Compensation
Use Google News or a similar website as a source for information.
Diamonds in Attawapiskat
Oil in Alberta
Hydro-electric power in Manitoba
Logging in Québec
Mining in Nova Scotia
Oil fracking in New Brunswick
I chose to research Attiwapiskat because one of my students is from Kashechewan First Nation, just north of Attiwapiskat. He provided us with a lot of insight into northern communities around James Bay. I admit to having a bias against mining practices because of the environment impact it has on the land, animals and people who live around it. I visualize mines as taking a big bite out of Mother Earth and then leaving it as a open sore. In many cases, mining is done for creating human space and extracting precious metals for important uses such as electricity, computers, houses. In this case, DeBeers , a world famous diamond company, does not have my sympathies because they are mining for profit on overpriced wedding rings. This being said, I was surprised to read that the project had support of the community, namely the Chief. Moreover, I thought I would have found more damaging evidence against the company but it seemed like the Victor site (in Attawapiskat) did due diligence in monitoring animal activity, measuring water toxicity levels and re-planting trees on site. This being said, the media reports could be biased and environmental impacts may not be seen until much later. Below are my findings.
Summary
July 2008 DeBeers Diamonds started mining in Attawapiskat
Name of mine is Victor
Produces exceptional and economical diamonds (600 carats annually)
Site open for almost 11 years
Spent $2.6 billion to build and operate the mine
$820 million went to Indigenous and local businesses in Northern Ontario
$2 million/year through its impact benefit agreement
(much of that went to a ice road construction for bringing in goods etc)Ice road was built by DeBeers
This was Ontario’s first and only mine
Debeers planted 1,200,00 trees and shrubs over decommissioned site
Employed 500 jobs (100 workers were from Attawapiskat)
Site closed for economic reasons
Chief says he wished it could have remained open (more opportunities for community)
Controversy
Mercury testing not reported by DeBeers in 2016 but was thrown out by courts
against Jordan’s Principle which states Indigenous youth must have the same [health] rights as everyone else
not testing for mercury would infringe on their health rights
Protests & Blockades
Community members picketed the opening in 2008 (environmental and economic reasons)
In 2013, blockades set up protesting impact of site on family traplines
DeBeers threatened to sue Chief
Community gets 2 million from DeBeers/ year
Annual revenue of site is $400 million
Company rebukes that they have helped develop community and pay for members’ training
Indigenous groups claim it is not appropriate payment for being “displaced from traditional homeland”
Wish they would have had better negotiations
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/debeers-closure-community-reacts-1.4386145
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/first-nations-must-learn-from-de-beers-deal-1.1327592
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/attawapiskat-water-hope-1.5224371
A few areas this can be used in the curriculum is in English - you could use the Shannen and the Dream for a New School by Janet Wilson as a gateway into this issue. In the senior classes, you could use Children of the Broken Treaty by Charlie Angus. Both books look at Attawapiskat and touch on the diamond mine. In music, Grievous Angels (Charlie Angus/Andrew Cash) also has a song, "Diamond in the Snow" that deals with this issue.
All of the above would be great for NBE.
During the Idle No More movement of 2012, Attawapiskat was experiencing repeated housing issues due to annual flooding. You may remember, Charlie Angus (MP- James Bay) visited the community (2011 or 2012) and videotaped the conditions of some of the homes. Reporters and all sorts of people descended on the community to see for themselves. Chief Theresa Spense went to Ottawa and went on a hunger strike to try do draw attention to the crisis in her community. The news was horrible and the 'comment' sections of any reporting on the issue blew up. It was pure vitriol. At best, many people would say things like, "They're getting millions from that mine, what are they doing with all the money? The chief is buying fancy trucks and houses." Other comments were not nearly so kind.
The compensation package was a poorly crafted deal for sure. Two million dollars a year couldn't put a dent in the issues that the community faced with annual flooding, the school situation (schools were closed by the parents due to a diesel leak that was making the kids sick - the kids were going to school in inadequate portables - you may recall Shannen Kootachin's story), and their health care facility is basically a nursing station manned by locums. I can see the frustration that the community members might have especially in light of the profits that we coming out of the mine. What I find interesting is Catrina mentioned that DeBeers states "$820 million went to Indigenous and local businesses in Northern Ontario." I'd be really curious to know how they reached that figure. There are very few businesses in the north - let alone ones owned by Indigenous people. Perhaps the 'local businesses' include the Ontario Northland Railway for transporting goods from southern Ontario- though it is partially publically owned. Or, perhaps they mean MTL - which transports goods by barge? Air Creebec (out of Quebec)? Northern Stores (head office - Winnipeg)? It just makes me skeptical because there is very little sign of this amount of money staying IN the communities.
It is interesting to note how difficult it is to get a full picture of the story. If I look at this incident as a narrative (aka story), no single article has a complete section (beginning, middle, end with both perspectives) of the story. Furthermore, even with my research, I could not easily find mainstream news outlets that reported on the end of the story.
______________________________
DeBeer’s Victor Mine opened in 2008. There was an Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA) in place between the company and Attawapiskat First Nations, the First Nations community that lived nearby. In 2011 a new position was created, the IBA coordinator, as there were challenges from the onset and arrival of the company.
Five years into the projected 10 year project, on Monday, February 4, 2013, a group of Attawapiskat residents formed a blockade, blocking the main winter road leading to the diamond mine. This was the road used annually to move supplies and large items. The residents felt that the First Nations community was not getting enough compensation. At the time, the First Nation was receiving approximately 0.5% of the annual diamond revenue ($2 million). This amount was agreed to and determined using an Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA). It is unclear if the IBA stated a dollar amount, or a percentage of revenues. De Beers annual revenue from the Victor Diamond mine was about $400 million per year.
There are no mandated requirements for Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs). The concluded agreement does not seem to have been made public; meaning that the process and defining terms of the IBA have been kept confidential to the parties.
The First Nation believed that the IBA was only compensation for disruption of traditional land. They did not feel that they were receiving a share of the wealth generated by the land. Treaties state that First Nations should get a share of the wealth generated by the land. Some members of the Attawapiskat First Nation felt that there should be legislation that would share the wealth that governments get so that First Nations get true benefits.
Attawapiskat had experienced a crisis after crisis. At the time of the blockade they were experiencing a housing crisis. They have also experienced several water crisis and a suicide crisis. Additionally, members of this Nation had been residents at Saint Anne’s residential school, one of the most infamous residential schools in Canada.
Tom Ormsky, the Director of External and Corporate Affairs for DeBeers agreed to the idea of resource sharing with the caveat that is done out of existing payments rather than a new tax on companies and corporations, implying that the payments to First Nations should be done out of the government payouts instead of have the companies payout more funds. It was also believed that community owned businesses received approximately $51 million in contracts through the presence of the company. He also said the community receives first chance at job opportunities and business contracts at the mine through the IBA.
"It seems that we still have a lot of outstanding issues or unresolved issues stemming from the day the mine operations began up to this day," said Danny Metatawabin, the IBA coordinator. "There has been a lot of disgruntlement against employee terminations or discrimination issues, racism issues, even the fact that there are certain families that have traditional territories within the boundries or close to the Victor site."
A federal review of the relationship between De Beers' Victor mine and Attawapiskat showed that government support for training and capacity did not start soon enough to support skill development in the First Nation community.
The blockades ended on the evening of Thursday February 7, 2013. Though the reason for the end of the blockades is unspecified publicly, it seems that the blockades ended on a agreement to clarify the details contained within the IBA. De Beers stated “The resolution to the blockade just outside Attawapiskat First Nation was mainly focused in two areas: employment and training and maximizing the benefits available in the (IBA),”
Bruce Shisheesh, the spokesman for the blockade, on the other hand said De Beers and Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence agreed to reopen the impact benefit agreement (IBA) between the community and the company. “We talked about reopening the IBA and discussing some stuff that we are missing in the IBA.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/debeers-closure-community-reacts-1.4386145
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/debeers-victor-closure-2019-1.4382977
https://aptnnews.ca/2013/02/08/attawapiskat-diamond-mine-blockade-ends/
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/afterthelastriver
As I read about the diamonds in Attawapiskat, I learned that the company which mines on First Nation land gives the Nation $2 million each year, through a benefit agreement, and also pays 90% of the $7 million required to maintain the ice road which leads into the mine. I also learned that this mine was closing in 2019, due to economic factors, and that this mine also employs hundreds of First Nations individuals from the remote area. The articles also mentioned that the mine is being "reclaimed" which seems to be the planting of plants, which will be finished in 2024.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/debeers-closure-community-reacts-1.4386145
"De Beers said it has spent $2.6 billion to build and operate the mine, of which $820 million has gone to Indigenous and local businesses in Northern Ontario. In addition, the company said it’s paid $110 million in royalties to the provincial government, plus $100 million in corporate social investment and payments to communities."
I recognize that this issue, and the closure of these kinds of extraction activities on First Nations land is very complicated. On one hand, this is devastating for remote communities whose population depends on these jobs, and without whom rely even more on government assistance. On another hand, these types of extraction, like the oil in Alberta, have long term impact on the environment. When First Nations communities become reliant on the income from compensation for resources, or the jobs themselves, it's interesting to consider these kinds of activities within the 7 generation concept, and think about what will ultimately be better for these communities within 7 generations.
I wonder if it would be a better strategy for the First Nations groups to not just be employees of the resource development, but be at least 50% share holders. This would give them a strong voice in the program development so that they could ensure that the interests of the community are being fairly represented. In this deal it just seems like more of a payout for the use of the land which can end abruptly and leave the community reeling.
I feel that resource development is portrayed as a choice between what is environmentally sound, and what is economically sound. If we look at it from a land-based perspective, or a longitudinal one, are they not one and the same? If the plan of action degrades the integrity of the environment, the economics will go down with it.
Note; I recently watched a documentary called After the Last River... I highly recommend you see it if you ever have some time. Very interesting, but also a little sad to see how bad the housing situation and living conditions actually are in the Attawapiskat community. Seems absolutely insane to me that they don't have decent water to drink, as well as homes to stay in when their traditional lands have been extracted to make enormous profits for others.
Here is the link to the trailer if interested...After the Last River
Fracking in New Brunswick
Fracking (shale gas development) has been occurring in New Brunswick since at least the late 1990s. A number of fracking sites exist on land that the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people say they never ceded. New Brunswick is part of the Peace and Friendship Treaty. Under this treaty, the First Nations did not surrender title to their land. They say the New Brunswick government has a duty to consult before it allows fracking to occur on their land.
The Conservative government in the early 2000s allowed fracking to continue without consultation. This culminated in a violent confrontation between protestors and police in 2013 when 40 people were arrested and six police vehicles were burned. The Liberal government that followed put a moratorium on new fracking sites, but in 2019 the new Progressive Conservative government lifted that moratorium in the Sussex area of New Brunswick. The organization that represents Mi'kmaq chiefs -- Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn Inc., or MTI -- said the step was secretive and has set back the province's relationships with Indigenous people.
“Fracking remains an issue of serious concern to our Mi’gmaq communities. This Premier must remember that First Nations have never ceded our lands and waters in this province. The Mi’gmaq, and the Fort Folly First Nation continue to fish, hunt, and gather on the lands and waters of the Kennebecasis River, and the Sussex and Penobsquis area. For us, water is sacred, and anything that pollutes our lands and waters is like a knife to the heart of Mother Earth,” said Chief Rebecca Knockwood of Fort Folly First Nation and Co-Chair of MTI (“First Nations, Health”).
There has been no discussion that I can find about the First Nations benefiting from the proceeds of fracking, although I'm not sure that they'd want to. In fact, there is little information about any revenue sharing with First Nations in New Brunswick except from forestry and one mine. In 2014, the province, Ottawa and the New Brunswick First Nations set up a process to discuss treaty rights, self-government and resource revenue sharing. It is not clear what has happened to this process in regards to fracking revenue.
Aboriginal People’s Television Network reporter Ossie Michelin's iconic photo of Amanda Polchies in Elsipogtog, October 2013.
“United We Stand” by Fanny Aishaa (http://www.fannyaishaa.com), based on a photograph by Ossie Michelin.
Sources:
“Fracking Across Canada,” Council of Canadians. https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-across-canada_0.pdf
“First Nations, Health and Labour groups weigh in with support for the moratorium,” NBASGA, June 17, 2019. http://www.noshalegasnb.ca/first-nations-health-and-labour-groups-weigh-in-with-support-for-the-moratorium/
Government Resource Sharing with Aboriginal Communities. 2014. http://www.pdac.ca/docs/default-source/default-document-library/pdac-grrs-report-2014.pdf?sfvrsn
“Lifting of fracking moratorium does not have the consent of mi’gmaq chief,” 2019 https://www.migmawel.org/news/2019/6/6/lifting-of-fracking-moratorium-does-not-have-the-consent-of-migmaq-chiefs-miramichi
“New Brunswick's Indigenous chiefs issue warning against Tory OK of gas fracking” THE CANADIAN PRESS, June 5, 2019, https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/new-brunswick-s-indigenous-chiefs-issue-warning-against-tory-ok-of-gas-fracking-1.4453173
I chose this topic because the area we lived in in Colorado saw an exponential growth in fracking during the 8 years we lived there. Many of the towns and cities were fighting to stop it within the city/town limits. They could literally set up a spot near your home and then diagonally drill down beneath your home. In Colorado (and the States), things like water and mineral rights are separated from the land and sold separately, and thus homeowners had no rights to the water or minerals on their own property. With this in mind I wanted to do this to understand how we handle this issue.
I used the following sources
Shale gas developer frustrated by uncertainty surrounding fracking
This is from August 2019
Corridor, the energy company, expressed concern over coming consultations with the Aboriginal community.
“Predicting a timeline as to when the consultation process is completed is difficult,” states the company in its quarterly report.
But the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council says it has many questions about fracking and needs to be properly consulted on the issue.
“What is actually going on here? Can it be done safely? Can it not be done safely? Is it going to affect the water? How is it going to affect the water? The whole process, they have to come and sit down and properly consult,” said Chief Barry Labillois. (CTV, 2019)
The broader community is coming to the support of the First Nations communities. Many groups have formed to work on the issue of fracking in New Brunswick.
“Oil companies and the gas companies, and some slow-to-the-case premiers, like to blame regulatory uncertainty and First Nations vetoes for just about everything,” said Lois Corbett of the New Brunswick Conservation Council. (CTV, 2019).
Sussex Area Fracking Plans Shelved over Regulatory Uncertainty
This article is from August 2019
The proposed fracking site impact First Nations land. Currently there is a moratorium in place on fracking due to a variety of issues and research that needs to be done. The company, Corridor Resources had asked the provincial government for an exemption so they could begin fracking and sell the project. The Halifax-based company says the provincial government has advised it's "unable to consider applications for an exemption to the moratorium as they undertake a consultation process with the New Brunswick First Nations."(McGee, 2019).
The province's 2011 policy on the duty to consult says it must take place when "contemplating an action or a decision that may infringe upon proven or asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights." (McGee, 2019).
The announcement about loosening the moratorium was called a "serious mistake" by top Indigenous leaders. Chief George Ginnish of Natoaganeg First Nation had said the province must consult with Indigenous people before making a decision, not after. (McGee, 2019).
Mi'kmaq chiefs 'blindsided' by PC plan to allow shale gas development in Sussex area
This article is from June 2019.
This article talks about the PC government looking to create an exemption to the moratorium on fracking to allow for fracking in an area of the province which impacts the Mi'Kmaq nation. Their Chief feels that he was blindsided and that the nation should have been involved/consulted in this discussion. "The premier must remember the Crown has a duty to consult, and to seek our consent to development in our territory," Chief George Ginnish of Natoaganeg First Nation said in the statement." (Portias, 2019)
The cabinet approved an order-in-council exempting an area near Sussex from the fracking moratorium in May. The Mi'Kmaq had not been notified at that point.
The area that the exemption is being considered for includes land that are currently in title negotiations with the federal government.
The moratorium is currently only a regulation and can be amended at anytime by the cabinet.
Fracking Across Canada - New Brunswick
Most of this information is from 2013
SWN (a Texas based company) is conducting the testing on unceded Mi’kmaq lands of the Signigtog District. Members of the Elsipogtog First Nation have said “no” to testing and fracking on their land. After a peaceful blockade throughout the summer, the Elsipogtog and others who oppose shale gas development in the province made international headlines when RCMP officers with riot gear, assault rifles and snipers moved in on peaceful protesters. Most media coverage of the events ignored a key issue: that the Elsipogtog are standing up to protect their land, water and families from the harmfuleffects of fracking.
This image, by Fanny Aishaa, is a reimagination of an original photo by Ossie Michelin / APTN. The woman depicted
is Amanda Polchies, protecting unceded Mi’kmaq land and water from fracking.
“Hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) involves injecting water, sand and chemicals deep underground at high pressure to fracture rocks containing natural gas or oil. Fracking raises significant social and ecological justice concerns related to the rights of Indigenous peoples, public health, air and water contamination, groundwater depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, and the triggering of seismic activity. Fracking projects have been initiated on the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples in New Brunswick, British Columbia and in other jurisdictions often without their free, prior and informed consent as required by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. In considering the economic, social and environmental costs, some jurisdictions in Canada, including Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have instituted bans or moratoria on fracking.”
(https://www.kairoscanada.org/what-we-do/ecological-justice/fracking)
I have not been able to find that any First Nation has been compensated in relation to fracking. What I did find was that the Nations are often blindsided by decisions made without them despite their land being unceded. There continues to be strong opposition to fracking in New Brunswick by First Nations and the population at large.
The video below is of a protest in New Brunswick.
This image is from https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/colonial-past-colonial-present which is an interesting article on colonization as a present construction, not a past incident as we often think of it.
Also:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/n-b-fracking-protests-and-the-fight-for-aboriginal-rights-1.2126515
On another ‘compensation’ note:
Last year, Amnesty International identified ten situations around the world that involved youth in dire situations as part of their letter writing campaign. One focus was Grassy Narrows. The focus for compensation is for resource extraction, but our greatest resource is our people. Grassy Narrows has suffered devastating loss due to the mercury poisoning of the waters. The CBC report outlines how the loss of their waterways connected to the destruction of their community.
I found this footage and article from the CBC archives (outlining the $17 Million in compensation awarded for killing the waterways, and with that, the people. Of that $17 million, Ontario paid $2 Million. The rest came from:
The federal government paid $2.75 million.
Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd., which bought Dryden Chemicals Ltd. in 1979, contributed $6 million
while the previous owner, Reed Inc., paid $5.75 million.
It is indicated in the article that the Chief of one reserve told the press that the band ‘had a good time’ with some of the money ($900,000 in one weekend). This is making me think about the difference between the elected band council and the hereditary chief. I know that there has been a lot of concern over mismanagement of resources, including money from compensation in many cases.
(Link to video and article:
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/grassy-narrows-compensation-and-shame
)
I also found a more hopeful video talking about some ‘troublemakers’ turned into young men who are taking responsibility and helping with the social issues on the reserve.
(https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/grassy-narrows-doing-it-for-themselves)
An aside…
Quotes of Interest from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15000637
The Chief of the Attawapiskat First Nation meets with the Grand Chief. “Sir,” he says, “I have got some good news and bad news.” The Grand Chief asks for the good news first and is told that the De Beers has just discovered diamonds near Attawapiskat. The Grand Chief is happy. He says, “Well, this is great. Hope for our youth. What could the bad news possibly be,” he asks the Attawapiskat Chief. The reply is, “The bad news is that De Beers have just discovered diamonds near Attawapiskat.”
Protest Video: https://youtu.be/gK9t2oGKefU
Northern Alberta, which boasts one of the largest deposits of oil in the world, is also home to some of the most impoverished Indigenous communities in the country.
Oil Sands
Canada’s oil sands, located in northern Alberta, are the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world. Its deposits represent 97% of Canada’s 171 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (Canada’s oil sands and local First Nations: A Snapshot). In particularly Fort McMurrary, where the boreal forest has been read and bitumen is mined from the ground in immense open pits, the blot on the landscape is incomparable” (National Geographic).
As for the global warning, in 2007, Alberta provincial government organized $463 million for carbon tax on large industrial emitters and it went to effect on April 1, 2019.
In order to support the global warning effect, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has spent 4.5 billion expand the pipeline route, from Alberta to British Columbia (1150km). However, it was opposed by the Indigenous people as the land will become toxic. This means that Indigenous people will lose their cultural aspects for not being able to travel and gathering food from the land. The land is considered as a very sacred place for these people.
“In most of Alberta, the bitumen is buried so deep that wells must be drilled to extract it, and steam injected to mobilize it, at great energy cost. But north of Fort McMurray the bitumen layer is shallow enough that it can be strip mined in huge open pits. […] oil sands producers must reclaim the land when they are finished with their operations. Only a small fraction of the mined land has been reclaimed so far” (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/alberta-canadas-tar-sands-is-growing-but-indigenous-people-fight-back/)
“Moose Lake is the last place where we can practice our ancestors’ traditions and pass them on to our young people […]. We need to protect the integrity of Moose Lake. We need to keep our culture alive for our children and our children’s children” (https://edmontonjournal.com/business/energy/fort-mckay-first-nation-appeals-alberta-energy-regulators-approval-of-oil-sands-project)
“Without the preservation of the Moose Lake area, the plaintiffs will no longer be able to meaningfully exercise their treaty rights,” says the statement of claim, which contains allegations that have no yet been proven in court.
(https://globalnews.ca/news/4751414/fort-mckay-first-nation-moose-lake-lawsuit/)
“As you know, Fort KcKay is a strong partner in the Alberta oil sands,” he said. “We employ 1,400 people and contribute half a billion dollars into Alberta’s economy. We have helped Alberta grow for decades and will continue to do so. We are proud to be a part of Alberta’s energy sectors”
(https://globalnews.ca/news/6100698/grandjamb-fort-mckay-first-nation-oilsands-moose-lake-plan-court/)
“The Fort McKay community is made up of about 800 residents and is located about 80 kilometres from Fort McMurray. When the AER approved Prosper Petroleum’s $440-mlllion, 10,000-barrel-a-day plans, the decision came despite a provincial draft plan meant to help protect the area from overdevelopment—a plan that included the 10 kilometre zone Grandjamb spoke about”
(https://globalnews.ca/news/6100698/grandjamb-fort-mckay-first-nation-oilsands-moose-lake-plan-court/)
As the land is not fully owned and/or equipped by the Indigenous people, they are terrified by the government’s decision. Even though Canada supports global warning, the government should consider other ways of how to go about. Even though the government reconciled the past tragic event of residential school and developed the document of “TRC-Calls to Action”, we still have long way to go in order to make compromises. As Indigenous aspects are part of Canadian culture, we should be fully acknowledged to them.
I looked into a dispute over the land known as Moose Lake in Alberta. The Fort McKay First Nation believe that this is "the last place its members can go to practise treaty rights and live in a traditional manner" (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-court-overturns-oil-sands-mine-approval-over-aboriginal-concerns/). Fort McKay is located north of Fort McMurray and is surrounded by oil sands development on three sides. The band says that seventy percent of their traditional territory is taken up by mines. "In 2001, the band began talks with the province to preserve Moose Lake and a 10-kilometre buffer zone around it. Former Alberta premier Jim Prentice signed a letter of intent with the band in 2015 and three years later Fort McKay thought it had a deal, although it was never ratified" (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-court-overturns-oil-sands-mine-approval-over-aboriginal-concerns/). "But that year, the Alberta Energy Regulator approved Prosper Petroleum’s 10,000-barrel-a-day steam-assisted bitumen extraction project that would have come within two kilometres of the lakeshore. It argued before the Appeal Court that its mandate forbids it from considering issues of Indigenous consultation. Nor could it consider deals not yet in force" (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-court-overturns-oil-sands-mine-approval-over-aboriginal-concerns/). The judge in this case awarded favour to the Fort McKay First Nation - "Alberta’s highest court has overturned regulatory approvals for a $440-million oil sands project that would have encroached on land a First Nation considers sacred" (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-court-overturns-oil-sands-mine-approval-over-aboriginal-concerns/). Three justices of the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that energy company violated the "honour of the Crown when it approved the proposal even though the development infringed on an agreement between the province and the Fort McKay First Nation" (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-court-overturns-oil-sands-mine-approval-over-aboriginal-concerns/). Justice Sheila Greckol stated that, "The honour of the Crown … does require that the Crown keep promises made during negotiations designed to protect treaty rights" (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-court-overturns-oil-sands-mine-approval-over-aboriginal-concerns/).
This information could be used in geography courses when discussing resources. It would also be useful in any FNMI courses, especially since this ruled in their favour. I have not followed this at all in the news, but in light of everything else we have been learning about, it is nice to see the ruling of this not go in favour of big business.
Alberta’s top court overturns oil sands mine approval over First Nations concerns for land - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-court-overturns-oil-sands-mine-approval-over-aboriginal-concerns/
JAMES BAY PROJECT
To piggyback on the information I found regarding the Land Claim of MoCreebec, I thought I’d take the time to investigate the James Bay Project of northwestern Quebec.
In the 1960’s, Quebec began eyeing up potential hydroelectric resources in their province. After many years (nearly 10) of negotiations and legal wranglings, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed.
The agreement set out to use traditional lands of the Quebec Cree for hydroelectricity production in exchange for a number of provisions, money only being part of it. It was a hard-fought agreement and not taken lightly. It has since, also, gone through amendments to ensure the spirit of the agreement is understood by all parties.
Environmental Provisions
The deal reserved specific lands for the Indigenous peoples to hunt, trap and harvest. In some cases, as with forestry and mining, the rights to the lands were shared rights or authority. In the end, it provided the indigenous peoples of the eastern James Bay with exclusive hunting and fishing rights to 170,000 km2 of land - more than 1 ½ times the size of Newfoundland.
The deal also made provisions for environmental and social protection - meaning that before any further development could occur on the lands, the indigenous people needed to be consulted. To ensure these protections, the indigenous peoples created the Kativik Environmental Quality Commission and the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee. This would ensure oversight on land developments to ensure the health of fish and wildlife, waterways and land would be preserved for future generations.
Education/Health/Social Service Provisions
In terms of education, the agreement granted the Eeyou Istchee and Inuit control over instruction and curriculum. The indigenous peoples formed the first Cree School Board and the Kativik School Board (Inuit). This allowed the indigenous people to ensure language and culturally relevant teaching.
The agreement also provided additional provisions for health and social services. The organization of the social services and health care systems on the reserves are adapted for the characteristics of the region.
Financial Provisions
The final provision in the agreement is monetary. This agreement provided $225 million to be managed by Cree owned development corporations. Recently, the federal government also made a settlement for $1.4 billion after years of complaints’ that the government broke parts of the agreement with some of the indigenous communities involved in this agreement.
Negative Impact
This deal benefited the Indigenous people of eastern James Bay in some ways, however, in other ways, it has had a negative impact. The James Bay project, essentially flooded the traditional lands and diverted rivers to create hydroelectricity. That had an impact on migration routes of wildlife and fish stock. An estimated 10,000 caribou with migration routes through the flooded areas died as a result. This caused further negative effects on the local First Nation communities with regards to hunting and trading.
Due to the changing water levels, dead trees filled shorelines and vegetation growth in these areas ceased. High levels of mercury, caused by decomposing organic material in reservoirs, were also found in surrounding rivers and lakes.
Long Term Benefits
Long term benefits are being seen as development and growth continue in eastern James Bay. Many of the communities that lacked year-round access to the rest of the province, now have paved and maintained access roads. The communities have amenities like pools and recreation centres.
Because the indigenous people have more control over education, they have made great use by encouraging their youth to leave the communities for post-secondary school, only to return and work. In doing this, the communities are using few and few skilled tradespeople and skilled workers from outside. They are building from within.
Connecting to MoCreebec Land Claim
Having just finished the land claim discussion on the MoCreebec Cree land title and rights lawsuit, I wanted to connect to this compensation package.
Eastern James Bay is the ancestral homeland of the MoCreebec families of Moose Factory. Each family is registered to one of the eastern James Bay communities. As a result, they have access to the funding for post-secondary from the communities they are registered with.
What I find interesting is, in order to access funding, our MoCreebec students are required to live in an eastern James Bay community for at least 6 months and work there. So many of our students go to communities of Waskaganish, Weminji, Mistissini or Nemiska right out of high school. They leave their families and live in Quebec to guarantee their post-secondary funding. This often puts them a semester or a year behind their peers who go to post-secondary right out of high school.
Once finished post-secondary school, most of the MoCreebec Cree come “home” to Moose Factory. This is extremely interesting because when the kids return they tell you things like - You should see what they have over there! They have nice homes and paved roads. They have great recreational facilities and there is always something going on. It’s so beautiful. That is in direct contrast to the western James Bay communities - we have no pavement, our recreational facilities are old and basic. Our homes are small and many of them are modular. But, the students come ‘home’ here because for the MoCreebec, this is home and eastern James Bay, though nice to visit, is not.
https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/james-bay-damming-project-water-under-dam
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/topic/the-james-bay-project-and-the-cree
https://niche-canada.org/2016/09/19/dam-nation-hydroelectric-development-in-eeyou-istche-baie-james/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project
This is long but I found this topic really fascinating and my research took me in many directions. I hope others are interested too! I researched oil compensation in Alberta and found it really interesting, particularly with the current world situation with oil prices and covid-19. I decided to research more current information but did dig into some background knowledge. To start with “about 23,000 Indigenous peoples from 18 First Nations and 6 Métis settlements live in the oil sands region in northeast Alberta.” That is a lot of people! From my researched I learned these Indigenous People benefit financially in two different ways from oil. Firstly, oil companies must pay Indigenous groups royalties for any oil activity on their land. These royalties are higher than the set standard on other land. Secondly, some Alberta First Nations have chosen to actively participate in the oil and gas industry.
When oil and gas first became an industry there was some confusion around what Indigenous rights were based on treaties (all of the oil areas have treaties). There was nothing that explicitly dealt with mineral exploration and exploitation. Post WWII some First Nations decided not to wait and see what would happen but instead actively engage in the oil and gas industry as a way to help their people. “Some indigenous leaders, notably Harold Cardinal of the Indian Association of Alberta (IAA), saw revenue from mineral rights, particularly oil and gas, on reserve lands as a way to redress the deficiencies of the treaties and deal with the social and economic issues that plagued many reserves.” Historically the majority of First Nations chose to collect royalties but as oil started to do well some First Nations developed their own oil companies as this produced a greater profit. These First Nations also reported lower unemployment and more money to put into social programs on reserve. For example, Frog Leg First Nation started drilling for oil in the 70s and have used “resource revenues to build more than 200 homes on the reserve and offset tuition for hundreds of students who attend college and university. During good times, the money has also helped build facilities like an arena, fieldhouse and chuckwagon race track, while also offsetting the cost of several community programs.” From my research Frog Leg First Nation seems like one of the more vocal groups in favour of oil production. In other cases it seemed like a bit of “stuck between a rock and a hard place” in that some First Nations did not want to harm the planet but they did see the social benefits of the extra money. It seems some made a tough choice between the mental health, physical health and social community of their people vs the land.
There was a lot of information about how First Nations groups engage in the oil industry but I also wanted to research what was legally mandated in terms of compensation. What I found was two fold. There is the mandate for financial compensation but there is also a legal obligation of the government to “consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Aboriginal peoples if it is determined that treaty and Indigenous rights could be adversely impacted”. This seemed like a broad statement to me that is not clearly defined. This becomes important in the modern climate. First though I will finish explaining the government's compensation stance and the level of money we’re actually talking about.
I found the federal government document outlining oil compensation for Indigenouys People actually quite good. It spoke of a nation-nation relationship and consultation ensure sustainability and an environmental future for later generations. They did seem to honour, at least in writing, Indigenous ideology such as the Seven Generations principle and Indigenous Knowledge. The document stated “decisions will be based on science, facts, evidence and traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples.” The document also emphasized creating partnerships and opportunities for “Indigenous owned businesses, entrepreneurs and individual community members to supply goods and services to oil sands companies.” In summary the federal stance shows direction and indirect compensation to First Nations in Alberta. According to Indian Oil and Gas Canada compensation for “First Nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan was $59.6 million in 2016-17, down from about $250 million in 2011-12.” 2018-2019 only produced about $55 million in energy royalties/compensation. We can see how much compensation fluctuates based on external factors.
This brings us to today. Oil prices were in free fall over the last several months (after a mediorice few years) and covid-19 hit. This has created a bad economic situation in Alberta in general but it has hit First Nations in a unique way. In the fall of 2018 Rachel Notley announced that the provincial government would be restriction production levels to clear a backlog and boost prices - there was no exemption given to First Nations and it was said that “even First Nations need to do their part”. There were multiple issues with this for First Nations People in Alberta. Firstly, there was no consultation with First Nations groups. The government said the consultation was not necessary as it was a matter of production location, not doing new things that impact First Nations land. First Nations groups said it goes against their constitutional rights of resources on their land. Chief Roy Fox of the Blood Tribe First Nation says Alberta Energy Regulator and government "have no jurisdiction over First Nations lands and resources and that the decision regarding oil curtailment does not, and should not apply to them and their oil and gas operations." This decision was bad for First Nations who produce oil. However, it was split for those receiving royalties. In the longer term it was good for those First Nations receiving royalties because oil prices did jump up so royalty payments were bigger. However, in the shorter term it was very bad as oil companies purposely shut off wells or production on Indigenous land first because they paid higher royalties there than elsewhere. This was very damaging for some First Nations.
The up and down leads us to today. A CBC article from May 17th talks about how covid and the current oil market is impacting compensation and wellbeing for First Nations in Alberta currently. Royalties have plummeted and many First Nations People have lost their jobs in the oil industry. There are also large costs associated with protection from covid-19. This has put many western First Nations groups in a very bad spot financially, especially since oil is predicted to be low for at least a few years to come. The federal government recently announced ,multiple programs to support western First Nations who have been adversely impacted by low oil prices and covid-19. It is unclear what the long term scale will be on this.
In summary, it seems the government does understand that consultation and having a say over the land is a type of compensation and a right. However, this is not always done correctly. I also wonder what will happen in the future as oil, or at least Canadian oil, becomes non viable. Who will clean up the wells and the land? Will there be extra compensation available?
Resources:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/irc-iogc-curtailment-1.5015982
Logging in Quebec
In May of 2018 the Federal Government awarded a compensation of $30 million to The Innu of Pessamit First Nation in Quebec for the poor management of logging leases between 1918 and 1967 and a lack of surveying during an amendment to the Betsiamites Reserve, resulting in a 7,543-acre land shortfall). This was the largest claims settlement in the province’s history. The settlement is hoped to mitigate historical grievances against the community by way of treaty obligations and the way the Crown managed the First Nation's fund.
Excerpt from article: “The signing of these agreements betokens Canada’s intent to rectify the wrongs inflicted on the Innu of Pessamit in these two cases. Since the past cannot be undone, our First Nation has accepted these settlements,” René Simon, Chief Innu Council of Pessamit, said in the press release. “The real challenge for Canada, though, will still be fully implementing and applying the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and avoiding future recurrence of similar wrongs and the need to conclude reparatory agreements like this.”
I chose to research this specific case because prior to Covid-19 my partner and I were looking at moving to Montreal. I applied and received my Brevet to teach in Quebec and began familiarizing myself with the province’s curriculum. I was shocked at the lack of Indigenous content within their curriculum documents (almost zero – if any at all), which focuses largely on the francophone history, culture and heritage. As a Grade 2 teacher (and a teacher who has only taught in the primary division), I find getting into specifics about such issues a little "too deep" for such young children (correct me if I am wrong). However, the concept of land loss and injustice for Indigenous people can be illustrated using these historical examples during lessons.
Interesting article on Indigenous content within each provincial curriculum: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-content-school-curriculums-trc-1.5300580
Manitoba Hydro-Electric Dams; Keeyask Project
History:
As a general point, it is often the case that when resource development comes into an area,the people and corporations in charge “take over” the town they are working in. These are often rural towns and the local people find themselves quickly outnumbered, and sometimes displaced. Manitoba Hydro’s track record in this area is not great to say the least. An 86 page report titled a “cumulative effects assessment” was launched in 2014 on the impact of Hydro developments along the Nelson, Burntwood and Churchill river systems over the past 60 years(1). In this report, the government/hydro company did not even consult the indigenous groups affected. It wasn’t until 2017 when “in person hearings” were finally added to the Canadian Energy Commission’s terms of investigation that more testimony was heard. During these hearings testimony was heard about how “hydro walked into northern communities and shoved Indigenous people off their land, razed their homes, bulldozed their playgrounds, segregated their kids on separate school buses and destroyed their livelihoods” (1). It paints a picture of the corporations willingness to put “progress” over human rights.
Environmental Impacts:
Besides the legacy of past projects mentioned above, there are a number of environmental impacts of these hydro electric dam projects. As the indigenous groups are often tied to the environment they live and survive on, changes to this environment inevitably has great impacts on them. Some environmental impacts of Hydro-Electric dams include:
Flooding - as water is being diverted it can cause not only flooding to areas, but drought to other areas that rely on the water source (6)
Water Pollution - “Scientists and legal scholars have long acknowledged that hydropower dams cause pollution by altering the temperature and chemical makeup” (6).
Health impacts - If there is a reservoir of standing water, this can be a breeding ground for disease carrying insects (5)
Marine Biology - Fish migratory patterns and biodiversity are impacted. Measures are being attempted to reduce this impact, but there is debate as to how effective it is.
Land use- not only does the project take up space, but the flooding and infrastructure can displace pre-existing lands or habitats. (e.g. burial grounds)
Manufacturing emissions -To build a dam requires a lot of construction. These projects create immense amounts of pollution to be created.
Landslides/ Safety - Due to the large projects and financial constraints, these projects can be rushed causing safety hazards such as landslides (7)
**Just today there was a news article about how Manitoba Hydro is sending workers amounting to as many as 1200 to the Keeyask project during the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities affected are concerned about the health risk these workers coming into their towns can pose.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/keeyask-manitoba-hydro-first-nations-blockades-1.5577185
Economical Impacts:
Manitoba Hydro’s website summarizes the project as: “The Keeyask Project is a 695-megawatt (MW) hydroelectric generating station that is being developed in a partnership between Manitoba Hydro and 4 Manitoba First Nations: Tataskweyak Cree Nation, War Lake First Nation, York Factory First Nation, and Fox Lake Cree Nation. They have a number of videos showing the benefit to the lifestyle of employees, of which they employ approx. 2500. There does seem to be quite a bit of collaboration between the cooperation and the first nations involved as evidenced in a number of the videos about support offered to employees. https://youtu.be/BNXoHtHbTok (3)
It seems that there are some that agree, and some that are still sceptical. Carol Kobliski of Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation spoke about the Wuskwatim Hydro Dam project that is 800 kms north of Winnipeg in which the First Nation is a 33% owner. “We’re still living in poverty,” she said. “We have a lot of drugs and alcohol that are coming into our community. There’s a lot of violence that has escalated over the years that the Hydro projects have come into our area. We never had that before. People are dying left and right due to suicide, cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, (and) overdoses related to alcohol and drugs. This is something we never had and it’s sad to see we’re losing so many. We’ve lost over 110 in six months and that’s high.” (2)
Conclusion:
On the environmental side there are definitely more negatives than I thought for a “clean energy”.
The energy sector’s past performance with indogneous groups is terrible and that does not help the working relationship that they hope to foster.
The more urban centers are reaping the benefits while the rural communities seem to be taking the hit for this “cheaper power”.
It does seem that consultation is moving in the right direction, however slowly. The CEC heard that relationships have improved, but did find that there was “still conflict and issues of racism around existing Hydro projects, like the Keeyask Generating Station” (2)
Groups, even within the indigenous communities are divided on this issue.
Sources:
(1)https://winnipegsun.com/opinion/columnists/manitoba-hydros-dirty-power-and-dark-legacy
(3)https://www.hydro.mb.ca/projects/keeyask/
(4)https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/keeyask-manitoba-hydro-first-nations-blockades-1.5577185
(5)https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/hydropower-and-the-environment.php
(6)https://www.hydroreform.org/abouthydro/impacts-on-rivers
Mining in Nova Scotia
The concept that concerns me is the disregard for the affects that the run off and lower pH will have on the aquatic ecosystems, not just in terms of the water quality and fish population, but the environment as a whole. Damaging a water source will greatly affect the surrounding environment in more ways then just killing fish. The entire food chain would be disrupted and compromised, leading to the overall health failure of the system (eg. lower air quality, acid rain, etc). Not to mention that it's always interesting where the mining locations are chosen and how they're always near lower income or Indigenous lands. Coincidence? Debatable
Lifting the Dam on Indigenous Renewable Energy in Manitoba
Many Indigenous and Metis communities are being impacted negatively by Manitoba Hydro "mega-dams." These dams were created with limited consultation and "smoke and mirrors" partnerships that infringe on treaty rights. During an International Conference on hydro-power and energy justice, Indigenous communities (also joined by ones from abroad) voiced concerns about the impact of dams globally. These impacts include the destruction of ancestral sites, displacement, rising housing costs (often inadequate to begin with) and food prices, potential flooding and water and fish contamination due to an increase in methymercury.
In addition to these severe impacts, Indigenous communities in Manitoba were not properly consulted in power transmission projects to the United States. There is also a transmission project on the table to deliver hydroelectricity and broadband to Nunavut by creating a link to Kivalliq Hydro. It is oxymoronic that Manitoba Hydro would offer better services to communities outside its borders before resolving problems within its own. Also, hydro prices are disproportionately high in Manitoba Indigenous communities despite their proximity to dams. An attempt was made in 2018 to set an "on-reserve" customer rate but was blocked by the Manitoba Hydro Act due to the rule that everyone must have the same rate across the province regardless of any extenuating circumstances.
A possible solution to some of these challenges are self-sustaining renewable energy projects. Indigenous communities can seek funding for these projects from the Federal Government through Western Economic Diversification Canada (https://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/eng/home.asp ) and the $305 million Indigenous community support fund (https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1585189335380/1585189357198). The Aki Solutions Group (http://www.akienergy.com/) installed $3 million dollars in geothermal technologies in 2 communities. These "green" technologies can provide much needed resources for Indigenous communities as well as income - by linking this energy to other parts of Manitoba. Unfortunately there are some road blocks as similar future projects have to prove that they are "shovel ready" and need support from outside corporations or "limited partnerships."
That being said, there may be an expansion of Indigenous renewable energy funding and projects as a result of post-Covid 19 infrastructure spending (in order to revive the Manitoba economy). According to the "Project Finance in Uncertain Times: New Opportunities for Indigenous Renewable Energy Projects?" article, "prudent developers . . . will want to take this opportunity to strengthen their relationships" with Indigenous communities when seeking sites for renewable energy sources. These potential partnerships (if done right) will benefit Indigenous and urban Manitoba communities economically as well as socially.
Sources: - https://winnipegsun.com/news/local-news/indigenous-leaders-activists-take-protest-to-manitoba-hydros-doorstep - https://thenarwhal.ca/projects-of-death-impact-of-hydro-dams-on-environment-indigenous-communities-highlighted-at-winnipeg-conference/ - https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/first-nation-trying-to-stop-453m-manitoba-minnesota-power-line-project-1.4661853 - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-hydro-appeal-on-reserve-rate-class-1.5436953 - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canada-infrastructure-bank-kivalliq-hydro-fibre-link-1.5454379 - https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=96823db8-7a71-4964-806f-91ee91cb009a
Logging in Quebec
From my research I discovered that the Innu First Nation was awarded the largest federal government compensation in Quebec history. The compensation breaks down into two separate claims – the Licence 160 and Merchantable Timber Management and Lands claims – each totaling about $20.8 million and $9.5 million, respectively.
According to a press release, the settlement is meant to mitigate the community’s “historical grievances,” including treaty obligations or the way the Crown managed the First Nation’s funds.
The Licence 160 and Merchantable Timber Management claim refers to the poor management of logging leases between 1918 and 1967. The Lands claim addresses the lack of surveying during an amendment to the Betsiamites Reserve, resulting in a 7,543-acre land shortfall. This breached an Order in Council passed in 1861 when the original reserve was created. The settlement also covers the costs incurred negotiating the agreements and having them ratified by the Pessamit First Nation members.
Curriculum connection: Being that we are discussing land claims and laws pertaining to resources, as well as the necessity of ratification, this topic would fit in really well with the curriculum for CLN4U, Canadian and International Law in the 21st Century. The aspect of human rights and governmental processes and procedures necessary to offer this recompense also aligns with the curriculum for this course.
Apart from looking at the compensation, I also looked at forestry as an emerging Indigenous Industry and was pleasantly surprised. In an article titled Many Things to Many People: Aboriginal Forestry in Canada is Looking Toward Balanced Solutions, I found a few really neat excerpts, one of which being:
"Within the framework, the National Aboriginal Forestry Association has identified several goals for aboriginal forestry. In a 1992 draft discussion paper, NAFA calls for processes and structures that allow our full participation in forest management, planning, and economic development. Not only that, forest management process must recognize and protect the special aboriginal cultural, social, spiritual, and heritage values that we place on our natural resources, and facilitate access to, and co-management, of government-controlled and other forests. Finally, forest management should encourage aboriginal people to become professional and technical fosters, natural-resource managers, business leaders, and workers in all aspects of forestry."
I highly suggest reading the article if you have time. This concept I could see being connected to the curriculum of geography (for land use and development), Intro to Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology (looking at society and culture values, functions, and ways of life), as well as Challenge and Change (in regards to societies working together, resource management, and effective economy building).
Resources: