The Press Release That Proved the Pattern

When I finished The Next Comfort Line: From Programs to Property, the pattern was pretty clear:

Start with programs: healing, food, water, culture.
Turn programs into positions: boards, tables, “chairs.”
Turn positions into property: land bases, jurisdiction, “rights holders.”

For years, that lived in quiet places.

Draft bylaws.

Grant applications.

Little edits in documents that nobody outside the room ever saw.

Then the bands put it all in a press release.³

I didn’t find this release online. It came to me quietly — passed through private hands inside the energy sector. The version I received was labeled official and described as “part of the declarations as we move down the road to self-government.” The person who shared it asked not to name the chief it came from — or themselves. That’s its own kind of messaging: not a public call for support, but a calculated warning shot to those already involved in land, consultation, or project planning.

It also doesn’t speak for every band. My source was blunt: “This release does not capture the opinion of all the bands… It’s a money grab.” That tracks with what I’ve already observed. Only two names appear on the release — Three Rivers Band's (Peggy White) and Benoit First Nation (Jasen Benwah) — but others like Mildred Lavers’ group on the Northern Peninsula likely fit the same mold. All three are publicly or quietly pursuing self-government and land claim frameworks. Whether coordinated or not, the pattern is visible.

Now the whole thing is right there in one place:

government, land, UNDRIP, consultation veto, and even a jump to the UN and OAS.³

This isn’t me reading into someone’s Facebook drama.

This is them, on paper, saying who they think they are and what they want.³

From community rep to “governing authority”

Most people in western Newfoundland still picture bands like this:

they show up at events,
they help people apply for programs,
they “speak for the community” when asked.

That’s also how they present themselves on paper. Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band Inc. describes itself as an Indigenous service provider for Bay St. George South, representing nearly half of the region’s 1,100 residents.¹ Benoit First Nation, or Penwaaq L’nu’k, describes itself as an Indigenous community based on the Port au Port Peninsula.¹

The joint press release from Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band and Benoit First Nation—led by Chief Peggy White and Chief Jasen Benwah—upgrades that job.² ³ It calls them the traditional Mi’kmaq governing bodies for Bay St. George and western Newfoundland.³ Not just groups. Not just associations.

Governments.

That sounds like a small wording change. It isn’t.

If they are governments, then:

the land they name becomes their territory,
the people on it live under their authority,
and everyone else is… extra.

That’s the comfort line from The Next Comfort Line, crossed in broad daylight:

before: “we represent our people,”

now: “we govern this territory.”

Once you accept that, the press release stops sounding like a list of requests.

It starts reading like a notice.³

The landless shell vs. the land-based claimant

In Nothing To Do With Land, I said landless structures are useful to governments.

They:

hand out status cards,
offer programs,
soak up anger,
and never touch the hard part: who owns the ground.

That’s where Qalipu has lived in people’s minds: a registry, not a land deal.

The official documents say it out loud. Ottawa’s own directive describes Qalipu as a landless band created under an agreement for the Mi’kmaq of Newfoundland.⁴ The Band Order that brought Qalipu into existence in 2011 did not attach any reserve land to it at all.⁴

Benoit First Nation’s own history notes that many of their families were registered and received status cards as founding members of Qalipu back in 2009.⁵ In other words: they helped build the landless shell first. Then later, through their own band, they began to speak as the land-based claimant.⁵

The press release splits the deck for you.³

Qalipu becomes the administrative entity.

Three Rivers and Benoit First Nation step forward as the ones with real ties to land, bloodlines, and “traditional governance.”³

So you now have:

Top shell: Qalipu – cards, benefits, no land.⁴
Bottom claim: local bands – “hereditary governments” and territory.³

The argument is not “get rid of Qalipu.”

It’s “Qalipu was always a substitute for us.”³

This is the two-layer system I’ve been mapping:

The visible, polite structure Ottawa can point to.
The land-based structure being built under it, waiting for the right moment to step forward.

This press release is that moment.³

“Never ceded”: how programs turn into property

One line in the release should make you sit up:

“Our lands have never been ceded, sold, or surrendered.”³

Sounds like history class. It’s not. It’s a current legal position.

If their lands were never ceded, then:

The Crown’s title is not settled.
Your home may sit on contested land.
Any major project — wind, hydrogen, ports, lines — is in a legal grey zone unless it goes through them.³

This is where those “nothing to do with land” programs show their real job.

For years we’ve heard:

food insecurity,
healing,
reconciliation,
“representation at the table.”

The message is always the same:

These people were wronged. Something must be fixed.

The press release takes that feeling and cashes it in as a land claim:

Not “we need better services.”

Not “we need a fair share of funding.”

But “we never gave up this land, and we remain the lawful stewards of this territory.”³

Programs → position → property.

All in a single sentence.

Consultation as veto and tollbooth

There’s another quiet bomb in the middle.

The bands say they have sent Cease and Desist letters to governments and companies, telling them to stop consultation and development in their “traditional territories” unless it is done with the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of these bands as the rightful rights holders.³ That same language shows up again when the release is shared and summarized in public posts.³

On paper, that sounds nice:

“Respect our consent.”

In practice, it means:

other councils and groups in the region can be told they don’t count,
past consultations on wind or hydrogen can be called invalid,
governments and companies are warned their legal risk jumps unless they go through this one gate.³

At that point, “consultation” isn’t a kind gesture.

It’s a lever of power.

International standards now treat Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as the goal of consultation whenever states adopt laws, policies, or authorize projects that affect Indigenous lands.⁶ ⁷ FPIC is defined as the right of Indigenous peoples to give or withhold consent before any activity takes place on their lands.⁶ ⁷ ⁸

If you can decide which consultation is valid, then you don’t just have a voice. You have:

a veto on what moves forward, and
a tollbooth on what gets allowed.

In The Next Comfort Line, I talked about the shift from programs to property.

Here, we’re watching the shift in consultation:

from “we deserve a seat at the table”

to “we decide which tables are legitimate.”

Try running large projects through that and tell me this has “nothing to do with land.”

UNDRIP, Section 35, and jumping over everyone’s head

Another theme in this series is the ladder:

Start local: community meetings, advisory boards, “tables.”
Move into national law: Section 35, court cases, official recognition.
Then jump to international forums: UN declarations, special rapporteurs, OAS, human rights bodies.

The press release climbs that whole ladder.³

It:

leans on Section 35 of the Constitution,
invokes the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), especially on self-determination and consent,⁶
calls on UN and OAS bodies to investigate Canada and Newfoundland & Labrador over alleged violations.³

UNDRIP itself says that states must obtain free, prior and informed consent for certain actions that affect Indigenous lands and resources, including relocation and resource development.⁶ ⁷ That’s not a side note; it’s the legal fuel behind FPIC arguments worldwide.

Why does that matter to a small place like Bay St. George or Port au Port?

Because once it’s framed as an international Indigenous rights issue, the locals turn into extras in their own movie.

Decisions now travel like this:

drafted by lawyers and advisors,
validated in Geneva or Washington,
dropped back on your town as, “Sorry, our hands are tied. This is international law now.”

The press release is not only about local hurt.

It’s about where the final call gets moved to and who gets to say, “That’s it. Discussion over.”

Hint: it’s not you.

Suicidal benevolence in a neat PDF

If you read the press release and your first feeling is sympathy, that’s normal.

It leans hard into:

reconciliation,
healing,
poverty,
cultural erasure,
“the poorest and most neglected in the province.”³

These are real problems. I’m not denying that.

But they also make very good cover.

Wrap a hard land and power grab in soft language, and it becomes risky for anyone to ask basic questions:

What exact territory are we talking about here?
How does this affect current private property?
Who chose these “governing bodies”? For how long? Under what rules?
What happens to Indigenous people in the area who don’t want this structure speaking for them?

Ask those out loud and watch how fast you get called names.

This is what I call suicidal benevolence:

You’re pushed to be so kind, you let go of your own right to stay safe.

The press release is a clean example:

real wounds,
real history,
attached to a very sharp governance project with a map at the end.

Why this sits beside “Nothing To Do With Land”

For the last few years, any time I said this was about land, I heard the same line:

“You’re overreacting. This is about programs, not property.”

Then the bands put this in writing.³

That’s why this piece doesn’t belong buried in a footnote somewhere.

It sits beside the Nothing To Do With Land series as a companion:

it confirms the pattern laid out there,
it gives a date where “programs vs. property” stopped being theory,³
it shows this is no longer hidden in back rooms.

You don’t have to agree with me to see the shape.

You just have to read their own words and ask yourself one simple thing:

If this really has “nothing to do with land,”

why does every road built with this language end at the map?

Once you’ve seen the destination printed in a press release, those little edits don’t look so harmless anymore.

References

[1] Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band Inc., “About Our Band” and related pages describing the band as an Indigenous service provider representing about half of the 1,100 residents of Bay St. George South, Newfoundland; NL Indigenous Tourism Alliance listing for Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band Inc.; Benoit First Nation (Penwaaq L’nu’k) basic info describing the community on the Port au Port Peninsula.

Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band Inc. – About Our Band: https://www.3-rivers.ca/about

NL Indigenous Tourism Alliance – Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band Workshops listing: https://nlita.ca/listings/three-rivers-mikmaq-band-inc/

Benoit First Nation – History / basic info: https://www.benoitfirstnation.ca/bfn_history.html

[2] Memorial University (Grenfell Campus), “Historic agreement signing with Mi’kmaw leaders,” which names Chief Peggy White (Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band) and Chief Jasen Benwah (Benoit First Nation) among the signatories to a 2024 agreement.

Historic agreement signing with Mi’kmaw leaders – Grenfell Campus news release: https://www.mun.ca/grenfellcampus/news--media/historic-agreement-signing-with-mikmaw-leaders/

[3] “Bay St. George Mi’kmaq Bands Demand Recognition, Self-Government, and International Investigation” – joint press release circulated in 2025 and attributed to Three Rivers Mi’kmaq Band Inc. and Benoit First Nation, asserting traditional governing authority, unceded lands, and Cease and Desist letters over consultation; including public shares and summaries of this release on social media. (Local Download)

Example public share (Facebook group post, 6 October 2025): https://www.facebook.com/groups/111348745705562/posts/3089267977913609/

[4] Indigenous and Northern Affairs / Indigenous Services Canada documentation on Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation: the Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq Band and the “Directive to the Enrolment Committee,” which state the intent to establish a landless band for the Mi’kmaq of Newfoundland; and the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order (SOR/2011-180), which created the band without reserve lands.

Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation – Governance overview (references the Agreement): https://qalipu.ca/about/governance/

Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation – Enrolment page (links to Agreement and Directive): https://qalipu.ca/enrolment/

Directive to the Enrolment Committee – Indigenous Services Canada: https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1372160159886/1572460207346

Supplemental Agreement / Information update (expressing intent to establish a landless band): https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1372160117898/1572460062423

Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order (SOR/2011-180) – Justice Laws (Canada): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2011-180/

Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Act – Justice Laws (Canada): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Q-0.5/page-1.html

[5] Benoit First Nation, “History” / Qalipu enrolment information, noting that many Benoit families were registered and received status cards as founding members of Qalipu First Nation in 2009.

Benoit First Nation – History (includes Qalipu founding membership note): https://www.benoitfirstnation.ca/bfn_history.html

[6] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), material on “Consultation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC),” outlining that states must treat consent as the objective of consultation when adopting laws or authorizing projects affecting Indigenous peoples; and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), especially articles referring to free, prior and informed consent.

OHCHR – Consultation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC): https://www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/consultation-and-free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – official PDF: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

[7] Institute for Human Rights and Business, “What is Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)?”, defining FPIC as obtaining consent from Indigenous peoples before any activities take place on their lands; and the Accountability Framework Initiative, “Operational Guidance on Free, Prior and Informed Consent.”

Institute for Human Rights and Business – What is Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)?: https://www.ihrb.org/resources/what-is-free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic

Accountability Framework Initiative – Operational Guidance on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (PDF): https://accountability-framework.org/fileadmin/uploads/afi/Documents/Operational_Guidance/OG_FPIC-2020-5.pdf

Accountability Framework Initiative – FPIC definition page (summary): https://accountability-framework.org/the-accountability-framework/definitions/article/free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic/

[8] Indigenous Environmental Network and allied Indigenous rights organisations, explanatory materials on FPIC describing it as a key process by which Indigenous peoples assert sovereignty and self-determination in the context of resource and fossil-fuel projects.

Indigenous Environmental Network – Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) overview: https://www.ienearth.org/fpic/

Indigenous Environmental Network – IRAC Free, Prior and Informed Consent (fossil-fuel context): https://www.ienearth.org/irac-free-prior-and-informed-consent/

Welcome to The Bayman's Paradox