that maintain environmental protection" and it would do its work "with respect for the communities in which [they] operate." Concerns about being cut out The public comment period for Ontario's proposed water permit regulation runs until Aug. 1. After that, it moves to a review and decision stage. There is no fixed timeline for when a final decision will be made. Henry said she's concerned about being cut out of the process entirely. "Right now, they're trying to take every single thing that they can and they're trying to take more water," she said.
News.com.au
6 days ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
Major native title decision awards exclusive rights in Aussie state
A court has determined three groups of Indigenous peoples can control access to parts of northwestern Victoria in a landmark native title decision. The Federal Court has recognised the First Peoples of the Millewa-Mallee - the Latji Latji, Ngintait and Nyeri Nyeri peoples - as holding exclusive rights to the land. It means anyone who is not a traditional owner must seek permission to enter parts of their country, in a first-of-its-kind decision in Victoria. The decision, made on Friday, follows a 10-year legal battle and covers thousands of square kilometres in the northwest corner of the state stretching to the South Australian border. It takes in an area that includes Mildura, follows the Murray River, stretches south along the Calder Highway, and west through the Murray-Sunset National Park. Apex Park Sandbar, Kings Billabong Park and Murray-Sunset National Park - known for its famous pink lakes - are on a list of landmarks covered by the claim. Justice Elizabeth Bennett, in her judgment, noted that 'despite the dispossession and other atrocities inflicted upon the Native Title Holders and their predecessors, the Native Title Holders have maintained their traditional laws and customs and have under them a deep and enduring connection' to the area. 'It is appropriate to make the orders sought,' she found. 'In doing so, the Court recognises the resilience and determination of the First Peoples of the Millewa-Mallee Native Title Claim Group in reaching this milestone. 'Doing so is a testament to the strength of connection to Country that this determination reflects.' In a statement, First Nations Legal & Research Services (FNLRS) said the traditional owners of the Millewa-Mallee had been fighting for recognition of native rights since the 1990s. 'This historic outcome confirms that the State accepts the native title holders' right to control access to their Country under traditional law and custom, challenging the long-held view that exclusive native title rights could not be recognised in Victoria,' it said. 'As with other successful native title claims, the native title holders also have non-exclusive rights including the right to access the land, use its resources, and protect sites, objects and places of cultural and spiritual significance.' Wendy Brabham, a Nyeri Nyeri Elder, welcomed the decision and reflected on her mother's fight for land rights half a century ago. 'My Mother's demands for land rights in the 1970s and, for more than 25 years, our claims for Native Title suffered, until now, an onslaught of rejections. 'Nyeri Nyeri Peoples, with their own Ancient, longstanding Laws, customs and protocols have had to listen to, and bend to Australian Laws, customs and protocols in a constant battle; a clash of World Views. 'I hope our future generations of all our family groups will build on today's decision to honour our Ancestors by strengthening, preserving and sharing our Culture.' Stacey Little, senior lawyer at FNLRS, said: 'this determination is a testament to (traditional owners') strength and persistence and reinforces their right to be involved in decision-making about Country'. The native title holders' rights will be managed by the First Peoples of the Millewa-Mallee Aboriginal Corporation, which will serve as the native title body corporate.
ABC News
27-06-2025
- ABC News
CCC report finds Brent Wyndham, police officer who fatally shot JC, lied about on-duty car crash
The Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) has recommended a former Geraldton police officer, who fatally shot an Indigenous woman in 2019, be prosecuted for wrongfully ramming a police car into a vehicle and lying in official documents. Released on Friday, the report found multiple Geraldton police officers committed serious misconduct last year, including Brent Wyndham, who killed a 29-year-old woman, known as JC for cultural reasons, in September 2019. He was eventually charged with murder over the death, but was acquitted after a Supreme Court trial in 2021 on the grounds of self-defence. A two-week coronial inquest last year examined the actions of the eight officers at the scene of the shooting. He resigned from the force earlier this year. In the CCC report released today, it was revealed that in May 2024, Mr Wyndham and two other officers, constables Alex Miatke and Kasey Hodge, went to investigate a "distinctive" Commodore car believed to be connected to recent crimes. The commission said Mr Wyndham drove the unmarked police car, though Constable Hodge had higher driving qualification, to the vehicle of interest, which was parked near the Geraldton Softball Association. The report said the Commodore slowly started to drive away and Mr Wyndham quickly swung the steering wheel and rammed into the car, but it kept moving. The report said the police car was slightly damaged, and protocol required Mr Wyndham to stay at the scene until an independent sergeant arrived. Instead, he activated the damaged car's lights and sirens and pursued the Commodore, which was driving on the wrong side of the road. The report stated the police car then hit the back of the car in question, causing it to hit a lamppost and stop. The CCC report said the incident lasted just over one minute. The driver was arrested and later released after questioning at the Geraldton Police Sation. When the incident was examined, Mr Wyndham justified his driving actions by claiming the Commodore deliberately hit the unmarked police vehicle. "He [the Commodore driver] rammed us first, 100 per cent," the report quoted. But body-worn camera footage and CCTV from the investigation showed Mr Wyndham was responsible for the first crash. WA's CCC chief John McKechnie said the precision intercept technique (PIT) Mr Wyndham used is only permitted in exceptional circumstances not justified by the incident. "It was a low-speed collision The airbags were not activated. Both cars were drivable thereafter," he said. He said it could be acceptable to use a PIT manoeuvre if bystanders were in danger, but there was no one around until after the crash occurred. The report found Mr Wyndham lied in multiple official documents, including his witness statement, claiming there were children nearby at the time. He later backtracked to say there was one short man on the street. The report found Constable Miatke made similar false claims in a memorandum and witness statement. When giving evidence for the investigation, Mr Wyndham continued to claim the Commodore hit the police car in the carpark, and there were people around when he later rammed the vehicle. "His justification was the alleged ramming by the Commodore and subsequently the presence of civilians in harm's way," the CCC report said. The report concluded Mr Wyndham committed serious misconduct, which Mr McKechnie said was the highest form of misconduct the commission can give. The CCC also recommended the Police Commissioner consider prosecuting Mr Wyndham for perverting the course of justice. "The seriousness of [senior constable] Wyndham's conduct cannot be overstated," the report said. The CCC suggested Constable Miatke committed police misconduct. Mr McKechnie acknowledged Geraldton police faced a heavy workload at the time which "didn't help". "But in the end, corners can't be cut," he said. "Even if there is pressure."
