top of page

NEWS

Editorials and Press Releases

Search

By: Johnny Hawke


When the People Can No Longer Reach the People Speaking for Them


There is a difficult conversation that needs to happen within Indigenous advocacy.

Who are our most prominent Indigenous advocates actually speaking for?

And perhaps even more importantly:


Who can still reach them?


A few years ago, through one of our team leads at the time, we reached out to a prominent Indigenous youth water advocate and invited them to come into our community, participate as a speaker, and join our grassroots water-protection actions.


This wasn't a corporate conference It wasn't a university lecture. It wasn't an international summit. It was a community trying to bring people together around water protection, Indigenous rights, land, culture and the future of our people.


We were advised that the advocate's in-person appearance would cost $10,000, before accommodation and related expenses. That experience stayed with us. Not because we believe Indigenous people should work for free. Not because we believe advocates shouldn't be compensated for their time, knowledge, travel or labour.


And certainly not because we want to diminish the accomplishments of young Indigenous people who have managed to bring international attention to issues affecting our Nations.


The question is much bigger.


What happens when Indigenous advocacy becomes so professionalized, institutionalized and celebrity-driven that the grassroots communities being advocated for can no longer afford access to their own advocates?


From Community Voice to Celebrity Voice

There was a time when Indigenous advocacy was understood primarily as community work.

You stood with your people. You attended community meetings. You went to the land.

You walked for the water. You sat with Elders. You organized. You protested. You educated.

You put your body, reputation and livelihood on the line and you did it whether anybody was watching or not.


Today, some Indigenous advocates have become international public figures. They travel around the world. They appear at prestigious conferences. They speak at universities and international institutions. They appear alongside celebrities, politicians, corporate leaders and prominent environmental organizations. They have professional representation. They have media teams. They have international schedules. They have speaking engagements.


There is nothing inherently wrong with becoming successful but somewhere along the way, we need to ask whether success has created distance from community. Because there is a strange contradiction developing within Indigenous advocacy:


The people with the least money can sometimes have the least access to the people with the greatest platforms.


Who Gets Access?

Consider the imbalance. A major corporation can spend tens of thousands of dollars on a conference; A university can bring in internationally recognized speakers. A government can fund major events; A large environmental organization can organize international gatherings.


A well-funded foundation can build entire programs around Indigenous advocacy but a small First Nation or Youth Activists struggling with poverty may not have $10,000 available for a speaker.


A grassroots organization may have a few hundred dollars; A youth group may have almost nothing. A community trying to organize a water-protection event may be depending on volunteers, donated food and community members giving their time.


So who gets access? The institution with the money. And who gets left behind?

Often, the community. That should concern all of us.


When Advocacy Becomes a Celebrity Industry

We need to be honest about something else. There is now an emerging celebrity culture within Indigenous advocacy. A small number of highly visible Indigenous voices can become the people repeatedly invited onto major stages, into international forums and onto institutional platforms. Their stories become recognizable. Their names become brands.

Their images become associated with particular causes. Their appearances become highly sought after.


Meanwhile, hundreds of Indigenous youth are doing extraordinary work in their own communities with little recognition, little funding and virtually no access to the same platforms.

They are protecting water; They are defending their territories; They are organizing youth.

They are documenting environmental destruction; They are challenging governments.

They are confronting corporations; They are keeping language and culture alive.


They are doing the work but they don't necessarily have a publicist; They don't have an international speaking circuit; They don't have powerful institutions opening doors for them.

They don't have the same access to media and they certainly don't have the same ability to command large appearance fees.


Why have we created a system where Indigenous youth advocacy itself has become hierarchical?


The People Who Made the Advocacy Possible

There is another uncomfortable reality. Prominent Indigenous advocates do not emerge from nowhere. They emerge from communities. They emerge from families; They emerge from Nations; They emerge from generations of struggle; They emerge from water protectors, land defenders, Elders, aunties, uncles, youth organizers and grassroots people who fought long before there were international platforms or media attention. Their communities provide the stories; Their communities provide the lived experience; Their communities provide the political context; Their communities often provide the courage.


So when someone becomes internationally recognized speaking about those struggles, we believe there should remain an obligation to ask: How do we make sure the community still has access to that person?


International recognition should not mean becoming inaccessible at home.


The Corporate-Friendly Side of Advocacy

There is another issue that deserves far more scrutiny. Many organizations that publicly identify themselves as allies of Indigenous rights, environmental protection and water justice operate within enormous institutional networks.


They may receive funding from foundations. They may have corporate partnerships.

They may work alongside governments. They may receive sponsorship from major institutions.


Some of the corporations connected to these networks are multinational companies involved in industries that Indigenous communities are actively challenging because of impacts on land, water and the environment.


We are not suggesting that every organization accepting institutional funding is acting in bad faith. We are asking a more uncomfortable question:


What happens when the institutions with the money increasingly determine which Indigenous voices receive the largest platforms?


If an Indigenous advocate can travel internationally to speak for a well-funded organization but cannot realistically appear in a grassroots community because the community cannot afford the cost, we should be asking whether something has gone wrong.


If corporations can sit in the audience and hear Indigenous environmental advocates speak while grassroots Nations struggle to get those same voices into their communities, we should be asking questions.


If organizations can build impressive advocacy campaigns while the people living beside contaminated water, industrial development or environmental destruction remain under-resourced, we should be asking questions.


This isn't about accusing every organization of hypocrisy. It is about following the money, following the access, and following the power.


Indigenous Advocacy Should Not Become a Luxury Product

Water is not a luxury. Indigenous rights are not a luxury. Community education is not a luxury.

Youth leadership is not a luxury.


And access to Indigenous knowledge and advocacy should not become something that only wealthy institutions can purchase.


We believe there should be an ethical distinction between: a multinational corporation hosting a high-profile conference and a struggling Indigenous Youth Group trying to bring an Indigenous youth water advocate into its community.


Those circumstances are not equivalent.


A wealthy institution may be able to pay a substantial professional speaking fee. A grassroots community may need that same money to feed people at an event, compensate Elders, transport youth, rent a community facility, purchase supplies or support actual water-protection work.


That difference matters.


Where Are the Other Indigenous Youth?

Perhaps the most important question is what this celebrity culture does to everyone else.

What happens to the young Indigenous person who is doing incredible work but doesn't have the right connections?


What happens to the youth organizer whose community doesn't have money?

What happens to the land defender who isn't invited to international conferences?

What happens to the water protector who doesn't have professional representation?

What happens to the young person doing the work every day but whose name has never appeared in an international media story?


Do their voices matter less? Of course not. But our current system can make it appear that way. We should be creating more Indigenous leaders, not fewer voices concentrated around a handful of recognizable names.


We should be opening doors, not building gates.


Celebrity Should Never Replace Community

We are not arguing that Indigenous advocates should remain poor, unknown or disconnected from the wider world. Indigenous people deserve every opportunity.


Take the platform; Speak internationally; Go to the United Nations; Challenge governments. Challenge corporations; Tell the world what is happening.


But don't lose the community along the way.


Because there is a fundamental difference between being a spokesperson for a community and being accountable to a community. The first can become celebrity. The second remains leadership.


We Need a Different Model

We need to start having a serious conversation about ethical standards for Indigenous advocacy.


That conversation could include:

  • Sliding-scale or waived speaking fees for grassroots and impoverished First Nations.

  • Community-access commitments for prominent Indigenous advocates working on issues directly affecting Indigenous peoples.

  • Greater transparency around corporate, institutional and foundation funding relationships.

  • Greater opportunities for lesser-known Indigenous youth activists to access major platforms.

  • More investment directly into grassroots Indigenous organizations, rather than concentrating resources around already-established public figures.

  • Recognition that community engagement is different from commercial speaking engagements.


Most importantly, we need to stop measuring Indigenous leadership solely by international visibility. A person does not become more valuable to their people because they have spoken on more stages.


A person does not become more knowledgeable because they have travelled to more countries. And a person does not become more representative because institutions have decided they are the face of an issue.


Who Are We Building This For?

This is ultimately the question. Are we building an Indigenous advocacy system that is accessible to Indigenous people? Or are we building an Indigenous advocacy industry that is accessible primarily to institutions with money?


Are our most visible advocates still reachable by the people who need them? Are we creating opportunities for the next generation of Indigenous youth? Are grassroots communities receiving the same attention as international organizations?


And are we willing to examine the relationships between advocacy organizations, governments, foundations and multinational corporations — particularly when those corporations are involved in activities affecting Indigenous lands and waters?


These questions are uncomfortable. They should be because if we cannot ask difficult questions about our own movements, how can we demand accountability from governments and corporations?


Our Water Protectors Belong to the People

Water protection did not begin on an international conference stage. It did not begin at a university. It did not begin inside a foundation. And it certainly did not begin with celebrity.

It began in communities.


It began with people standing beside rivers and lakes. It began with Elders teaching young people. It began with Nations defending their territories. It began with people who often had no money, no professional representation and no guarantee that anyone would ever hear their voices.


Those people still exist. They are still doing the work. They deserve to be heard.

They deserve resources. They deserve platforms.


And they deserve access to the advocates who speak publicly about the issues affecting them.


Indigenous advocacy should never become something that Indigenous communities themselves cannot afford.


The question is not whether Indigenous advocates deserve success.They do. The question is whether, as that success grows, the distance between the advocate and the community grows with it.


And if it does, we have to ask ourselves:


Who are they speaking for — and who are they still listening to?


ZAAZAKWE Podcast


ACTION — Anishinabek Clans To Invoke Our Nation

Protecting Water. Defending Inherent Rights. Building Community.


 
 
 

Federal Court Litigation


Protecting Treaty Rights, the Environment, and the Honour of the Crown

Welcome to the Federal Court Litigation section of my website.

These proceedings have been filed in the Federal Court of Canada to address issues that I believe affect not only my own constitutionally protected Treaty rights as a Williams Treaties rights holder, but also broader questions of Indigenous consultation, environmental protection, public accountability, and the rule of law.


The cases challenge decisions that permitted major projects and commercial agreements to advance while, in my view, meaningful consultation with affected Treaty rights holders did not occur. They also raise questions about whether governments and public authorities fulfilled their constitutional obligations under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, environmental legislation, and the Honour of the Crown.

These documents are being published to promote transparency and allow community members, journalists, researchers, lawyers, and the public to review the court materials directly.


Please note: These proceedings are currently before the Federal Court. The documents below contain the allegations, evidence, and legal arguments advanced by the Applicant. The Court has not yet determined the merits of these claims.


Williams Treaty First Nations Band Councils Nuclear Deal Decision

Federal Court File File T-3166-26 



Summary

This proposed motion seeks an interlocutory injunction preventing the implementation of Band Council Resolutions approving participation in the Darlington New Nuclear Project until the legality of those decisions can be reviewed by the Federal Court.


The application argues that Treaty rights holders were not provided notice or an opportunity to participate before decisions were finalized, despite public communications indicating negotiations had been underway for several years under confidentiality agreements. The motion seeks to preserve the status quo while the Court considers whether the decisions complied with constitutional obligations and principles of procedural fairness.


Issues Raised

  • Section 35 Treaty Rights

  • Procedural fairness

  • Community consultation

  • Transparency

  • Governance accountability

  • Band Council decision-making

  • Preservation of the status quo


Darlington New Nuclear Project

Federal Court File T-2232-26



Summary

This motion seeks an interlocutory injunction to temporarily stop construction activities at the Darlington New Nuclear Project while the Federal Court considers whether the project approvals complied with constitutional and environmental law.

The motion challenges decisions permitting continued construction after the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission removed Regulatory Hold Point 1 and authorized additional construction activities. It argues that construction is advancing before Indigenous rights, environmental impacts, cumulative effects, and consultation obligations have been fully addressed.

Issues Raised

  • Duty to Consult under section 35

  • Protection of Williams Treaties harvesting rights

  • Environmental assessment

  • Species at Risk protection

  • Fisheries protection

  • Irreparable environmental harm

  • Constitutional accountability


Supplemental Affidavit

Darlington New Nuclear Project



Summary

This Supplemental Affidavit provides additional evidence obtained after the original application was filed.

It includes publicly released communications concerning commercial negotiations between the Williams Treaties First Nations and governments relating to participation in the Darlington New Nuclear Project. The affidavit states that negotiations were conducted under confidentiality agreements, that commercial arrangements were described as separate from consultation processes, and that the Applicant was not consulted before these agreements became public. The affidavit also references government announcements regarding financing and investment structures. (This document contains the Applicant's evidence and interpretations for the Court to consider.)



Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar Project

Federal Court File T-2719-26



Summary

This motion asks the Federal Court to temporarily halt advancement of Canada's proposed Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar project in Clearview Township until lawful consultation and environmental review have occurred.

The application argues that the proposed radar installation could affect wetlands, species at risk, ecologically sensitive lands, and Treaty harvesting rights within Williams Treaties territory. It also seeks declarations regarding the Crown's constitutional duty to consult Indigenous peoples before proceeding with major development.

Issues Raised

  • Duty to Consult

  • Honour of the Crown

  • Wetland protection

  • Species at Risk

  • Environmental assessment

  • Treaty harvesting rights

  • NORAD modernization impacts


Tiny Township & Wasaga Beach Proceedings

Federal Court File T-1760-26


Summary

This motion requests interlocutory injunctions preventing further ground disturbance associated with the Tiny Township Administrative Centre Project and former Wasaga Beach Provincial Park lands until the Federal Court determines whether federal decision-makers complied with their constitutional and statutory obligations.

The motion alleges that further construction, excavation, grading, shoreline alteration, and related activities could result in irreversible impacts while questions concerning consultation and environmental protection remain before the Court.

Issues Raised

  • Duty to Consult

  • Fisheries Act

  • Species at Risk Act

  • Environmental stewardship

  • Williams Treaties rights

  • Irreparable environmental harm



Why These Cases Matter

Together, these proceedings raise broader legal questions about how governments, regulators, and public institutions make decisions affecting Indigenous peoples, Treaty lands, and the environment.


The cases ask whether constitutional rights can be meaningfully protected if major projects, commercial agreements, and environmental approvals proceed before consultation is complete and before the courts have had an opportunity to review their legality.

By making these materials publicly available, I hope to encourage informed discussion, increase transparency, and contribute to a broader understanding of Indigenous rights, environmental stewardship, and the constitutional responsibilities owed to Treaty rights holders.

 
 
 

Sunday July 12, 2026


Request for Review – Draft AFN Resolution on Constitutional Consultation and Section 35


Dear Chiefs 


My name is John Hawke. I am Atik Dodem (Caribou Clan), an Anishinaabe Treaty rights holder from Gchimnissing Anishinaabe Aki (Beausoleil First Nation) within the Williams Treaties.


 I am writing to share, for your information and consideration, materials relating to a Federal Court proceeding I have commenced concerning the constitutional duty to consult under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982


The motion raises broader questions about whether consultation processes affecting major development projects—including projects with significant environmental and long-term impacts on Indigenous lands and waters—are meaningfully engaging the Indigenous rights holders whose Treaty and Aboriginal rights may be affected. 


I believe these issues are relevant to organizations working to advance Indigenous sovereignty, climate justice, environmental stewardship, and the protection of Indigenous rights. Attached are a brief overview of the matter together with my court materials, including my Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Fact and Law, and supporting documents. 


I am not writing to ask your organization to take a position on the litigation. Rather, I hope these materials may be of interest given your work and mandate. If you have any comments, observations, or suggestions after reviewing them, I would sincerely welcome your feedback. 


These proceedings concern the implementation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Honour of the Crown, the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate, federal environmental legislation, and the approval of major projects affecting Treaty territories. 


The following projects are within our projected lands where the Crown has failed its duty to consult where the following will harm our Treaty Rights and Treaty Territory.


Darlington New Nuclear Project Federal Court File No. T-2232-26 This proceeding seeks interlocutory relief concerning the continued construction of the Darlington New Nuclear Project pending determination of constitutional issues relating to consultation. The application raises questions regarding section 35 consultation obligations, regulatory approvals, environmental oversight, and whether major construction should continue while consultation and Indigenous rights issues remain unresolved. 


Department of National Defence – Arctic Over-the Horizon Radar Project Federal Court File No. T-2719-26 This proceeding concerns the proposed Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar Project in Treaty 18 territory. It raises issues regarding the Crown's constitutional duty to consult, potential impacts on harvesting rights, wetlands, species at risk, archaeological resources, and cumulative environmental effects before construction proceeds. 


Tiny Township Administrative Centre and Wasaga Beach Provincial Park Lands Federal Court File No. T-1760-26 This proceeding seeks interlocutory relief relating to the proposed Tiny Township Administrative Centre and the transfer and proposed development of former Wasaga Beach Provincial Park lands. The application alleges failures to fulfill federal responsibilities under the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and section 35 consultation obligations. It also raises concerns respecting endangered species habitat, fish habitat, shoreline ecosystems, Crown land disposition, and the absence of meaningful Crown-led consultation before development and land transfers proceeded. 


Broader Constitutional Questions Collectively, these proceedings raise broader constitutional questions extending beyond the individual projects, including: 


• implementation of the Crown's constitutional duty to consult before irreversible project decisions; 


• protection of Aboriginal and Treaty rights under section 35; 


• federal obligations under environmental legislation, including the Fisheries Act and Species at Risk Act; • whether consultation occurring after approvals satisfies constitutional obligations; 


• the relationship between federal and provincial decision-making where both governments participate in projects affecting Treaty territories; 


• protection of harvesting rights, environmental stewardship responsibilities, and culturally significant lands and waters. 


I have also prepared a draft constitutional discussion paper entitled Honour of the Crown: Strengthening Constitutional Consultation Standards for Major Projects Affecting Our Territories. In this paper I have included a proposed draft Assembly of First Nations resolution for discussion.


I am writing at this time because the 2026 Assembly of First Nations Annual General Assembly on Tuesday July 14th 2026 includes dedicated discussions called: Plenary Session on Government Consultation on Streamlining Major Projects Honouring the Duty to Consult and Upholding Environmental Protections.


I respectfully offer the enclosed discussion paper and proposed resolution as a contribution to that broader national dialogue among First Nations. My hope is that these materials may assist Chiefs and their advisors in considering how consultation can continue to evolve in a manner that upholds Section 35, Treaty relationships, the Honour of the Crown, and Indigenous self-determination.


If you believe these materials raise issues worthy of broader discussion, I would be grateful for the opportunity to speak with you or members of your administration and to hear your perspective.


ATTACHED is my Discussion Paper and Proposed Resolution entitled Honour of the Crown" Strengthening Constitutional Consultation Standards for our Territories


Miigwech for your time and consideration.


John Hawke



 
 
 
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Thanks for submitting!

CONTACT >

Anishinabek Clans to Invoke our Nation      81 Ogema Miikaan

Christian Island Indian Reserve No. 30a, Tiny, ON, Canada

T: 705 247 2120

C: 705 247 2120

E: communications@anishinaabek.net 

© 2023 by Make A Change.
Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page