Meeting between Seminoles of Florida and
Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation
Back Row, left to right, Joel Frank, Director of Business Development and
Investments, Lloyd Larocque, Unknown, Shane Robinson, Mitchell Cypress,
President of Seminole Business Council, Chief Alfred Hayden, Councillor
Zongidaya
Nelson,
Unknown,
Councillor Robert Henry,
Hector Perez-
Pancheco, Seated Terrance Nelson, Seminole Chairman James Billie, Andrew
Bowers, Seminole Representative.
Seminoles of Florida purchased the Hard Rock Cafes for $965 million
and do business in 139 countries. They have a double AA credit rating.
They call themselves the "Unconquered" Seminoles who never signed
Treaty with the United States. They were the first in Native Gaming and
operate in a market area of over 5 million population.
The Seminole Council is asked for meetings all the time, it is rare for
the full council to meet delegations. The Seminoles gave Roseau River
two full hours. The meeting went really well. Also in attendance but not
in the picture was the CEO of the Hard Rock Cafes, James Allen.
President
Mitchell
Cypress's
first
response
after
hearing
our
presentation was, there is a window of opportunity here - get it done!
The Seminoles only do projects over $400 million or more.
Seminole Tribe of Florida
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is a Federally recognized Seminole tribe based in the U.S. state of
Florida. It received that status in 1957; today it has six Indian reservations in Florida.
Since 1995, when it established tax-free smoke shops and a high-stakes bingo operation that became the
first tribal gaming in the United States, the tribe has generated greater revenues from gaming for
education, welfare and economic development. A 2005 tribal audit said it took in $1.1 billion in revenues
that year.W
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is led by an elected tribal council comprising representatives from each of
its reservations. It elects a chairman and vice-chairman as leaders. The tribal headquarters is at
Hollywood, Florida.
The current Chairman is Chief Jim Billie, who was re-elected in 2011 with 58.4 percent of the votes, after
previously serving from 1979 to 200 l .lll!l He led the tribe through a dramatic expansion of operations,
with development of new programs and facilities as it invested the revenues generated from gaming and
related entertainment. The 1979 plan for high-stakes bingo survived court challenges, and the first major
Indian gaming establishment in the United States was opened in 1981 by the Seminole. Subsequent
changes in federal and state laws have paved the way for dozens of other tribes to increase their revenues
through development of gambling casinos, resorts and related hotels and retails shops.llll All generate
revenue as well for the states in which they are located, under compacts regulated by the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988.
The Seminole tribe bas six reservations. 1m They have developed more extensive hotels and related resorts
for gaming on some of their reservations. Since 2007, the Tribe has owned the Hard Rock Cafe franchise,
and established it in their hotels and casinos. They now have a total of seven casinos.WJ Tourism, both as
related to the casinos and in tenns of attracting people to the reservations for hunting, fishing, and guided
tours, is also a part of their economy.
Other significant parts of their economy are based on production of the citrus groves and cattle farming
on the Brighton and Big Cypress reservations, and forestry.U!.I Beginning with a small group of cattle
brought from the West in the 1930s, the Seminole Tribe has developed the 12th-largest cattle operation in
the country. It is located primarily on the Big Cypress and Brighton reservations. In a related
development, since 2008 the Seminole Tribe has marketed its beef under the brand, Seminole Beef. They
are featuring it in their Hard Rock Cafe and hotels, and intend to market it to other Indian tribes, military
installations, restaurants and supermarkets throughout the country.Uil
According to a tribal audit, in 2005 the tribe took in $1.1 billion in revenue.W They pay a dividend to
tribal members on a monthly basis from a portion of the income to the tribe. In February 2012, the Tampa
Bay Times reported that the Seminole Tribe employed a total of 12,000 people at its headquarters and six
casino operations.llll
(
Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation Government
P.O. Box 30
<~'-'=-
n
.
-_-.
--
-~
...,.
.,
t!
.~~"·
' *•
Ginew, Manitoba
ROA2RO
PH: (204) 427-2312
Toll Free: 1-888-283-8765
FAX: (204) 427-2584
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A OA2
The Honourable James G. Carr
Minister of Natural Resources
580 Booth Street, 21•1 Floor, Room C?-1
Ottawa, ON K1A OE4
WITH PREJUDICE
Dear Sirs,
Re: Purported Delegation of Duty to Consult to National Energy Board (NEB)
I write further to my letter of October 201h, 2015, sent by way of registered mail, in which
the Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation (RRAFN) requested a meeting with the Crown
in order to fulfill Crown obligations pursuant to Treaty 1 and the Constitution.
As you are aware, Enbridge has filed an application with the NEB with respect to the
Line 3 pipeline. This proposal certainly affects our rights and title and clearly invokes the
Crown obligation to meaningfully consult with the RRAFN.
Line 3 runs directly through the traditional territory of the RRAFN and other First Nations
that are signatory to Treaties made, on a nation to nation basis, with Canada. The
promises made by the Crown pursuant to Treaty 1 are jeopardized by the actions of your
Government.
The 'nation to nation' relationship upon which the Treaties are founded, and which forms
the basis of our ancestors agreeing to become party to Treaty, has been undermined.
We seek to return to a relationship of mutual respect. Canada must engage with us on
this same nation to nation basis.
We understand that Canada has purported to delegate its duty to consult to the NEB. As
you are aware, the NEB has neither the authority nor ability to consult with us in a
meaningful way. This deficiency creates fundamental problems, four of which include:
Firstly, the NEB does not actually make the decision which will directly impact our
traditional and treaty lands, title and rights. That decision rests solely with the Crown.
When consultation has no realistic possibility of impacting the outcome the consultation
is not done in good faith, nor is the aforesaid consultation sufficient to discharge the
Crown duty to consult. Cases such as Haida Nation v British Columbia. Rio Tinto
A/can v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada
(Minister of Canadian Heritage) have explicitly considered these issues.
Secondly, the NEB has no particular expertise in dealing with issues that affect First
Nations or in interpreting treaties or Aboriginal rights and title.
Thirdly, in order for the Crown to meaningfully consult on the impact of the project with
regard to our rights and title, we must have the ability to retain experts. These experts
will allow us to sufficiently understand the proposed project and allow us to respond in an
appropriate way. This is especially so given the technical nature and high level of
consultation that arises with respect to the project and the impact upon our Aboriginal
and Treaty rights. While it is not conceded that the NEB is the appropriate venue for
'
consultations the funding made available by way of the NEB process is woefully
inadequate. The NEB has severely limited the resources available to us as intervenors,
to the extent that the RRAFN is unable to conduct studies and interviews or perform the
research necessary in order to contribute to the narrow NEB process in a meaningful
way.
Fourthly, throughout this process the NEB has treated our concerns as mere formalities
and not as substantive content. The limitations placed on the provision of First Nation
traditional evidence by the NEB betrays its subscription to the 'frozen rights' theory which
is a tokenizing and paternalistic lens through which to view our people. By attempting to
treat our Nation like any other interested party, the NEB has devalued our Treaties and
our inherent rights. This same disrespect arises from the Crown's purported delegation
of the duty to consult to the NEB.
In contrast, a nation to nation consultation that occurs as between the Crown and the
RRAFN allows the RRAFN a wider ambit and forum in which to protect our rights. When
the Crown entertains development upon, or authorizes the use of, our traditional territory
we expect that our rights will be protected.
As per the endorsement of the Halfway River First Nation v. B.C. (Min. Forests), 1999
BCCA 470 case by the SCC in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada:
"The Crown's duty to consult imposes on it a positive obligation to reasonably ensure
that aboriginal peoples are provided with all necessary information in a timely way so
that they have an opportunity to express their interests and concerns, and to ensure
that their representations are seriously considered and. wherever possible,
demonstrably integrated into the proposed plan of action. [Emphasis added.]"
r
I
The RRAFN is eager to meaningfully consult with the Crown with respect to the Line 3
project. However, as the Courts have repeatedly stated, we need a willing partner, It is
necessary for Canada to join us at the table and consult with us in good faith,
With a view to the same, our First Nation has prepared a specific proposal that can serve
as the background for direct, considered and meaningful consultations between the
Crown and the RRAFN.
By this letter, we serve you with formal notice that, among other things:
1) The RRAFN demands that the Crown directly engage with the RRAFN and carry
out its constitutionally mandated duty to meaningfully consult with respect to the
Enbridge Line 3 Project Proposal prior to any license or approval being issued;
2) The RRAFN has prepared a proposal for discussion at these consultations, and
demands that the Crown in Right of Canada give full, sufficient and serious
consideration to its proposal with respect to these consultations; and
3) The RRAFN does not give the Crown, Canada, the NEB or Enbridge permission
to build or otherwise begin the project known as the Line 3 Replacement Project,
on its Traditional Lands, including but not limited to all of the lands subject to
Treaty 1, unless and until all Crown obligations, including the duty to consult are
met.
The RRAFN seeks to restore the Nation to Nation relationship. If Canada does not
properly fulfill its obligation to meaningfully consult with the RRAFN our First Nation will
have no other choice but to raise the issue in court.
Should we fail to receive a meaningful response by January 2"d, 2016 we advise that we
shall take such legal action as deemed necessary to enforce our legal entitlements
without further notice.
Yours Truly,
Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation Chief and Council
cfdft.dfo.zcL
Counci~
Councillor Cecil James
Councillor Gary Roberts
As signed by a quorum of Chief and Council on December 15 \ 2012.
c. Peter Watson, Chair, National Energy Board