|
|||
Daishowa Continues with AppealFriends of the Lubicon September 23, 1998 Although the Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon trial ended last April with a decision confirming that the Friends could continue their boycott of Daishowa products, that renewed boycott was deemed unecessary when Daishowa finally agreed not to cut or buy wood cut on unceded Lubicon Lake Indian Nation territories until a land rights settlement was reached between the Lubicons and both levels of government. The Lubicons called off their boycott campaign in June after receiving written confirmation of Daishowa's promise. That should have ended the matter, but it didn't. Calling it "a matter of principle," Daishowa's Tom Cochran recently announced that the transnational paper company plans to go ahead with an appeal of Justice MacPherson's ruling that the consumer boycott of Daishowa products is legal. Cochran calls it merely a matter of "fairly technical legal question" which comes to mind is why Daishowa would waste its time and money on an application for an injunction against a boycott that no longer exists. Asking "fairly technical legal questions" like that in fact lead one to the obvious conclusion that this case has very little to do with "matters of principle" or "fairly technical legal questions" but instead has everything to do with preparing the way for renewed clear-cutting on Lubicon territories. Daishowa technically filed the appeal shortly after Justice MacPherson delivered his decision last April, arguing that the Court made an error in allowing the Friends of the Lubicon to conduct a peaceful consumer boycott of their products. At the same time, Daishowa's lawyers wrote to the Friends' lawyer Karen Wristen that "our clients trust that Friends of the Lubicon will not perceive the delivery of the Notice of Appeal as any change in the position of Daishowa Inc. that a negotiated resolution between Daishowa Inc. and Friends of the Lubicon is in the best interests of all parties and will continue to be pursued." They added, "Our clients have also instructed us to advise you of their strong desire to continue to pursue the prospect of a negotiated resolution of this matter." Following that letter, just such a "negotiated resolution" was reached, whereby Daishowa wrote to Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak committing "not to harvest or purchase timber in your area of concern until your land issue is resolved with both levels of government, including harvesting rights, fish, and wildlife concerns." Once the "area of concern" was defined in a subsequent letter and map, Chief Ominayak replied to Daishowa accepting Daishowa's commitment and informing them that as a result, the boycott would be wound down. The Friends of the Lubicon announced on June 12 that they were winding down their boycott of Daishowa products. The Friends also told Daishowa that they "expect, accordingly, that Daishowa's appeal of MacPherson J.'s judgement will be abandoned." On June 16th, Friends lawyer Karen Wristen wrote to Daishowa lawyer Peter Jervis telling him that "my clients have ... instructed me to advise that their involvement in boycott activities concerning Daishowa has ceased and will not recommence so long as Daishowa continues to abide by its written commitment. In these circumstances, it would appear that appeal proceedings are moot. I would appreciate having your view on that point." On July 20th, having had no response on the issue of the appeal, Karen Wristen again wrote to Peter Jervis, saying "I would appreciate your advice as to the appeal, in response to my letter of June 16: do you have instructions to abandon it?" She has still received no formal response to her question. Daishowa's Tom Cochran, when questioned earlier this month by reporters, confirmed that they "are pursuing the appeal," adding that he expected the case to be heard in January of next year. The Lubicons and the Friends of the Lubicon have been clear all along that as long as Daishowa keeps its written commitment not to cut harvest or purchase timber from Lubicon traditional territories until Lubicon land rights have been settled, there will be no further boycott of Daishowa products. For Daishowa to argue before the court that they need to be protected from further boycott activities, then, means one of two things: either that Daishowa intends to break its commitment not to clear-cut Lubicon territories prior to settlement, or they fear that the Lubicons will insist on environmentally responsible methods of harvesting post-settlement and simply want the Lubicons out of the way, period. Given that Daishowa is known to work closely with the province - who have recently stepped up their efforts to tear apart Lubicon society in order to scuttle current Lubicon negotiations - the latter option remains a distinct possibility. Whether Daishowa's announcement that they will continue the lawsuit is part of a coordinated effort to fence in and overwhelm the Lubicons and their supporters or simply a matter of bad faith and dishonesty, the Daishowa lawsuit remains a serious threat to the Lubicon Nation, their supporters, and the right to freedom of expression in Canada. Documents and supporting materials are attached for your information.
Peace River Record Gazette Daishowa appeal still planned By DEB GUERETTE Daishowa Inc. expects an appeal of a court ruling allowing the Friends of the Lubicon to continue a boycott campaign against the company to be heard early next year. "We are pursuing the appeal," Daishowa's director of corporate affairs Tom Cochrane told the Record-Gazette from his Toronto office. The Ontario-based paper product manufacturing company, is seeking to overturn a part of the Ontario Court judge's ruling that involved theFriends of the Lubicon's right to picket Daishowa's customers. "The judge thought it OK for people to demonstrate and harass our customers. We are appealing that part of the judgment. It flies in the face of a lot of previous decisions," Cochrane said. Protesters should only be permitted to target the company's own plant or office for picketing, he adds, calling the appeal an exercise between lawyers of "fairly technical legal questions." "We're going after the judge on this one. It is more of a matter of principle than something about the Friends of the Lubicon," Cochrane said. Spokesman for the Ontario-based group of Lubicon supporters, Kevin Thomas, calls Daishowa's legal plans "a matter of stupidity." "If they want to, we will take them on again. I hope they are prepared to look pretty stupid, to try to shut down a boycott that doesn't exist anymore," Thomas said Thursday afternoon from Little Buffalo, where he was sitting in on last week's negotiation meetings between the band and federal and provincial governments. The group began the boycott, which Daishowa estimates cost them $20 million in lost sales, in 1991, after the Alberta government granted Daishowa-Marubeni International's (DMI) Peace River pulp producing company a forest management agreement in an area that blanketed territory claimed by the Lubicon. Friends of the Lubicon asked DMI to make a commitment to not log in the 95-square-mile area of disputed territory until a land claim settlement is achieved. When DMI failed to meet the demand, the group successfully persuaded businesses who purchased Daishowa Inc. paper products to shop elsewhere. After boycott pressure inflicted millions of dollars of lost business to Daishowa Inc., the company obtained an injunction against the Friends of the Lubicon, stopping the boycott activities until this spring's ruling in favor of the support group. Daishowa initiated the appeal before DMI announced early this summer it will not harvest in the disputed area until the Lubicon achieved a settlement, Cochrane said. With DMI's new public commitment, the boycott was ended, Thomas said, adding he then wrote Daishowa, asking for clarification about the company's plans regarding the appeal. He says he has yet to receive a reply from Daishowa and has concerns about the intention behind the company trying to overturn the ruling. "It does call into question the plans in store for northern Alberta. They have no reason to worry if the promise not to log there is kept," Thomas said. Once the boycott ended, Friends of the Lubicon members turned their attention to monitoring the progress of the recently commenced sessions of settlement negotiations between the Lubicon and governments. "For the moment, we've adopted a wait and see attitude. We've been following the sessions to try to get a sense whether they are sincere or not," Thomas said. When the boycott against Daishowa wound down, Friends of the Lubicon promised pressure tactics towards the federal government, who "are the ones responsible for dealing with this," Thomas said this spring. While the boycott has ended, Cochrane said it may take the company years, if ever, to recover their lost customers. "It's a very competitive business. Once a customer has changed supplier there is not a whole lot of incentive for them to come back," he said. The achievement of a settlement agreement with the Lubicon would please the executive manager and his company. "We've always maintained the best thing for all parties concerned is a settlement. Nobody has won anything in this whole thing," Cochrane said. Daishowa Inc. is preparing for a January court session for the appeal to be heard, he said.
May 12, 1998 Ms. Karen G. Wristen Dear Ms. Wristen: Re: Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon et al I enclose a copy of the Notice of Appeal which is served on you pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. As you may be aware, our client announced its intention to appeal that portion of the decision of Mr. Justice McPherson in which he refused to grant a permanent injunction restraining the picketing and secondary boycotting of the customers of Daishowa Inc. However, our clients held off instructing us to file the Notice of Appeal pending the discussions which were arranged with your clients, without legal counsel, to discuss the possible resolution of all the issues involved in the boycott of Daishowa Inc. As you are aware, a meeting was held on April 21, 1998 at which our clients requested a standstill agreement while discussions took place. Your clients refused to delay recommencing their boycott action. Our clients continue to hope that a resolution of this matter may be possible. A Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the release of Mr. Justice McPherson's Reasons for Judgment. Our clients intend to request that the appeal be expedited, given the nature of the permanent injunctive relief with respect to picketing and secondary boycott conduct which was requested at trial, but denied by Mr. Justice McPherson. Our clients have also instructed us to advise you of their strong desire to continue to pursue the prospect of a negotiated resolution of this matter. As you know, they have publicly announced their recent request to DMI to again consider all possible measures in the negotiations with the government of Alberta which might lead to a resolution of the boycott commenced by Friends of the Lubicon. Daishowa Inc. has continued to urge DMI to take the necessary steps that it can which would lead to a resolution of the issue. We are advised that DMI has continued to pursue discussions with the Alberta government and that there is optimism that a satisfactory resolution may be possible. The Notice of Appeal is being served on you pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Our clients trust that Friends of the Lubicon will not perceive the delivery of the Notice of Appeal as any change in the position of Daishowa Inc. that a negotiated resolution between Daishowa Inc. and Friends of the Lubicon is in the best interests of all parties and will continue to be pursued. Yours very truly, Peter R. Jervis
VIA FACSIMILE June 9, 1998 Lubicon Cree Indian Nation ATTENTION: CHIEF BERNARD OMINAYAK Dear Chief Ominayak; Thank you for your letter of May 25, 1998. I was pleased to receive your confirmation that the boycott would stop once we had clarified the "area of concern" referred to in my May 20, 1998 letter and our related news release. The "area of concern" to which I was referring is the hunting and trapping territory you identified in your map which you formally submitted at the Unocal gas plant hearing in 1994 (ERCB exhibit 71) that includes approximately 4000 square miles. I understand that we are referring to the same area. I am enclosing a map of the area as we understand it. If the Lubicon people agree to a smaller area in the future (by either a settlement with government or agreement with other native groups or both), we would wish to adjust our commitment accordingly. Until such time, we will proceed on the understanding that the area of concern to which Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. made a commitment on May 20, 1998, is the approximately 4000 square mile area outlined in the attached map. I trust this is sufficient to clarify the scope of our commitment, and that you will now advise your supporters that the assurances they have sought on your behalf have been given. We know that the absence of any agreement beyond our year to year moratorium was a concern. Once again, we wish you the very best in your ongoing negotiations. I am advised that we have provided the same clarification to all media and interested parties who have inquired. Yours truly, DAISHOWA MARUBENI INTERNATIONAL LTD. per: Tokiro Kawamura President Encl. Cc: The Hon. Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Government of Canada The Hon. David Hancock, Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Government of Alberta
Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Mailing Address: June 11, 1998 Tokiro Kawamura Dear Mr. Kawamura: Thank you for your letter of June 9, 1998. Although it's been a long time coming, the Lubicons acknowledge and accept DMI's public commitment that Daishowa, its related companies and their contractors, will not harvest or purchase timber from the approximately 4,000 square mile (10,000 square kilometre) area identified in the attached map included with your June 9 letter until Lubicon lands and claims, including resource management and harvesting rights, as well as fish, wildlife and environmental concerns, have been settled. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to Lubicon supporters advising them of our acknowledgment and acceptance and requesting that they bring the boycott of Daishowa paper products to an end. As I indicated in my letter of May 25, 1998, the Lubicon people will welcome talks with Daishowa once Lubicon land rights and related resource issues have been settled. After these issues have been settled it may become possible for Daishowa to adjust the commitment made in your letter of May 20 as clarified in your letter of June 9. The Lubicons share your hope that settlement will enable us to work together on mutually advantageous economic development opportunities which take into account Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns and responsibilities. Sincerely, Bernard Ominayak Chief Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
Friends of the Lubicon June 12, 1998 Mr. Tokiro Kawamura VIA FAX: (604) 684-0512 Dear Mr. Kawamura; Chief Ominayak has informed us that Daishowa's clarification of their May 20, 1998 promise adequately addresses the concerns of the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation. We understand that Daishowa, its related companies and their subcontractors, will not harvest or purchase timber from the approximately 4,000 square mile (10,000 square kilometre) area identified in the attached map included with your June 9th letter until Lubicon lands and claims, including resource management and harvesting rights, as well as fish, wildlife and environmental concerns, have been settled. As a result, we will be winding down our boycott of Daishowa products effective immediately. We expect, accordingly, that Daishowa's appeal of MacPherson J.'s judgement will be abandoned. Sincerely, Kevin Thomas CC. Chief Bernard Ominayak, Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Tom Cochran, Daishowa Forest Products Ltd.
June 16, 1998 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Peter Jervis Dear Mr. Jervis: Re: Friends of the Lubicon ats Daishowa Inc. This will confirm the good news you have no doubt received by now, via your client; that the Daishowa boycott has been officially terminated at the request of the Lubicon Cree Nation. The Lubicon Nation is satisfied that the written commitment given by Daishowa to refrain from cutting timber on, or buying timber cut from, Lubicon traditional territory answers the objectives of the boycott. My clients have accordingly instructed me to advise that their involvement in boycott activities concerning Daishowa has ceased and will not recommence so long as Daishowa continues to abide by its written commitment. In these circumstances, it would appear that appeal proceedings are moot. I would appreciate having your views on that point. We should also discuss costs and determine whether or not an application to Justice MacPherson will be required. I am preparing a Bill of Costs on the assumption that quantum will be the only issue. If you intend to raise any issues as to entitlement, please let me know. Yours very truly, Karen G. Wristen
Sierra Legal Defence Fund July 20, 1998 Mr. Peter Jervis Dear Mr. Jervis: Re: Friends of the Lubicon ats Daishowa Inc. I enclose a revised draft judgment for your approval. If you would be so kind as to have it issued and entered and provide me with a copy thereafter, I would appreciate it. Also enclosed, a copy of my letter to Mr. Justice MacPherson, requesting dates for submissions as to costs. Would you kindly advise as to your availability in September. I have canvassed the issue of defamatory material on the internet with my clients and they are not aware of anything currently posted to their site which would violate the terms of Justice MacPherson's judgment. Is it possible that you were reviewing someone else's site? Please provide me with the address of the site about which you are concerned and identify the material which you allege to be defamatory. Finally, I would appreciate your advice as to the appeal, in response to my letter of June 16th: do you have instructions to abandon it? Yours very truly, Karen G. Wristen |
|||