Protest expands to occupy forest

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/08/2017 (2447 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

One month to the day since the blockade at the Parker lands began, protesters have branched out, establishing a secondary camp on the disputed south Winnipeg property by dragging three tents into a small clearing surrounded by tall aspen trees.

Protesters said Monday they felt they had no choice but to expand their camp into the forest — next to ‘private property’ signs — after actions of contractors and Gem Equities Inc. employees led them to fear more trees would be cut down on the 42-acre site.

The decision was made Monday morning, as contractors hired by developer Gem Equities (the legal owner of the property) finished construction on a fence bordering the 15 acres of the site already cleared of trees.

“We worry the fence is there so that they can clear-cut the forest and maybe control our movement in and out of the area. We were concerned mulching would begin shortly,” said Jenna Vandal, a spokeswoman for the protesters.

“We spoke about it and decided the best move was to occupy the forest. We’re just trying to wait and get a fair chance in court, but it appears (owner of Gem Equities Andrew) Marquess is not giving us that chance.”

On July 26, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench denied a request for an urgent hearing into the protesters’ right to remain on the land, putting the matter over until Nov. 2. Gem is appealing that decision.

Protesters said the new forest camp will help ensure no further trees are cut before the case can play out in court. Vandal added she feels the construction of the fence is aimed at circumventing the court process.

Kevin Toyne, legal representative for Marquess, denied the accusation that his client is not respecting the legal process, turning it around on the protesters.

“They’re simply continuing to break the law in a different part of the property. It’s an unfortunate step, particularly in light of the ongoing process, as it’s disrespectful to the courts. Like any land owner, the plaintiffs have the right and ability to erect a fence around their property,” Toyne said Monday.

The development comes less than a week after Marquess took a number of steps to increase security on the site, including hiring someone to photograph those who come and go, as well as installing lights that are turned on from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily.

On Aug. 11, the two main figures in the month-long conflict (Vandal and Marquess) had their first face-to-face interaction.

Seeing the owner of Gem Equities on site, Vandal approached him to explain why she’d chosen to occupy the land.

“My argument is, not only is it important Indigenous land, but ecologically it’s very important,” she said, while Marquess performed maintenance on one of the security lights.

“There’s endangered birds here, tall grass, swamp… I’m not trying to pick on you, specifically, it’s just this piece of forest that’s left, I’m trying to preserve it and just get Indigenous people involved in the conversation.”

Establishing an open dialogue about the future of the site between Marquess, the City of Winnipeg, and the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF) is ultimately what all of her efforts have been aimed at, Vandal said.

But, in Toyne’s perspective, the time for that has long passed. Marquess obtained the land from the city in 2009, and says the Manitoba Metis Federation has never reached out to him.

“There have been numerous opportunities for any interested person to come forward and express their concerns, but they didn’t,” Toyne said.

Vandal counters that during the years following the 2009 land swap, which resulted in Marquess becoming the site’s legal owner, the MMF was busy with a court case concerning the Manitoba Act of 1870.

The federation won the case in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. Now that they have more resources available, Vandal said the MMF should be given the opportunity to speak on the future of the Parker lands if it wishes.

“I think it’s only fair to give them a chance to have their voice heard. I want them involved in the conversation,” she said. “But if they don’t want to get involved with this, then my role is done. I will no longer step in the way, even though I hope the rest of the forest can be preserved and I know a lot of other people feel the same way.”

On Wednesday morning, the first step in the appeal process initiated by Toyne begins and will determine when the matter will go before a judge.

— with files from Ben Waldman

ryan.thorpe@freepress.mb.ca