Noopemig

Noopemig Water- wet, wild and free (part two)

2011-07-11T13:43:00.002-04:00

To add to the call for greater scrutiny at what is taking place in the James and Hudson’s Bay lowlands, the Matawa Chiefs Council, whose communities will be directly impacted by the activities in the Ring of Fire have also written a letter to Ministers of the Environment, Peter Kent (Canada) and John Wilkinson (Ontario) respectively, calling for a “Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment (EA) for Mining and Enabling Infrastructure in the traditional territories of the First Nations within the Matawa First Nations.”

The Matawa First Nations Chiefs state that “the cumulative effects of these mining and infrastructure projects (road, rail, hydro, and telecommunications) on the traditional territories of our First Nations will profoundly affect our communities and the future of all of Northern Ontario…..the sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of this area, with its high water table and many rivers and streams will be significantly impacted by these developments; this is especially true for those remote First Nations closest to the Ring of Fire and infrastructure areas.”

The Matawa First Nations Chiefs state that companies have submitted Project Descriptions to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and that, “Our First Nations were not consulted in these Project Descriptions and per Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (Mikisew, Haida, Taku River Tlingit, etc.) the Crown is to consult with First Nations.”

For a number of years now, Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence says that if the Crown contemplates conduct that will impact Aboriginal and Treaty rights, (Section 35-Constitution Act-1982), it must consult and accommodate the rights-holders prior to the impacting of said rights.

In May 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeals, upon releasing the Ardoch Algonquin and the KI-6 to time served, ruled that there was a “duty to negotiate to reconcile aboriginal interests with competing interests.”

It was shortly after the Court of Appeals decision, two (2) pieces of legislation were introduced at Queen’s Park to deal with mining and related issues (amended Mining Act) and land use planning ( the Far North Act) respectively, to reflect the public outcry against the incarceration of First Nations as a result of an archaic Mining Act.

Premier Dalton McGuinty stated, “Our plan will ensure that mining potential across the province is developed in a sustainable way that benefits and respects communities. We will ensure that our mining industry remains strong – but we also need to modernize the way mining companies stake and explore their claims to be more respectful of private land owners and Aboriginal communities. The Ontario Government believes exploration and mine development should only take place following early consultation and accommodation of Aboriginal communities.”

Indigenous peoples have made declarations and have been holding “Mother Earth Water Walks” to call attention to the sacred gift of water, the source of our life, the source of all life.” since 2003 to put into action the Indigenous Declaration on Water made in the summer of 2001 which states:

"As Indigenous Peoples, we raise our voices in solidarity to speak for the protection of Water. The Creator placed us on this earth, each in our own sacred and traditional lands, to care for all of creation. We stand united to follow and implement our knowledge, laws and self-determination to preserve Water, to preserve life." Indigenous Declaration on Water, July/August 2001, British Columbia, Canada.

On July 5, 2011, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) held a referendum on a Water Declaration to “protect all waters that flow into and out of Big Trout Lake, and all lands whose waters flow into those lakes, rivers, and wetlands, to be completely protected through our continued care under KI’s authority, laws and protocols.” They voted overwhelming to protect their watershed.

It is estimated that one-fifth of the world’s freshwater is in Canada and roughly 3.9 % located in the north of Canada so it is under these challenging circumstances that watershed protection efforts are coming to the Far North.

The four (4) major rivers and the surrounding watersheds in the Far North appear like arterial blood veins as they provide water and nutrients to an ecosystem that provides life to watersheds and lands, including throughout the Ring of Fire, along the way to Hudson’s and James Bay in Noopemig.

Noopemig Water – wet, wild, and free….

2011-07-07T11:32:00.002-04:00

At least for the time being, water continues to serve its purpose to provide life-giving water to Mother Earth as it flows freely, creating paths to hydrate all forms of existence on this elaborately-created planet.

Rivers and lakes run throughout Noopemig, providing water and nutrients that enable life to flourish throughout Planet Earth. It is said that about 74-75 % of our planet is covered under water by rivers, lakes, oceans, and polar ice caps. It is also said that our bodies are comprised of about 70% water located mostly in our cells.

According to the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) 97.5% of the water covering the earth’s surface is seawater (salt) and 2.5% of the freshwater is located in glaciers, permafrost and groundwater which would be difficult and expensive to access.

The IEN website on the World Water Statistics says that “less than 1% of the world’s water is available for human consumption,” and that “over half of that 1% is polluted and unusable for human consumption!!” The website includes a quote attributed to Julie Stauffer, author of “The Water Crisis,” which says that, “Not only is the level of water in the global well getting low, the water is also polluted sometimes to the point it is no longer drinkable.”

Along with the water becoming undrinkable comes the impact on the traditional food supplies in the Far North through the fish and animals that use these same waters, which then provide the main food sources of peoples who have traditionally lived on and off the land. The communities in the Far North see these waters as culturally significant and as their lifeblood – providing clean drinking water for all life, habitat for fish and water life, food and travel ways, moisture for the air, etc. - and deem them worthy of protection.

Wildlands League will be collaborating with communities and tribal councils in the Far North of Ontario, who live on or near four (4) major rivers over the next two (2) years to advance watershed planning.

The four major rivers, the Albany, Winisk, Attawapiskat and the Severn watersheds are four (4) of only 12 left in North America south of 55 degrees that remain undammed and unregulated (although there is a diversion on the Albany River near its headwaters upstream) thus making them ecologically significant. The Ekwan is another river community members have expressed concerns about too.

This project will support tribal councils and indigenous communities, who are often most impacted by water quality and water quantity changes, “to develop culturally-appropriate, community-based approaches to watershed stewardship,” including “advancing mutually-supported river-system goals.”

It will also increase the awareness of watershed protection and the need for proactive planning and the tools and options that are available for the protection of watersheds. As development like forestry and mining move northward, there is an increasing need to understand how ecosystems function and what the impact of development will be upon these ecosystems including their consequences to the Far North communities.

A majority of First Nation communities do not have the resources or the capacity to begin to deal with the changes that are coming into their traditional territories. Wildlands League is committing more than 13% of its budget this year to providing support and capacity to advance watershed protection for the maintenance of healthy ecosystems. This means 13% of its budget is going directly to First Nations. This is an important feat.

Although there are legal mechanisms in place that say that activities like mineral resource development will be done, “in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult and accommodate and to minimize the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment,” increasingly, third party interests are being established in First Nation traditional territories without the knowledge of the communities or consideration of environmental protection.

Claim staking continues under the old Mining Act free-entry system as the new regulations under the newly-reformed Mining Act will not be available until April 2012. These claims will then be grand-fathered and will not be affected by any community-based land use planning by First Nations under the Far North Act.

Exploration continues in places like the Ring of Fire, which is considered by some to hold one of the world’s largest chromite deposits in the lowlands of Hudson’s Bay. It is expected that the activities in the Ring of Fire will have a direct impact on at least three (3) of the major rivers including the streams, creeks, rivers and tributaries in the Ogoki, Kapiskau and the Ekwan watershed catchment areas.

While a coalition of environmental organizations has called on the federal government to set up a joint-review panel to ensure that mining development is monitored closely and that these activities adhere to environmental standards, the silence has been deafening thus far….

The roar of the rushing rivers continue throughout Noopemig, seemingly oblivious to the increased risks and pressures, that development will place on fragile ecosystems and to the peoples who depend on these waterways to continue running freely.

Why has it become necessary for the environmental groups to reach out beyond the borders of Ontario to try to ensure mining development is monitored so that it adheres to environmental standards? What are the communities in the Ring of Fire doing and what does this mean for the watersheds located on the traditional lands in the Far North? More on this in my next entry next week.

Noopemig in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

2011-02-03T09:38:00.000-05:00

Northern Voices-Northern Waters

With temperatures in the mid-minus 30’s and with the water underneath a blanket of snow and ice, the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) provided a warm and welcoming reception as they hosted members of the Forum for Leadership on Water (FLOW) on water management issues. FLOW members, a group of Canadian independent water experts who encourage government action to protect and steward the most precious natural resource – water, had amongst its delegation: the Executive Directors of the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources (CIER) and Simon Fraser University’s Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT), Academia, ENGO’s, First Peoples and funding institutions involved in water protection and who are concerned with the changing environment.

Canada’s North with its abundant land and water resources are at risk as changing temperatures impact water quality and ecosystems that uphold the fragile balance from which all life exists and flourishes. Changing weather patterns throughout the world are evident as the drivers of climate change continue to stoke the fires of the economic engine often without proper mitigation measures on the horizon. Rivers, lakes and water systems are impacted affecting the lives of people, animals, fish, birds and plants alike that depend on these systems. People living in the north who depend on the land and water for drink, food, transportation, culture and recreation are noticing the rapid changes to which they have to make adaptations to their lifestyle.

The Government of the Northwest Territories, both present and former leaders continues to champion water protection and security by providing leadership for the development of the Northwest Territories (NWT) Water Stewardship Strategy- Northern Voices, Northern Waters.

Deputy Premier, the Honorable J. Michael Miltenberger, who is also the Finance Minister and the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) in the GNWT, says that someone had to take on this challenge – as the global warming train has left the station without a driver. “The federal government has said that they will not take the lead (and) climate change is on the tracks and nobody seems to be driving the train!”

Premier Floyd Roland says that northerners have always talked about taking control of northern waters and lands. “The land and water are key issues Northerners hold dear to our heart….It might be Canada’s backyard but it is our front yard.”

In 2007, the NWT Legislative Assembly declared that, “All peoples have a fundamental human right to water that must be recognized nationally and internationally, including the development of appropriate institutional mechanisms to ensure that these rights are implemented.”

The NWT Water Stewardship Strategy, Northern Voices, Northern Waters states as its vision that “The waters of the Northwest Territories will remain clean, abundant and productive for all time.” While the strategy only addresses freshwater ecosystems, it also states that it is the collective desire of NWT residents “to safeguard our water resources for current and future generations.”

This strategic goal is not without its challenges as the NWT residents live downstream from Alberta and British Columbia (B.C.) who operate major hydroelectric, oil and gas development, forestry and mining industries.

B.C. is building a third dam on the Peace River, a controversial 6.6 billion dollar hydroelectric project known at Site C. The reservoir is expected to flood over 5,300 hectares of land in the Treaty 8 territory. The First Nations in the area say that “it will cause irrevocable damage to the fish, wildlife and agriculture.”

Northern Alberta has the oil or tar sands project on the Athabasca River, the world’s largest deposit of crude bitumen and also the largest of the 3 major oil sands deposits in Alberta along with the Cold Lake and Peace River deposits.

On a tour of the Tar Sands project a few years back, I was astounded at the sheer magnitude of the equipment used to extract the bitumen - shovels several stories high and several 5 million dollar trucks transporting the bitumen to an oil extraction site. You can only imagine the huge quantities of water used daily to extract the oil from the sand and the resulting highly toxic waste material in the tailing ponds. Then there are the impacts to the quality of surface and groundwater and especially the impacts to the Mackenzie River Basin’s (MRB) freshwater deltas – the Slave and the Athabasca-Peace rivers.

According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)-Canada website, “the Mackenzie River Basin drains 20% of Canada’s land mass, gathering waters from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, and Northwest Territories. The river provides 11% of the freshwater that flows into the Arctic Ocean, playing a critical role in regulating ocean circulation and Arctic climate systems.”

The governments of Canada, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon and NWT signed a Trans-boundary Waters Master Agreement in 1997 agreeing to 4 guiding principles for cooperative management as they exercise their legislative responsibilities in the Mackenzie River Basin. These principles include:

. Equitable Utilization

. Prior Consultation –“that provides for early and effective consultation, notification and sharing of information on developments and activities that might affect the ecological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem in another jurisdiction.”

. Sustainable Development – “managing the use of water resources in a sustainable manner for present and future generations.”

. Maintenance of Ecological Integrity – “managing the water resources in a manner consistent with the maintenance of the ecological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem.”

The Master Agreement produced a 13-member Board for the Mackenzie River Basin, which has no authority to regulate water resources either at the legal or policy level. The board’s role has been limited with very few resources and no real commitment from the signatories.

There is a lot of work ahead to ensure the implementation of the NWT strategy plus there are various on-going processes in the Mackenzie River Basin that will have an impact on how the NWT Water Stewardship strategy evolves.

Devolution is expected in the near future where the NWT will soon have the legal authority to deal with lands and waters which will “create a new sense of ownership for Northerners.”

There are also lands claims with the Aboriginal governments in the Deh Cho (Big River) region. Deh Cho is the Aboriginal name for the Mackenzie River. An Aboriginal Steering Committee (ASC) played a key role in the development process and in the shaping of the final strategy.

Then there are the trans-boundary negotiations that need to occur with respect to upstream resource development activities in B.C. and Alberta. The NWT would like binding agreements with those provinces that will recognize the values and principles of the NWT strategy.

An action plan to implement the strategy with a corresponding budget will be required to ensure that “all competitive interests are given equal weight and fair consideration.”

The balancing of these complex issues and interests in the NWT through this proactive approach to natural resource development and protection is like a breath of fresh air…The NWT Water Stewardship Strategy indicates the caliber of leadership, both current and former, that is required to have a vision for the future that provides hope to the present and future generations that the life-giving waters of the Deh Cho will continue to flow.

Former Premier of GNWT, Stephen Kakfwi says that we have to change our ways of thinking on a global scale, “Surely we are coming to a time where we have to agree to protect water as we are the ones who have to drink it. It’s finite! We have to work together in a way that the world can sustain itself. Water has always been central, inseparable from the land, animals and humans. It is your soul!” Kakfwi continues, “The Dehcho is our life and we need to protect it. We are fighting for our lives and we need to let everybody know how important it is….”

The development of the NWT Water Stewardship Strategy should serve as a model of water-source protection on a national and international scale. Claiming ownership to water should not mean that we have a right to contaminate but to keep it as pure as possible even in its altered state. If we continue to go with the flow we will eventually end up on dry ground… or we can support and implement a strategy that will hold water.

We cannot continue to deliberately forget who, by command, brought the earth up from water and surrounded it with water so that all creation can take the water of life freely….

Let us hope that this wonderful opportunity in the Northwest Territories becomes the living legacy we can all aspire too.

Closer to home on the sacred living lands throughout Noopemig in the Far North, the voices of the land continue to echo as they wait patiently… waiting for the implementation of an agreement committed to last “as long as the rivers flow.”

Two Bills - What are the benefits?

2010-11-01T14:04:00.005-04:00

Approximately eleven (11) months after Bill 173- the Mining Amendment Act, 2009 received Royal Assent on October 28, 2009, Bill 191-the Far North Act, 2010 went into third (3^rd) reading in the Ontario legislature on September 23, 2010, amidst continued opposition from First Nations with the support of the Northern Ontario Chamber of Commerce and other organizations living and operating in the Far North.

Despite the opposition, Minister of Natural Resources, Linda Jeffrey framed the passing of the legislation this way: “Together, we are entering a new era of social prosperity, economic certainty and environmental protection in the Far North.”

The Far North Act – has as one of its objectives: “The protection of areas of cultural value in the Far North and the protection of ecological systems in the Far North by including at least 225,000 square kilometers of the Far North in an interconnected network of protected areas to be designated in community based land use plans (Section 6)”. The Far North is approximately 42% of the land mass in Ontario. The purpose of the Act is to “provide for community-based land use planning in the Far North.”

Under Bill 173- the Mining Amendment Act, 2009, Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, Michael Gravelle has stated that his ministry will consult on the development of the regulations and policies dealing with Aboriginal consultation throughout the mining sequence, including the criteria and the process for withdrawing sites of aboriginal significance; exploration plans and permits, including terms, conditions and requirements for early exploration; clarifying the existing consultation process for closure plans for advanced exploration and mine development projects; and a dispute resolution process for Aboriginal-related mining issues.

Currently there are consultations for regulatory development in the following eight (8) key areas:

1) Prospectors Awareness Program

2) On-line Staking

3) Exploration Plans and Permits

4) Assessment Work

5) Protection of Sites of Aboriginal Cultural Significance;

6) Aboriginal Consultation

7) Dispute Resolution

8) Private Surface Rights.

It is expected that the different sections of the Act will be proclaimed and come into force as they are developed.

Minister Gravelle has referred to Bill 173 as a “balanced piece of legislation” resulting from “comprehensive consultation,” and says that, “Bill 173 is aimed at bringing our mining legislation into harmony with the values of today’s society while, at the same time, promoting strong, vibrant and competitive minerals industry.”

Under Section 2, it states that the purpose of the new Mining Act is, “to encourage prospecting, staking and exploration for the development of mineral resources, in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult and to minimize the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment.”

What does this mean and how does it benefit communities in the Far North?

Below my blog will look at several of the sections in each Act. I highlight sections that may be of interest to people in Noopemig. Further, it is up to each person and community to decide for themselves and weigh the utility of the mechanisms described in each law. I believe each person or community must decide for themselves if they wish to use the mechanisms outlined to achieve their own goals on their lands in Noopemig.

This is what the Mining Act now says about Aboriginal Dispute Resolution and the Withdrawal of lands from staking:

Aboriginal Consultation\Dispute Resolution

The Mining Act says that consultation may occur after a person has submitted an exploration plan, in accordance with any prescribed requirements, “including any Aboriginal consultation that may be prescribed.” This person will have had “applied for and been issued an exploration permit,” from the Director of Exploration, who may be appointed by the Minister from the officers and employees of the Ministry.

This Director shall consider under S. 78.3 (2) (b), “Whether Aboriginal consultation has occurred in accordance with prescribed requirements, which may include consideration of any arrangements that have been made with Aboriginal communities that may be affected by the exploration.”

Bill 173 says that “a dispute resolution process is established for disputes relating to Aboriginal consultation occurring under the Act.” The dispute resolution clause for Aboriginal consultation says that “the Minister can designate one or more individuals, or a body, “to hear and consider disputes….relating to consultation with Aboriginal or treaty rights or to the assertion of Aboriginal or treaty rights, including disputes that may occur.”

Once a report and recommendations are made by the designated body to the Minister, the dispute resolution outlines the Minister’s powers dealing with Aboriginal consultation in the permitting, advanced exploration and the mine production stage in the following manner. The Minister may,

a) confirm, vary or rescind a Director’s decision in respect of an exploration permit issued under 78.3 exploration permit;

b) provide such further direction or support as he or she considers a appropriate respecting any consultation undertaken for the purposes of advanced exploration and mine production stage; or

c) take any actions that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances.

When combined with the provision that says there can be no activities during a dispute section 78.2 (7), Ontario and communities now have more tools available to them so that conflicts can’t be further inflamed or provoked during a dispute. It is also very important for communities to know that under this law, exploration permits can be rescinded. It is no longer a foregone conclusion that all exploration must go forward. This also means we now have more checks and balances on exploration than prior to this law.

Protection of Sites of Aboriginal Cultural Significance (Withdrawal of Lands)

Provisions for withdrawing lands that “meet the prescribed criteria as a site of Aboriginal cultural significance,” can be done under the authority of the Minister, who can order lands be withdrawn from prospecting, staking, sale and lease any lands, mining rights or surface rights that are the property of the Crown.”

Section 35 (1) reads:

The Minister may, by order signed by him or her, withdraw from prospecting, staking, sale and lease any lands, mining rights or surface rights that are the property of the Crown, and the lands, mining or surface rights shall remain withdrawn until reopened by the Minister.

Factors to consider:

(2) In making an order under subsection (1) the Minister may consider any factors that he or she considers appropriate including,

(a) Whether the lands, mining rights or surface rights are required for developing or operating public highways, renewable energy projects or power transmission lines or for another use that would benefit the public, whether the order would be consistent with any prescribed land use designation that may be made with respect to the Far North and whether the lands meet the prescribed criteria as a site of Aboriginal cultural significance; and

(b) any other factor that may be prescribed.

Pre-existing rights and tenure

(3) A withdrawal order issued under subsection (1) does not affect pre-existing mining rights and tenure such as mining claims, mining leases or licenses of occupation.

No mining claims may be staked or recorded on any land, “that is located in the Far North, if a community-based land use plan has designated the lands for a use inconsistent with mineral exploration and development.” It will be interesting to see how this will play out for communities in and around the Ring of Fire. The only way for controversial claims to be cancelled is if companies voluntarily let them lapse. It will also be interesting to see how the province defines Aboriginal cultural significance. This seems like an area First Nations should naturally lead.

The Mining Act - Part XIV- Far North says that “The validity of any mining claims,

mining leases, patents, and licenses of occupation for mining purposes located in the

Far North and any related approvals for mineral exploration and development activity

shall not be affected by a community based land use plan or any amendment to such a

plan that is inconsistent with mining purposes, if the consistent designation was made

after the mining claims, mining leases, patents, and licenses of occupation for mining

purposes or the related approvals for mineral explorations and development activities

were issued.”

The active mineral exploration projects in Northwestern Ontario and the 8000+ claims made by the mineral exploration companies are grandfathered as a result and will not be impacted by withdrawal orders or community-based land use plans. This is why it is critically important that if communities know where sensitive lands are now and where they wouldn’t want mining or exploration that they withdraw lands from staking. This is one tool they can use to secure those lands. It hasn’t been used a lot in the last few years in the Far North but it is a tool communities could consider to secure their lands now.

This brings us to Bill 191- Far North Act, which received royal assent on October 25, 2010.

Bill 191-the Far North Act, 2010

The purpose of the Far North Act is “to provide for community based land use planning in the Far North that directly involves First Nations in a “joint-planning process” with Ontario, that “supports the environmental, social, and economic objectives for land use planning for the peoples of Ontario set out in Section 6; and (c) is done in a manner that is consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult.”

A “community-based land use plan” means a land-use plan that has been prepared under Section nine (9) and approved by that section;

Section 5 states the following objectives:

1) A significant role for First Nations in the planning.

2) The protection of areas of cultural value in the Far North and the protection of ecological systems in the Far North by including at least 225,000 square kilometers of the Far North in an interconnected network of protected areas designated in community based land use plans.

3) The maintenance of biological diversity, ecological processes and ecological functions, including the storage and sequestration of carbon in the Far North.

4) Enabling sustainable economic development that benefits the First Nations.

Section 9 (1) states:

If one or more First Nations having one or more reserves in the Far North indicate to the Minister their interest in initiating the planning process, the Minister shall work with them to prepare terms of reference to guide the designation of an area in the Far North as a planning area and the preparation of a land use plan for the purpose of this section.”

The community-based land use planning is to be led by the First Nations working with Ontario through their expression of interest to the Minister to initiate the planning process. Once that interest has been expressed by the First Nations, the Minister will work with them in a joint planning process under a joint-planning team, with equal representation of First Nations and Province to advise on land-use planning, who will develop the terms of reference that will address shared-goals and interests through a consensus-based, cross-cultural dialogue.

Bill 191 provides First Nations “through community-based land-use planning an opportunity to decide which lands in the Far North will be protected and which lands will be open for sustainable development.”

A “protected area” means an area of land that is designated as such by a land-use plan under clause 9 (9) (c) if the plan is approved as a community-based land use plan.

9 (9) (c) states: A land use plan prepared under subsection 6 shall,

(c) designate one or more areas in the planning area as protected areas;

The plan requires joint-approval from the Minister and the First Nation and it is the “first time in Ontario’s history that there is a requirement under law for First Nations approval of a land-use plan.”

Clause 9 (14) (a) (b) says – A land use plan under subsection 6 has no effect until,

(a) the Minister, by order, approves the parts of the plan that subsection (9) requires be included in the plan; and

(b) the council of each of the First Nations mentioned in subsection (6) passes a resolution approving a plan.

Section 6 reads:

First Nations may contribute their traditional knowledge and perspective on protection and conservation for the purposes of land use planning under this Act.

The Far North Act, 2010 “provides for orderly development in the Far North,” where “most major developments would require that a community-based land use plan be in place, with some exceptions.” Bill 191 also provides “provisional protection prior to a community-based land-use plan being in based on criteria to be prescribed by regulation.”

In many parts of Noopemig, such as in the Ring of Fire, claims have been staked already without land-use plans being in place. These claims will have been grandfathered and would not be impacted by the community-based land use planning process. The provisional protection mechanisms outlined in the Far North could provide an additional mechanism for First Nations (on lands without mineral tenure) looking to use provincial laws to protect their lands now.

Another government initiative is the proposed Northern Growth Plan which will strengthen the northern economy. One of the key actions identified in the 25 year plan is

“building a new relationship with Aboriginal People to increase participation in the future economic growth of Northern Ontario and achieve better health status for Aboriginal communities.”

The Far North Act and the Northern Growth Plan (under the Places to Grow Act, 2005) would work together and if there is a conflict, the Far North Land Use Strategy and the Community-Based Land Use Plans would prevail.

There is also a provision in the Far North Act that would enable the creation of a joint body to oversee implementation of the whole land use planning initiative. The functions of this joint body would include: advising on allocation of funding to support First Nations working with Ontario on land use planning, and appropriate dispute resolution processes for land use planning matters. These are important matters and given the level of frustration among First Nations for the current way funds are being handed out, this may just be a better, more transparent process if communities wish it to be implemented. It is modeled on initiatives from other parts of Canada that have worked in cooperation with First Nations such as in the Northwest Territories and Yukon.

While not perfect, these are some of the tools available to communities if they wish to take advantage of them to achieve their own goals. The decision is up to them.

As the snow flies and blankets Noopemig, the sacred living lands continue their endless seasonal cycle, seemingly oblivious to these new efforts to provide a balance that only it can provide….

Consulting First Nations

2010-06-28T12:31:00.000-04:00

It has been a couple of months since the last entry and a lot has happened and not happened throughout Noopemig. The last entry reported that a Ring of Fire Coordinator was to be appointed who is to find the right balance between development and conservation. This has not happened yet.

A share of the revenue was committed to when the now defunct Northern Table was first announced on March 2006. The Minister of the day announced at that time that if the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) chiefs allowed development to continue, they would be entitled to a “piece of the pie.” Subsequently, a down payment was announced during the introduction of Bill 173: The Mining Act, on April 2009, but has yet to materialize. When introducing the Mining Act, the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry (MNDMF), Michael Gravelle referenced “other government initiatives such as the Far North Planning and the $30 million set aside for Resource Benefit Sharing.”

These types of announcements seem designed to give the appearance that something is actually being done yet offer nothing substantive to the First Nations who are still waiting for any type of benefit from development activities.

Then there are stakeholder and aboriginal community workshops currently being undertaken until July 2010 to develop the Mining Act regulations so that the “different sections of the amended Act will be proclaimed in force as relevant details are developed.” These regulatory development workshops seem to include stakeholders when the law only requires that the duty to consult arises “when the Crown has some knowledge of the existence of an aboriginal right to title and contemplates conduct that may adversely affect it.” It has also said that the duty to consult arises, “if the conduct might adversely affect aboriginal rights to land covered under treaty.”

In the Mikisew Cree decision of 2005, the Supreme Court said, “It is not consistent with the honour of the Crown, in its capacity as fiduciary, for it to fail to consult with a First Nation prior to making a decision that infringes on constitutionally protected rights.”

Recently in British Columbia, (B.C.) the West Moberly First Nation (West Moberly) filed for a judicial review of two exploratory mining permits and one forestry licence issued by the province for a tract of land preferred by West Moberly within their Treaty territory which happens to be a critical habitat for threatened woodland caribou. The First Nation asserted that Treaty # 8 protects its harvesting rights, traditionally practiced each season and that caribou are an essential part of the harvest.

West Moberly signed Treaty # 8 in 1899, providing harvesting rights from hunting, fishing, trapping, which are recognized and affirmed in section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Justin Duncan, a lawyer from Ecojustice provides us with some perspective on the West Moberly case:

“Most interesting from my perspective is the West Moberly reliance on the fact that caribou is listed as threatened in the federal Species at Risk Act. They used this fact that their Aboriginal interest had not been adequately accommodated before a mine received approvals. Additionally, the specific population of caribou at issue was down to eleven (11) individuals suggesting that any additional impacts could wipe out that specific herd of caribou permanently. Despite these facts, the B.C. government had failed to adequately consult West Moberly First Nation as to how to accommodate their interests.

In the long term, I suspect government failure to adequately protect and recover species at risk upon which Aboriginal Peoples rely to exercise their rights will arise more often. Clearly to exercise an Aboriginal right which relates to natural resources, these resources must exist and not be degraded by successive industrial disturbance. One only need to look at the Ring of Fire development and speculate that it will likely have impacts on caribou in the region where First Nations harvest the species. I wonder what conflicts will arise there as a result?”

I had the opportunity to attend the exploration camp at Koper Lake in the Ring of Fire recently. While the company was very accommodating once we got there, the night before sort of became a logistical nightmare which fortunately was settled making our trip to the site possible.

Once our tour of the exploration camp, where the blockades had been set up a few months earlier, was finished, Chief Eli Moonias took us to Fishtrap Lake where a few months earlier he had found fiber-glass rods with metal tags stuck into the ground in what is believed to be a burial site. Close to the brush-cleared area where the rods with the metal tags were stuck in the ground stood a tall poplar tree with an eagle’s nest which had bright red surveying tape tied directly to the nest. It appeared that an attempt to cut down a similar size poplar tree to knock down the nest had failed. The red ties to the nest appear to have been made to ensure that the eagle does not come back so that the brush-clearing could continue.

While the new Mining Act outlines the purpose of Bill 173 as “to encourage prospecting, staking and exploration for the development of mineral resources, in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights in section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 including the duty to consult and to minimize the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment,” Chief Moonias has still to hear from someone who can meaningfully implement this section of the Mining Act.

In the West Moberly case, Justice Williamson found that “the Crown did not meaningfully consult or accommodate West Moberly’s Treaty right to hunt caribou in making its decision to issue the mining and timber permits. He suspended the advanced exploration permit and accompanying licence to cut for a period of 90 days, ordering that the Crown in consultation with West Moberly expeditiously implement a reasonable, active program for the protection and augmentation of the Burnt Pine herd.

He determined that the Crown’s consultation was not sufficiently meaningful and the accommodation was not reasonable in the circumstances.”

In this part of Noopemig, there is also the 2nd reading of Bill 191: The Far North Act this past June 2010, a year after it was first introduced in June 2009. The Far North Act, if it is passed in the provincial legislature, states as its purpose: “to provide for community based land use planning in the Far North that directly involves First Nations in the planning and that supports the environmental, social, and economic objectives for the people of Ontario.” The next entry will look at what the First Peoples are saying throughout Noopemig as they continue to contend with a process which does not seem to hear the voices rising out from Noopemig - the mighty Boreal Forest.

Ring of Fire

2010-04-23T12:02:00.002-04:00

“And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire, the ring of fire!”

No, this entry is not about the song made famous by the “Man in Black” about the pain of being in love but the very mention of the Ring of Fire has the potential to ignite a heightened degree of passion from mining exploration companies and the First Peoples who live in the region.

The Ring of Fire situated approximately 500 kilometers northeast of Thunder Bay in the swampy muskeg, chromite-rich traditional territories of Marten Falls and Webequie First Nations, saw ice landing strips used by mining companies being blocked this past January. The blockade has since been lifted in what has been so far, an uneasy 6 month truce, where the province and the companies are to work with the First Nations to begin to address their concerns.

Uneasy because already there was an incident which has the potential to unravel any goodwill that existed between the community of Marten Falls and the company KWG Resources Inc. Chief Eli Moonias of Marten Falls recently came upon a situation on his trapline where he felt violated. He found an area which had been clear-cut with orange and red markings and fibre-glass rods with silver tags stuck into burial sites. This comes at a time when the relationship between Marten Falls and the company is already on shaky ground. The fibre-glass rods with the silver tags are markers for soil samples taken to determine whether it is feasible to build a railway to a potential mine site.

KWG spokesperson Frank Smeenk has apologized on behalf of the contractor for the “archeological burial ground that was unwittingly disturbed.” Although the company didn’t claim responsibility, Mr. Smeenk had this to say: “The Ring of Fire development is of historic and international significance” and “I think the interests of the other 11 or 12 million Ontario taxpaying residents need to be weighed in these circumstances.”

In the March 2010 budget, Ontario announced the “Open Ontario North Strategy” that identified $45 million over 3 years for a new skills training program so that Aboriginal Peoples and northern Ontarians can benefit from jobs in the Ring of Fire region. The budget announcement also proposed to appoint a Ring of Fire Coordinator to champion “the creation of Ontario jobs and more economic activity that will support northern families while protecting the northern boreal-forest region.” Ontario has stated that they plan to address the economic, social and environmental concerns of the region with the intent of “getting it right!”

By all appearances, there seems to continue to be a gap between how “getting it right” rolls out in practice and how it is experienced on the ground. While all the details have yet to emerge on this latest incident, the mad rush to stake and explore appears to have over-looked the archeological and burial sites of Marten Falls which could have been easily identified in a land-use planning process, had it occurred according to the Premier’s vision that there be no new mines without a land use plan.

While the mine may be 5-7 years away, the claims that are being staked in the Ring of Fire will not be subject to a land-use plan and the claims will continue to be honoured, leaving communities like Marten Falls and Webequie with very little recourse, if any, to have a say in what happens in their territory.

Although there is a full commitment from Ontario to work with Aboriginal Peoples and northern Ontarians to build on the Ring of Fire’s potential, that has yet to be experienced by the impacted communities at the company level. While Ontario seems to be focusing on the Ring of Fire as a way out of the global recession for communities and families in the north, Mr. Smeenk on the other hand, through his statement seems to be advocating the status quo and presuming his actions are justified and consistent with the interests of 11 or 12 million Ontarians (!).

While the project may be perceived as an exciting opportunity for Ontario, it needs to be done right. Until it is, it will be hard for anyone to make the case that these continued conflicts are in the public interest.

The Ring of Fire Coordinator, once appointed, will have his\her hands full trying to find the right balance between development and conservation, including the interests of the communities on whose traditional lands this activity is occurring.

As one person’s reworking of the lyrics to the ring of fire shows, there is much division and misunderstanding out there. The reworked lyrics carried to the tune of the Ring of Fire go like this:

Politics is a dirty thing,

Toronto-based decisions sting.

Bound by wild desire,

The North has a Ring of Fire.

The North it burns to work its Ring of Fire.

But way down, down, south,

The hippies don’t admire,

The North’s right to work.

The Ring of Fire, The Ring of Fire.

While the music plays, the flames lick and lap the ground in the Ring of Fire that it will take one blow to fan the flame that can scorch the earth as we head into a long, dry and hot summer in Noopemig.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

2010-02-23T14:09:00.001-05:00

On December 17, 2009, Premier Dalton McGuinty wrote a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking that “the Government of Canada reconsider its position in response to the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.(UNDRIP)”

In September of 2007, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States voted against UNDRIP while 143 state governments adopted the declaration. Australia has since reversed its position and New Zealand and the United States are “reconsidering” their positions leaving Canada, who as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, continues to oppose UNDRIP.

Premier McGuinty’s letter states: “Canada is the only non-signatory that has yet to reconsider its position on the declaration. Earlier this year, Australia reversed its position and endorsed the declaration. We understand that New Zealand and the United States are also currently reconsidering their positions. In light of these developments, Ontario feels that it is time for Canada to revisit its position.”

Premier McGuinty continues, “My request is that your government undertakes a conscientious review of Canada’s position on the declaration, within the context of Canada’s constitutional and treaty framework and related jurisprudence. I can assure you that the Ontario government will co-operate fully in any such exploration.”

Premier McGuinty is to be commended for his efforts at true statesmanship. Doing away with the colonial mentality will be a daunting task for any leader who is sincere in creating a truly just society. This is especially true with the First Peoples being viewed as having given up all their rights to lands and resources through the treaty making process and that belief being so deeply engrained in a majority of the support network of the Premier’s Office.

Recently, when Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug refused to provide their consent to a motion, a member of the provincial legal team in charge of the file accidentally emailed this “pearl of wisdom” to the object of his derision, in this case, the KI legal counsel. Since KI wouldn’t provide consent, he wrote, “very strange. My impression is that, apart from being unpredictable, he does not appreciate the nuances and has little control over his clients.”

I say daunting because of this glimpse on the mentality of a representative of the provincial Crown, viewing KI as needing to be controlled instead of recognized as being able to provide direction to their legal counsel. Premier McGuinty is courageous indeed, asking the Government of Canada, a government, who recently denied on the world-stage that “colonialism exists in Canada,” to reconsider the UN declaration that recognizes the land and resource rights of Indigenous Peoples contained in its articles.

UNDRIP Article 26 reads:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

It also addresses compensation for lands and resources taken without the indigenous peoples free, prior and informed consent in Article 28 which reads:

Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.
Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, sizeand legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

It has always been the position of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug that “they must give their free, prior and informed consent to any development on or impacting KI territories and that they must receive fair and equitable remuneration for the resources removed from and the profits drawn from their traditional territories.”

In recent developments, it is an outside company walking away with millions leaving the community of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug to pick up the pieces and the costs from the aftermath of a four (4) year battle. This would be the appropriate area and time to “undertake a conscientious review” and to begin to implement Article 28, with or without the federal government.

Premier McGuinty has already begun to walk the talk with the explicit recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the Mining Act. However, the KI situation begs for immediate action to “achieve a transformative reality for Aboriginal peoples,” that Premier McGuinty references in his letter to the Prime Minister.

UNDRIP Article 32.2 reads:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands and territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

32.3 follows:

States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

According to the United Nations, international law defines free, prior and informed consent, this way:

Free is the absence of coercion and outside pressure, including monetary inducements (unless they are mutually agreed to as part of a settlement process), and “divide and conquer” tactics. It includes the absence of any threats or implied retaliation if the result of the decision is to say “no.”

Prior is having sufficient time to allow information-gathering and full discussion, including translations into traditional languages, before a project starts. It must take place without time pressure or constraints. A plan must not begin before this process is fully completed and an agreement is reached.

Informed is having all the relevant information available reflecting all views and positions. This includes the input of traditional elders, spiritual leaders, subsistence practitioners and traditional knowledge holders, with adequate time and resources to consider impartial and balanced information about potential risks and benefits, based on the “precautionary principle” regarding potential threats to health, environment or traditional means of subsistence.

Consent is the demonstration of clear and compelling agreement, using a mechanism to reach agreement which is in itself agreed to under the principle of FPIC, in keeping with the decision-making structures of the Indigenous Peoples in question, including traditional consensus procedures. Agreements must be reached with the full participation of authorized leaders, representatives or decision-making institutions as decided by the Indigenous Peoples themselves.

Article 19 reads:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

While Bill 173, An Act to amend the Mining Act, which received Royal Assent in October 2009, does not contain in its current form, the Supreme Court jurisprudence of accommodation nor the UNDRIP international standard of free, prior and informed consent, the challenge will be whether any of UNDRIP will be reflected in the regulations and policies that will be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

Another piece of legislation, Bill 191, the Far North Act, which seeks to set aside 225,000 sq. kms of protected areas in the far north has been ordered for 2^nd reading. Upon its introduction, the Far North Act received opposition from indigenous and non-indigenous alike. Several environmental groups felt that the draft legislation didn’t adequately reflect the Premier’s vision. We will have to wait and see whether any of the principles of UNDRIP will be reflected in Bill 191.

For this potential ray of hope for the First Peoples of Ontario, one can only applaud and support Premier McGuinty and wish him the best of luck as he embarks on this monumental undertaking. Asking Canada to revisit its opposition is not only the right thing to do, not only because it has the support of a majority of the international community but because justice demands it!

The clanging rings through out Noopemig as the First Peoples continue to storm the gates of justice…

Comments from you

2010-01-22T10:45:00.000-05:00

This entry will look at some of the comments received on the various entries of Noopemig. Comments are always welcome and from time to time, we will be sharing your comments with others that follow this blog. Keep them coming as the issues are very important and often timely requiring serious thought and discussion.

To the Climate Day Speech entry, Canada Guy writes:

“Yes, we have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet. By drawing down ecological capital, instead of living off the return of that capital, short term growth can be accomplished at the cost of reducing future carrying capacity, with generally disastrous results.”

Dr. R.H. responds to Noopemig-A victory?

“Ontario, and Canada will never listen to First Nations unless things are brought to the Crown in a particular manner. As you have discovered with Platinex, that manner is meaningful Consultation. Unfortunately, it is the Crown’s definition of meaningful consultation that matters (one-sided I know) but that definition has come a long way. When one takes the time to review Aboriginal, Common, and international law on meaningful consultation, a very simple process comes to light. I trust our work can be of some help to find a path to reconcile the KI’s rights with that of non-Aboriginal Canadians. It can be done so that both sides win!”

Northshorewoman says to Voices from the Northshore response:

“It seems that the language of government is carefully selected so that some ambiguity exists, albeit inching their way to be more respectful.”

C.R. comments on Disclosure?

“Why is there so much secrecy around agreements made that involve First Nations? Is it at the First Nations request that this occurs, or does industry and government not want to have it public and therefore scrutinized? Also, I expect that the secrecy also prevents any serious challenges for enforcement, if the terms of the agreement aren’t fulfilled. It also comes as no surprise that government and industry once more come to a First Nation with a ‘done deal’ all ready for them to agree to and sign on to…will this colonialism never end?”

It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. ~Ansel Adams

Northshorewoman on Disclosure?

“I am outraged that Platinex get $5million for ‘backing off.’ Imagine if that money was re-directed to KI –where it belongs. And that Platinex gets royalties on any future developments? Oh my. Seems they have powerful lawyers and lobby groups.

And the confidentiality part stipulated to KI and individual defendants is puzzling.

I find this troubling that our government thinks this is a good settlement!”

A.J. says on Disclosure?

“In residential schools they gagged the kids with kerosene-soaked rags, now they’ve developed legal ‘gag orders’ and demand you agree. Nothing has changed.”

On Mining Act receives Royal Assent:

“It sounds as if the ‘new Mining Act’ is the old mining act under a new title – more forked tongue speak!”

On Voices from the Northshore:

“It seems the government can’t remember ‘crown lands’ belong to the First Peoples. If you buy a car and fail to pay for it, it is repossessed. The government failed to pay and sufficient time has passed. The land by rights should revert to the First Peoples. Theft by false information has led to debt.”

C.R. talks Disclosure?

“I think there are some very strong connections between First Nations across Canada and among other Indigenous peoples around the world…and industry recognizes this…so preventing the sharing of information is really quite a good tactical maneuver on their part – a kind of divide and conquer approach…And, it has the potential to pit First Nation against First Nation to see who can get the better deal, rather than allowing folks to work together so all can benefit.(or reject proposals.)

Anonymous writes:

“Thanks for this thoughtful blog about the need for more open consultation in this and related matters. And congratulations to CPAWS for the appearance on BNN TV on January 21. As a small shareholder of a company with interests in the ‘Ring of Fire’ area, I support the line of thinking outlined in your blog and on the BNN appearance.”

Watch Anna Baggio, Director, Conservation Land-Use Planning on the Commodities portion of the Business News Network commenting on the Ring of Fire through this link: http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip257927

The voices from Noopemig continue through the Boreal Forest – is there anybody out there?

Disclosure?

2010-01-11T14:30:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year!

In last year’s final entry of Noopemig, Ontario and Platinex had come to an agreement without the involvement of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) where Platinex would be paid $5 Million dollars, Mediation Costs and 2.5 % Royalty on any mining that will occur within the next 25 years in the disputed zone at Nemeguisabins Lake in Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug territory. Ontario and Platinex both released statements on December 14, 2009 announcing the deal.

Platinex Inc. announced that “it has entered into an agreement with Ontario….where Platinex has agreed to surrender its claims and leases and settle the outstanding litigation ….in exchange for an upfront sum totaling $5 Million dollars in addition to the Company’s expenses throughout the Mediation process. The Company will also be entitled to a 2.5% Net Smelter Royalty in connection with any future development on the property.”

The Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry on the same day said, “ As part of the settlement, Platinex will drop its lawsuits against the Crown and KI, and surrender all its mining claims and leases at Big Trout Lake. In return, Platinex will receive $5 Million dollars and a potential future royalty interest. The government will withdraw these lands from staking and mineral exploration.”

On December 18, 2009, I received an email that there was to be a conference call to discuss the deal with “Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and the Individual Defendants.” Apparently, Section 22 of the Settlement Agreement provides that the parties are to keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement completely confidential except for….

(v) disclosure to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and the Individual Defendants.

As one of the original “Individual Defendants,” I can receive a hard copy of the Settlement Agreement providing I first sign a confidentiality agreement. The form that was sent to me reads, “I agree not to disclose, directly or indirectly, the Settlement Agreement to any person, other than those persons to whom this Settlement Agreement may be disclosed under Section 22 of the Settlement Agreement and who have also signed a Confidentiality Agreement relating to the Settlement Agreement.”

As one of the “Individual Defendants,” I have not had chance to review the Settlement Agreement between Ontario and Platinex and I was under the impression that this was a done deal. I am unclear why Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and the Individual Defendants are required to review this agreement under the cover of confidentiality when the two (2) parties have already disclosed to the general public what the terms of the agreement were through their press releases? Moreover, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug had no say or input into the agreement. For whatever reason, KI is expected to review the Settlement Agreement under a veil of secrecy.

Legally, the agreement does not require KI’s approval and the agreement will be implemented whether KI approves it or not. Apparently, according to legal counsel, the agreement requires that “KI be asked to drop its legal action against Platinex and in exchange for Platinex dropping its action against KI.” The Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Chief and Council have decided that they will seek “input through a community meeting before they sign a release to drop KI’s legal action against Platinex.”

We cannot forget that KI left the court process in October 2007 for financial reasons.

One of the most important lessons out of this conflict is that the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) be adopted in provincial and federal law throughout Noopemig. Consultation is not something to gloss over. Governments must be held accountable and FPIC must be the standard. In addition to control, First Nations must also meaningfully benefit from activities that go on in Noopemig.

The formality of being consulted to a foregone conclusion appears to bring the process of consultation to nothing but an illusory conclusion achieved through manipulation at all levels. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, through their lawyer, will be reviewing the Settlement Agreement the 3^rd week of January, 2010.

As the funds get ready to flow out of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug territory, the impacts of the resulting financial burden where the community cannot maintain its equipment is evident as the sound of water bursts through frozen pipes mingling with the cries for fairness and justice throughout Noopemig!

Noopemig - A victory?

2009-12-18T12:30:00.000-05:00

While all sides are claiming victory, it is only fitting that negotiations took place to close this chapter of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) - Platinex - Ontario conflict in much the same way this saga began; at the exclusion of the membership of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug.

On December 14, 2009, Platinex announced an agreement with Ontario, where it had “agreed to surrender its claims and leases and settle the outstanding litigation” in the disputed zone, “in exchange for an upfront sum totaling $5 million dollars in addition to the Company’s expenses throughout the Mediation process. The Company will also be entitled to a 2.5 % Net Smelter Royalty in connection with any future development on the property.”

This means that Platinex could earn a further 2.5% of mining revenues “should the province issue new mineral tenure in the next 25 years and a mine be developed.” The implications are that they will still be in the picture for the next quarter century regardless of who, if anyone, initiates mining activity in the territory. Any negotiations for mining will be impeded by this looming onus of responsibility of royalties. KI will not have the freedom to negotiate freely with this burden of royalties attached to the territory. It appears that this “victory” continues to have an overhanging cloud blotting out the silver lining.

The Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, Michael Gravelle says, “This is a unique situation, and I am pleased that we were able to reach a fair and reasonable negotiated settlement that will provide greater certainty to Platinex while allowing our government to continue working with KI to strengthen our relationship and to pursue future opportunities.”

We cannot forget that the relationship between KI and the government requires a lot of strengthening. To begin with, the authorizations provided to Platinex were done through an antiquated Mining Act and without the Supreme Court of Canada duty to consult and accommodate being properly discharged to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug. However, there is the small matter of incarcerating 5/8ths of the KI leadership for contempt. Oh yes, there is an even smaller matter of having outsiders able to make $5 million dollars + from territory claimed by KI while its members languish in poverty. On top of all of this, is the ability of the company to raise a million dollars + to run a drilling program without the knowledge or consent of KI; or at least without the knowledge of a majority of the KI membership.

Chief Donny Morris stated, “I consider the decision of Platinex to not proceed with mining exploration in our territory as a major victory. My community was determined to stop Platinex and the Ontario government from arbitrarily imposing a mine at Nemeigusabins Lake…..I think the province needs to recognize that our free, prior, informed consent is necessary or mining development in the north could become a very expensive failure.”

There is a growing call for free, prior and informed consent from communities ringing across Noopemig. This experience teaches us that all First Nations should seriously consider how to engage Ontario to make sure the province reflects the international principle of free, prior and informed consent in law. The KI experience tells us that work is required at the community level across Noopemig to make sure that all members have a say in decisions that affect the territory and their lives. Each community needs its own protocol that demonstrates how the consent of the community is to be achieved in an open and transparent manner.

This entire debacle could have been avoided if protocols and the laws as they pertain to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug were honoured and upheld by all parties. This has been an expensive and costly exercise for all members of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug who have had to carry the full cost burden at a financial, emotional and spiritual level, and yet have no financial return to show for the experience. At the community level, the lesson of moving forward without the support of the full membership should not be lost upon us in the emotional relief of “victory.”

Now it’s time for Ontario to reach out to us in a fair and sincere manner so our community can begin the process of recovery and rebuilding.

For Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, the healing from the impacts of this experience can, and must begin and your voice from Noopemig has reverberated loud and clear throughout Noopemig, the rest of the country and beyond.

Have a safe and Merry Christmas and all the best in the New Year!

New Wildlands League video

2009-12-09T10:39:00.000-05:00

See the new Wildlands League video demonstrating the urgency of protecting Noopemig and the life it sustains. It's up to all of us to make a difference.

Revenue Sharing - A Piece of the Pie

2009-12-08T09:50:00.000-05:00

I recently heard an Elder say that we, as the First Peoples, were given resources by the Creator from which we can make a living. He said, “God gave us resources to use from our lands. Our people did commercial fishing where we sold fish to make a living. We have the land and resources we can use instead of not doing anything with it.”

This message by the Elders has been consistent throughout the years and has been voiced repeatedly. When our forefathers engaged in the treaty-making process, they understood that they were agreeing to share the land and the benefits it provides with the newcomers.

Unfortunately, the text of the treaty does not reflect the discussions as remembered by the elders. They recall agreeing to share the lands and its resources for mutual benefit and not mass land surrender.

The written treaty text states that upon signing the “said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the dominion of Canada, for his Majesty and his successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, …….And his Majesty the King hereby agrees with the said Indians that they should have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered….subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the government of the country, acting under the authority of his Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading and other purposes.”

Throughout Noopemig, northern-based mining, forestry, tourism and agricultural industries contribute more than $23 billion annually to the Ontario economy.

In March of 2006, then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, (MAA) David Ramsey, announced the Northern Table process (now called Oshki-Machiitawin) with the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) Chiefs, where he stated, “Today, we are embarking on something new and different. The new political level Northern Table will address some of the challenges to achieving prosperity and well-being in northern Ontario and enable First Nation communities in the north to share fairly in the benefits of natural resource development.”

When the NAN Chiefs asked Minister Ramsey to stop issuing permits while discussions were being held at the newly established Northern Table, he responded, “If you want a piece of the pie, you have to allow development to continue.” As development continued, mining itself generated $11 billion in 2007.

Two years later in July 2008, Premier McGuinty made an announcement on the Far North including a commitment to resource benefit sharing. “The province will create an incentive for communities to allow exploration by ensuring they get ‘a piece of the action’ by way of a resource benefit sharing plan.”

When introducing the Mining Amendment Act in April 2009, Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, Michael Gravelle stated, “Working in conjunction with other government initiatives---such as the Far North Planning initiative and the $30 million set aside for Resource Benefits Sharing ---our proposed legislation would foster partnerships in development…promoting prosperity for Aboriginal communities and Ontario as a whole.”

If the $30 million set aside for Resource Benefits Sharing represents a “piece of the pie,” or a “piece of the action,” the fair share from resource benefit sharing for each of the 49 NAN communities amounted to $612, 244.89 when Minister Ramsey made his announcement in March 2006. That was 3.5 years ago, which, when divided over the same period would result in a lower amount.

It appears that while NAN Chiefs are talking about “revenue-sharing,” which is consistent with the elders understanding of the treaty commitments, the government announcements reference “resource-benefits sharing” which can be at the opposite ends of the spectrum much like “a piece of the action” or “a piece of the pie.”

Resource benefits sharing could include employment and business opportunities while revenue-sharing would include the values realized from the mass volumes of resource extractions that have occurred and can occur throughout Noopemig, including royalties, user-fees and the like. However, the $30 million is referred to as a “down-payment” from resource benefit sharing and not revenue-sharing.

Ontario, through the MAA, communicated to the NAN technical working group that they were considering including the Métis Nation of Ontario in the resource benefit sharing discussions. Additionally, the Chiefs of Ontario, (COO) under its Joint Ipperwash Technical Table, has one of its seven work plans developed as Resource Revenue Sharing. The sub-table heading of Resource Benefit Sharing (RBS) references the April, 2009 provincial announcement, “setting aside $30 million” for future resource benefit payments to First Nations in Ontario. So instead of just the 49 NAN communities, the $30 million will be disbursed amongst the 134 First Nation communities in Ontario and including the Métis Nation.

The work on the resource revenue sharing system must be completed by December 2010, basically guaranteeing that the down payment will not flow anytime soon, providing that once all is said and done, there will be enough left to disburse that will make a difference.

One other government initiative is the Proposed Northern Growth Plan which will strengthen the northern economy. One of the key actions identified in the 25 year plan is “building relationships with Aboriginal people to increase participation in the future economic growth of Northern Ontario and achieve better health status for Aboriginal communities.”

Minister Gravelle says, “The true strength of the north is its people, their resourcefulness and their entrepreneurial spirit. We are harnessing these qualities to develop a Grand Plan for Northern Ontario that is built by northerners, for northerners. We look forward to reaping the benefits in an innovative, robust and competitive northern economy.”

The First Peoples throughout Noopemig continue to wait for the benefits to flow from the treaties for their fair share from the resources extracted from Dunakiiwin…

Voices from the Northshore

2009-11-23T11:24:00.001-05:00

Noopemig-Voices from the Northshore

I received an email from “Northshorewoman” regarding my blog-entry on the Mining Act receiving Royal Assent. The email reads as follows:

“I can see that there will be a lot of problems ahead such as, although it is definitely an improvement from the previous Act that allowed free access to lands for any Jack, Joe, Jill or corporation, the language seems such that much damage can still occur on traditional lands. Problematic to me is that claims prior to this amendment are outside of its legal arm. Also problematic for me, is that the language is such that while consultation of First Nations communities is required, their conclusions are not definitive or binding on decisions made. Is this true? Does the new Act still make First Nations voices a player in the power relations but not a player with veto?”

Upon introducing the Bill 173, Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry Michael Gravelle stated: “The point, … is that this comprehensive consultation, and the discussion it engendered, has produced a balanced piece of legislation.”

“The initial process of engaging with the aboriginal communities and stakeholders about the province’s minerals industry prepared our government well for the extensive and comprehensive consultation we undertook to prepare for amending the Mining Act.”

The Act states that “a dispute resolution process is established for disputes relating to Aboriginal consultation occurring under the Act, and it calls for the development of mineral resources, in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult.”

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in its various rulings stated that the duty to consult and accommodate becomes engaged, “when the Crown has some knowledge of the existence of an aboriginal right to title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.” It has also said that the duty to consult arises, “if the conduct might adversely affect aboriginal rights to land covered under treaty.” Along with these triggers, the SCC has referenced “good faith negotiations, upholding the honour of the Crown, meaningful consultation and reconciliation,” amongst other noble terms.

In the Mikisew Cree decision of 2005, the Supreme Court said, “it is not consistent with the honour of the Crown, in its capacity as fiduciary, for it to fail to consult with a First Nation prior to making a decision that infringes on constitutionally protected rights.” In another ruling, the court has said that several SCC cases have already stated that the honour of the Crown may require consultation prior to making a decision and “This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.”

Under Bill 173, the “new” Mining Act, consultation may occur once a person has submitted an exploration plan, in accordance with any prescribed requirements, “including any Aboriginal consultation that may be prescribed.” This person will have had “applied for and been issued an exploration permit,” from the Director of Exploration, who may be appointed by the Minister from the officers and employees of the Ministry. This Director shall consider under S. 78.3 (2) (b), “Whether Aboriginal consultation has occurred in accordance with prescribed requirements, which may include consideration of any arrangements that have been made with Aboriginal communities that may be affected by the exploration.”

A dictionary defines accommodation “as an adjustment or adaptation to suit a special or a different purpose, a convenient arrangement; a settlement or compromise.” To accommodate is defined as to “adapt, harmonize or reconcile.”

So, to your question; are the conclusions of consultations with First Nations definitive (and are they) binding on decisions made? It appears that the decision lies with the Director of Exploration, who has been selected from amongst the officers and employees of the Ministry, who may consider “any arrangements that have been made with Aboriginal communities that may be affected by the exploration.” The Director, however, must first decide, “whether Aboriginal consultation has occurred in accordance with any prescribed requirements,” leaving the Ministry to make such determinations.

There is, however, a dispute resolution clause for Aboriginal consultation where the Minister can designate one or more individuals, or a body, “to hear and consider disputes….relating to consultation with Aboriginal or treaty rights or to the assertion of Aboriginal or treaty rights, including disputes that may occur.”

Once a report and recommendations are made by the designated body to the Minister, the dispute resolution outlines the Ministers powers dealing with Aboriginal consultation in the permitting, advanced exploration and the mine production stage in the following manner:

a) Confirm, vary, rescind a Directors decision for a section 78.3 exploration permit.

b) Provide such further direction or support respecting consultation for the advanced exploration and mine production stage.

c) Take any action that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances.

While the First Peoples can still provide input during the consultative phase under the Mining Act, it is up to the Ministry and its Minister to make the ultimate decisions which answers your second question about a veto.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, “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.”

Premier McGuinty’s words of “a new respect and working relationship with First Nations, a true partnership, a greater say to First Nations concerning development projects on their traditional lands, including a share of the benefits from resource projects, continue to resound loud and clear throughout Noopemig.

Mining Act receives Royal Assent

2009-11-05T09:57:00.001-05:00

Approximately six months after it was first introduced into the Ontario Legislature, Bill 173, An Act to amend the Mining Act, received Royal Assent on October 28, 2009. Upon introducing Bill 173 for third reading, Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, Michael Gravelle stated:

“Bill 173 is aimed at bringing our mining legislation into harmony with the values of today’s society while, at the same time, promoting strong, vibrant and competitive minerals industry.”

The Mining Act in Ontario first passed into law in 1873, to govern access to what is considered to be Crown Lands and to begin to develop the natural resources. In 1906, Ontario revised the Mining Act, changing the way access to natural resources occurred and established the free-entry model, which provided priority access to lands and resources for mining and development companies.

The free-entry system applied to all “Crown Lands”, a majority of which are First Nation traditional territories, where prospectors could stake claims to minerals on both public and private lands, without notifying or consulting with the landowners. This included Aboriginal peoples who have land rights as well as the right to be consulted and accommodated. The free-entry model, under the old Mining Act, created controversy as mining companies clashed with the interests of the First Peoples, landowners and the public, prompting the Ontario government under Premier McGuinty to reform the Mining Act.

Section 2 of Bill 173 outlines the purpose of the new Mining Act as “to encourage prospecting, staking and exploration for the development of mineral resources, in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult and to minimize the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment.”

While it references the duty to consult, it does not contain the Supreme Court jurisprudence of accommodation or the free, prior, informed consent expected by the First Peoples. Instead, provisions under the application for an exploration permit state that the Director of Exploration shall consider, “whether Aboriginal consultation has occurred……..which may include consideration of any arrangements that have been made with Aboriginal communities that may be affected by the exploration.”

There are also provisions for withdrawing lands that “meet the prescribed criteria as a site of Aboriginal cultural significance.” This can be done under the authority of the Minister, who can order lands be withdrawn from prospecting, staking, sale and lease any lands, mining rights or surface rights that are the property of the Crown.

A withdrawal order “does not affect pre-existing mineral rights and tenure such as mining claims, mining leases or licenses of occupation.” (The claims in Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug traditional territory remain. Platinex and Ontario have extended discussions on their on-going litigation to November 6, 2009.)

However, no mining claims may be staked or recorded on any land, “that is located in the Far North, if a community based land use plan has designated the lands for a use inconsistent with mineral exploration and development.”

Minister Gravelle stated that upon royal assent some provisions went into effect immediately, including, “a clause in all leases and lease renewals highlighting the protection of existing aboriginal and treaty rights provided in Section 35 of the Constitution Act” and “the automatic withdrawal of Crown mineral rights under privately held surface rights in southern Ontario.” (Before 1913, the Crown granted lands that included surface and mineral rights but afterwards lands granted may or may not have included mineral rights.)

For the rest of the Act, the Ministry will be developing the regulations and policies, in consultation with stakeholders, before they can come into effect. Minister Gravelle stated that his ministry will consult on the development of the regulations and policies dealing with Aboriginal consultation throughout the mining sequence, including the criteria and the process for withdrawing sites of aboriginal significance; exploration plans and permits, including terms, conditions and requirements for early exploration; clarifying the existing consultation process for closure plans for advanced exploration and mine development projects; and a dispute resolution process for Aboriginal-related mining issues.

As of August 11, 2009, there are 250 active mineral exploration projects in northwestern Ontario and approximately 8000 claims made by mining companies grandfathered under Section 14.3 where withdrawal orders do not affect pre-existing mining rights and tenure such as mining claims, mining leases or licenses of occupation.

Also, under Part XIV- Far North, it states: “The validity of any mining claims, mining leases, patents, and licenses of occupation for mining purposes located in the Far North and any related approvals for mineral exploration and development activity shall not be affected by a community based land use plan or any amendment to such a plan that is inconsistent with mining purposes, if the consistent designation was made after the mining claims, mining leases, patents, and licenses of occupation for mining purposes or the related approvals for mineral explorations and development activities were issued.”

In conclusion, it appears that mining will continue to be “strong, vibrant and competitive” throughout Noopemig while the regulations and policies are being developed for the Aboriginal-specific clauses of Bill 173-the “new” Mining Act. It will be up to the First Peoples to decide how and if, they want to provide input into the regulations.

Climate Day Speech

2009-10-26T14:09:00.001-04:00

October 24, 2009 was the International Day of Climate Action and I was invited by the Lakehead University Student Union Sustainability Commissioner, Alex Boulet, to participate in a rally at Waverly Park in Thunder Bay. The rally was one of 5200 events held in 181 countries around the world where people gathered to call for strong action and bold leadership on the climate crisis.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will take place in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009, where the world leaders will gather to finish negotiations and decide what the world will do when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

The UNFCCC was started in 1990 by the United Nations. (UN) The convention sets out the overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to deal with climate change. It acknowledges that “the climate system is a global resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.” The goals of the convention are “to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in such a way as to give ecosystems the opportunity to adapt naturally.”

As of March 2009, scientists say that we are at 387ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. The safe upper limit for humanity is 350ppm.

Canada has voted to delay Bill C-311, the environmental climate legislation, until after the meeting in Copenhagen.

I gave the following speech at Waverly Park in Thunder Bay on Saturday, October 24, 2009.

I’m John Cutfeet and I work for the Wildlands League as the Bilingual Mining Coordinator, acting as a resource for the far north communities dealing with mining and exploration issues. I work out of the far north office of the Wildlands League at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, (KI) which is my home community. I provide communities with the best available information so they can make the best informed decisions. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug is located six hundred kilometers in the boreal forest, north of Thunder Bay.

KI has faced challenges from plans for unbridled development, which saw community leadership incarcerated for preventing an exploration company, who claimed that they needed to drill in an environmentally sensitive area so they can mine platinum-group metals. They wanted to develop new fuel cell technology for catalytic convertors to lower emissions from vehicles. It was to be done at the expense of the communities who rely on the lakes, rivers and the ecosystem that allows life to flourish and maintains the well-being of nature and humanity

The Elders of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug say that Big Trout Lake, where we are located, has springs and streams flowing in and out, connecting with other systems along the way, each with its own unique features within the ecosystem.

When we were talking about protecting entire water basins, including rivers, one of the elders pointed out that we had to protect the marshes which she described as the lungs of the earth. If we didn’t, we would be allowing the air that we breathe to be destroyed. This elder, had a limited english vocabulary and very little formal education. Yet, she understood how the ecosystem interacted to sustain life on earth that provides life to everything in it.

Sustainability is a term that is applied to almost every facet of life including over various time periods and it can be on a local and global scale. Sustainability is often referred to by the environmental, social, economic dimensions known as the “three pillars.”

Science tells us that we, as human beings are living beyond “the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems,” and that we are living unsustainably. Human sustainability implies the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.”

It is understood that societies and economies rely on the natural world. One environmentalist put it this way, “The economy is, in the first instance, a sub-system of human society, which is itself, in the second instance, a subsystem of the totality of life on earth.” He continues, “And no subsystem can expand beyond the capacity of the total system of which it is part.”

Are we beyond the point of the supporting capacity of our ecosystems?

In April of 2009, I attended the Indigenous Peoples Global Summit on Climate Change in Anchorage, Alaska. It was attended by about 400 Indigenous Peoples from 80 different countries. Indigenous Peoples came from the Arctic, North America, Asia, Pacific, Latin America, Africa, Caribbean and Russia. We worked towards obtaining a unanimous Indigenous Peoples Declaration on Climate Change to be taken to the World Leaders Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen this December.

Unfortunately, we could not come to a unanimous declaration to be carried to Copenhagen. We came up with these two options:

a) We call for the phase out of fossil fuel development and a moratorium on new fossil fuel developments on or near Indigenous lands.

b) We call for a process that works towards the eventual phase out of fossil fuels, without infringing on the right to development of Indigenous Nations.

H.E. Miguel d’Escoto Brockman, President of the United Nations General Assembly to Indigenous Peoples stated that, “Indigenous Peoples are amongst those who contributed least to the climate change crisis because of their traditional livelihoods and sustainable lifestyles. It is a bitter irony, however, that they are suffering the worst impacts of climate change.” He continued, “The Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic witnessed the unprecedented thawing of permafrost and the melting of glaciers 30 years ago, even before the world was aware of climate change.”

Ironically, it was the Arctic who held out on the moratorium language as they had been fighting for 30 years to get involved in oil and gas exploration in their territory. They were finally getting that opportunity to reap the benefits from their lands as others had been doing before their very eyes.

Indigenous Peoples throughout the world have watched resources being extracted from their territories creating great wealth to others while we live on islands of poverty and development happening all around us in an unsustainable manner.

President Miguel Brockman expressed it more eloquently:

“Now is not the time to pull any punches, we must call a spade a spade. The Third World cannot afford to subsidize the First World anymore through unjust debt repayments – where developed countries portray themselves as charitable donors coming to the financial rescue and relief of the ‘pitiable beggars’ which is how they portray developing countries.”

The Earth Charter goes beyond defining sustainability and seeks to establish the values and direction in this manner: “We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect of nature, universal human rights, economic justice and a culture of peace.

KI calls it ‘the right to exist’ in a safe and secure environment and to benefit from the land and resources like everyone else in the world. This needs to happen. Not only does it need to happen, but it must happen in an environmentally and sustainable manner. Not because it is the right thing to do but because justice demands it!

P.S.

In my entry on the First Peoples of Asubpeeschoseewagong, (Grassy Narrows) I reported that Roberta Keesic was charged with building 2 cabins for shelter in her traditional territory without a permit and refusing a stop-work order and that her case was coming up on October 20, 2009. Her charges were dropped on October 16^th, 4 days before she was to go to court.

Waterway Parks in Dunakiiwin (Our Homelands)

2009-10-01T11:47:00.004-04:00

Dunakiiwin is a term used to describe the homelands which lie in the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, (Treaty # 9) – an area covering two-thirds of the far north of Ontario.

It is estimated that about 74% of the surface of the earth is water according to David Suzuki in his book, “You are the Earth”; including oceans, lakes, rivers, and polar ice-caps. He says that we are made up of 70% water because our cells as such, are mainly composed of water. He writes, “You are actually a big blob of water, with just enough solid material to keep you from dribbling away onto the floor.”

In mid-September, 2009, a meeting took place at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, (KI) with representation from communities located along the Fawn Rivers 1& 2 and both the Severn and Pipestone rivers. These rivers have been designated as “Waterway Class Parks.” These waterway parks have a combined total of 192, 469 hectares or approximately 1,925 square kilometers which is 6.4 times the size of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug.

Frank Beardy, NAN Chief Negotiator for Oshki-Machiitawin (formerly Northern Table) explained the purpose of the meeting: “Our main objective is how can we ensure that the First Nations have control of our watersheds?” He continued, “If any development happens in Muskrat Dam, everybody down the river will be affected. It will not make a difference if we only protect part of the river. Can we protect the whole water basin?”

In June 2006, the Ontario Legislature passed the new Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, which came into effect, along with the new regulations, on September 4, 2007. Under the legislation, Waterway Class Parks are one of the classifications.

The objective of these parks is to protect recreational water routes and significant terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including associated natural and cultural features. They have also been designated to provide high quality recreational and educational experiences.

The First Peoples living in Noopemig, have always used the lakes, streams, rivers for travel routes; a place to hunt, fish, and trap for food. More importantly, access to drinking water while pursuing traditional activities is considered to be guaranteed under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution 1982. Living off the land has always been understood that the environment is protected and water, as the source of life, is maintained. Living with Noopemig means ensuring that the landscapes with its natural features are maintained and kept healthy.

Former Premier of the Northwest Territories, Stephen Kakfwi spoke of how his elders pointed out that they would have to also protect the “mountains, valleys, trees and the landscape” if they wanted to protect the waterways.

The elders of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug say that Big Trout Lake has rivers and streams flowing in and out, connecting with other systems along the way; each with their own unique features. Establishing waterway parks on the west and east side of the lake brings with it different management systems to huge chunks of a whole ecosystem that could potentially disrupt an otherwise healthy landscape.

The communities of Wapekeka, Bearskin Lake, Wunnumin, Kingfisher, North Caribou, and Cat Lake, have been asking for the de-designation of these classifications since July 5, 2007 claiming the parks “were established without meaningful consultation” and “without seeking the consent by First Nations whose traditional homelands were affected.”

In July 2008, Premier McGuinty announced the protection of 225,000 square kilometers to be off-limits to development but traditional aboriginal uses like hunting and fishing would be allowed, along with tourism. “It is imperative that the province strike the right balance between conservation and development. We need to plan for development and we will only get one chance to get this right.”

The new planning process for the far north would “enshrine a new respect and working relationship with First Nations” and create “a true partnership.” Mr. McGuinty had committed to giving a greater say to First Nations concerning development projects on their traditional lands including a share of the benefits from these resource projects.

Bill 191, the Far North Act, was introduced on June 2, 2009 as “An Act with respect to land use planning and protection in the far north. The proposed planning process identified “a significant role for First Nations,” and dedicated “225,000 square kilometers of the far north as an interconnected network of protected areas.”

While the province, through the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)is not willing to de-designate the parks, it is willing to review the parks on a case by case basis and claims that boundaries could change through the land use planning process. In addition, there is a commitment for the co-management of parks, also on a case by case basis.

For their part, the represented communities, including Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, resolved that; “We do not recognize the imposition of waterway parks or any of their associated rules and regulations in our traditional territory. We will assert our jurisdiction over our traditional territories and use the waterways as we have since time immemorial.”

The communities resolved to “establish a permanent committee to address waterway park issues and to develop protocols to protect waterways based on indigenous knowledge.” Each First Nation will contribute its share of the funding to the overall project and will submit a proposal to the ENGOs and to both levels of governments for additional funding.

The First Peoples have only recently become aware of the establishment of these waterway parks in their territory although planning has been ongoing for decades. Setting up those waterway parks without First Nation involvement and the lack of meaningful action to address this grievance is hindering the development of a “new respect and a working relationship.” Using indigenous knowledge, they plan to exercise jurisdiction to control and protect entire water basins and not just rivers.

The mighty waters of the Fawn River 1 & 2, the Pipestone, and the Severn, continue to echo through Noopemig in Dunakiiwin for as long as the rivers flow……

Asubpeeschoseewagong (Grassy Narrows)

2009-09-16T10:36:00.002-04:00

As the site of the longest-running blockade to stop clearcut logging, Asubpeeschoseewagong. or Grassy Narrows, located eighty + kilometers, northeast of Kenora off the Trans-Canada Highway, has seen more than its share of struggles throughout its ancestral traditional territory. The Anishnabek of Asubpeeschoseewagong were relocated by a government decision in 1963 to the present location “to allow better access to the nearest town and to benefit from what it has to offer.”

This entry looks at the First Peoples of Asubpeeschoseewagong, (Grassy Narrows) who have been displaced; their graveyard and sacred sites flooded, and their water and food supply contaminated by large-scale developments. Asubpeeschoseewagong, located in Treaty # 3, near the town of Kenora is road-accessible via highway 671, a short drive northeast on a former logging road which has only been paved since 2002. With a population of approximately 1000 and a 14 square mile reserve, the members of Asubpeeschoseewagong consider the surrounding 2,500 square miles as their traditional territory.

In 2007, Grassy Narrows Chief Simon Fobister, and community leaders declared a moratorium on all industrial activity within their traditional territory without community consent, citing, “We’ve been seeking for many years a constructive solution to this untenable situation, but the response has been to talk and log. We cannot sit back and watch the demise of our way of life which disappears every time more cutting areas are extended.”

“The clear-cutting of the land, and the destruction of the forest is an attack on our people,” says Roberta Keesic, a grandmother and trapper. “The land is the basis of who we are. Our culture is a land-based culture and the destruction of the land is the destruction of our culture.”

In the mid-70’s, the way of life of Asubpeeshoseewagong was heavily impacted by mercury being released into the English-Wabigoon river system by a pulp and paper mill in Dryden from 1960- 1979. As a result, the Ontario government told the community to “stop eating fish,” – and closed down their commercial fishery. The release of mercury, upstream from Grassy Narrows resulted in the loss of the main source of food and employment for the community and greatly impacted their health and way of life and still continues to this day.

Living close to all the development and being close to an urban center has not brought all the benefits that one might expect.

A trapper reported that his trapping cabin had burned down. The logs that he had cut down for the replacement of the cabin which he hauled to the main road were cut up for firewood by a person or persons unknown. In March 2007, Roberta Keesic was charged with building 2 cabins for shelter in her traditional territory without a permit , and refusing a stop-work order. Her case comes up on October 20, 2009.

Recently, youth leader Chrissy Swain and community organizer Judy Dasilva visited the former site of the Macintosh Residential School near Kenora and found several large hydro towers at the grave site of the children who died at the school, disrespecting their memory. Ms. Swain, who has started walking with other youth from Grassy Narrows to Parliament Hill in Ottawa, had this to say:

“We need Canada to recognize the damage those schools have done to our communities and cultures, and we need an end to the destruction of our lands, and an end to native people being criminalized when they stand up for their rights to protect their lands, their cultures, and their communities.”

Judy Dasilva pointed out that there are now mining claims that run into a spring-fed lake, a few kilometers from the community that will potentially impact their water and food supply…..once again.

Their voices continue to echo through Noopemig…..

Noopemig (It means ‘The Forest’ in OjiCree)

2009-09-01T10:12:00.006-04:00

From Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug...

I’m John Cutfeet and I work for Wildlands League as a Bilingual Mining Coordinator, acting as a resource for Far North communities dealing with mining issues. I work out of the Far North office of the Wildlands League at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug which is my home community.

This blog will look at First Peoples living in Noopemig (pronounced Noo-peh-mig) of the Far North. It will often include their voices. My work isn’t about supporting or opposing individual mining projects. I am a resource for communities so that they may make the best decisions about their futures given the best available information. It is only fitting that this inaugural entry looks at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug. Just this past week, they were dealing with the same situation of an exploration company trying to access their territory against the wishes of this community.

Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwg is located six hundred kilometers, north of Thunder Bay. Ontario. The disputed zone is located approximately forty kilometers, south, twenty-two of those km across the lake of Big Trout Lake, and another eighteen km Noopemig to Nemeigusabins Lake. (Little Trout Lake) The Nemeigusabins River runs eighteen kms north and empties into the main lake.

The company, Platinex, holds mining claims and leases located on and near Nemeigusabins, running into the main lake which would require the removal of huge amounts of rock and overburden, to access the minerals. This possibility makes it environmentally hazardous for Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug who still utilize the territory to exercise their traditional pursuits of hunting, fishing, trapping, guaranteed in Section Thirty-Five of the Canadian Constitution, 1982.

Kitchehmaykoosib Inninuwug faced off with Platinex in February 16, 2006 for ten days at Nemeigusabins until the drilling crew left the site. Platinex sued for $10 Billion, which eventually saw members of the leadership, (KI-6)including Chief Donny Morris and Deputy Chief Jack Mckay sentenced to six months in jail for contempt for not allowing Platinex immediate access into the territory as ordered by Justice Patrick Smith of the Superior Court of Ontario.

Now more than three and half years later, the community is back to a situation where the company attempted to access the property once again without the approval of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug. The community did not allow the plane to land on Nemeigusabins Lake on August 26, 2009 while they were exercising their Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to be out on the land.. As a result of this action, there are charges pending…

In a press release dated August 26, 2009, Chief Morris states:

“I am very deeply concerned about what is happening at Nemeguisabins Lake. I am deeply disappointed that the province has not intervened in this critical matter. We have made submissions to the province. The Premier never responded to our letter where I asked him for a meeting.” He continues, “I think this is the opposite to what he said when he talked about the proposed Far North Act. I was at Nemeigusabins Lake because I was concerned about the safety of my people and I am concerned about protecting the land. I am glad that our presence on the lake has reconfirmed our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and was peaceful.”

In July, 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeal called the Mining Act ‘archaic’ and released the KI-6 reducing their sentence to time served. It saw the duty to consult this way:

“Having regard to the clear line of Supreme Court jurisprudence from Sparrow to Mikisew, where constitutionally protected aboriginal rights might be asserted, injunctions sought by private parties to protect their interests should only be granted where every effort has been made by the court to encourage consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation among the competing rights and interests.”

So far Ontario has not withdrawn the authorizations for mining in this area. Instead it has filed a motion to bring the parties back into the court process once again.

The last time Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug were in court, the struggle for the protecting of constitutionally entrenched rights was relegated to a mere civil contempt case for which the KI-6 were incarcerated…The voices continue to ring loud and clear from Noopemig in KI’s traditional territory, could this time be different?

Stay tuned for further dispatches from the Far North as I speak to many communities about mining and traditional lands.