Ring of Fire

“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)

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:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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

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?

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?

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

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

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…