algonquin un cerd ewua submission apr 26 16 final

8/18/2019 Algonquin UN CERD EWUA Submission Apr 26 16 Final

1/46

1

EARLY WARNING URGENT ACTION SUBMISSION

FROM THE ALGONQUIN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN QUEBEC & ONTARIO

TO THE

UNITED NATIONS

COMMITTEE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINIATION

ON THE AOO VOTE ON AN AGREEMENT UNDER CANADA’S COMPRHENSIVE CLAIMS

POLICY & PROCESS

EXPRESSING CONCERNS BY

THE ALGONQUINS OF

WOLF LAKE - TIMISKAMING - EAGLE VILLAGE - BARRIERE LAKE

April 26, 2016

This Early Warning and Urgent Action submission is made in light of recent issues and urgent

concerns arising in Quebec and Ontario and ongoing attempts by the Government of Canada to

extinguish Aboriginal Title, rather than recognize indigenous territorial governance.

I. EARLY WARNING REGARDING ISSUE REQUIRING URGENT ACTION

Our ancestors were traditionally allied to the French and we played an important role in their

struggle with the English because we controlled the Ottawa River, which was a strategic

transport corridor between the St Lawrence and the upper Great Lakes. Beginning in 1760 the

Algonquins entered into a number of treaties with Great Britain: at Swegatchy and Kahnawake in

1760, and at Niagara in 1764. They were not land surrender treaties: these agreements assured

the British of our alliance, and in turn the British promised, among other things, to respect and

protect our Aboriginal title and rights. In addition, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 applies to our


2/46

2

traditional territory: it guaranteed that our lands would be protected from encroachment, and that

they would only be shared with settlers if and when we had provided our free and informed

consent through treaty. Algonquin Chiefs were given copies of the Royal Proclamation by Sir

William Johnson in 1763-64.

Unfortunately, despite these commitments, the British Crown, and later the Canadian

government, took our lands by force, without our consent, and without any compensation. Sixty

years after the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had been given to them, our Chiefs still had their

original copies, which they presented to government along with petitions for protection of their

lands and just compensation. Instead of dealing with them honestly, government ignored its

commitments and continued to take the land without treaty and without consent.

Our people suffered greatly as a result, even as those around them became rich from the furs,

timber, minerals and other resources.

Our Aboriginal rights and title have never been extinguished and exist to this present day.

The Ottawa River Watershed, now included in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario was

“settled” under the colonial doctrine of discovery which is woven throughout the Canadian legal

system and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada up to today and reflected in Canadian policy and the reality that Indigenous Peoples face on the ground. This not only constitutes racial

discrimination, it violates our indigenous and most fundamental human rights and international

oversight is required.


3/46

3

A. CONCERNS OF THE ALGONQUIN PEOPLE

We represent the Algonquins of Timiskaming, Wolf Lake, Eagle Village and Barriere Lake. Our

communities are part of the Algonquin nation, whose traditional territory includes the entireOttawa River watershed (Map showing Algonquin nation territory circa 1850).

As you can see from the map, Algonquin territory straddles what is now the provincial

boundary between Ontario and Quebec. The imposition of this boundary has had a dramatic

impact on our communities, one that continues to today.

At present, there are ten federally recognized Algonquin communities, with a total population

of approximately 8-10,000. Nine of these Algonquin communities are located in Quebec.

Proceeding from northwest to southeast, these are the Abitibiwinni, Timiskaming, Eagle Village(Kebaowek), Wolf Lake, Long Point (Winneway), Kitcisakik (Grand Lac), Lac Simon,

Mitcikinabik Inik (Algonquins of Barriere Lake) and Kitigan Zibi (River Desert). In Ontario,

members of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan (at Golden Lake) make up the only recognized

Algonquin community, though three other Ontario First Nation communities, Wahgoshig,


4/46

4

Matachewan and Temagami, are of at least partially Algonquin descent. (Map showing

aboriginal communities in the Ottawa River watershed.)

We live in a complex matrix of overlapping interests. The Ontario-Quebec border cuts through

Algonquin territory; to the north in Quebec is the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement

territory; on the Ontario side our territories adjoin the territory of the Robinson Huron Treaty

of 1850 and Treaty 9 of 1905-08. To the south the so-called “Algonquins of Ontario”

comprehensive claim is at the draft AIP stage after more than 20 years of negotiations. To the

north east the Attikamekw are in their fourth decade of CCP negotiations. And to the southeast

are the Mohawk Councils at Kahnesatake, Kahnawake and Akwesasne.

Barriere Lake, Wolf Lake, Timiskaming and Eagle Village are descended from the Algonquin

Bands who traditionally used and occupied the territory where we still live. Our members can

trace their ancestry and continued use and occupation of this territory back to time

immemorial. Barriere Lake’s traditional territory is wholly within the province of Quebec.

Timiskaming, Eagle Village and Wolf Lake’s traditional territories straddle the Ontario-Quebec


5/46

5

border. Our language, customs and traditions are a big part of what defines us as a people. We

have names, in our own language, for all of the lakes, rivers, mountains, and features of our

respective territories. These names have been in use since time immemorial and they are proof

of our long relationship with the land.

Our communities are all recognized as "Bands" within the meaning of the Indian Act, and come

within the meaning of "Indian peoples" in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. We have

never entered into a land cession treaty surrendering our Aboriginal rights and title; nor have

we authorized any other nation or entity to negotiate on our behalf for such title and rights.

1991 Barriere Lake Trilateral Agreement

In the early 1990s, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake entered into a Trilateral Agreement with

Canada and Quebec, with the shared objective of developing an integrated resource management

plan that would protect their way of life while also enabling resource development to take place

in a sustainable manner, but outside the federal Comprehensive Claims Policy (CCP). Canada

walked away from that agreement, partly because it took the position that the process was an

effort to avoid the CCP. Today, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake (ABL) continue to pursue these

objectives bilaterally with Quebec, but the federal government is absent.

After 9 years of stalling the Quebec government agreed in May 2014, to resume negotiations

with the Algonquins of Barriere Lake on implementing the following Joint Recommendations as

per the 1991 Trilateral (and 1998) Agreement process:

1. Recognition of the trilateral agreement territory: We recommend that the trilateral

agreement territory described in Annex 1 and Annex 2, 1991, be recognised as special

zones within which resource development plans and operations are subject to the

Integrated Resource Management Plan approved by both parties. We recommend that

these special zones be identified as such in the Land Use Plans and be given appropriate

visibility on official land use maps of Québec.


6/46

6

2. Integrated Resource Management Plan

2.1 Forestry: The parties have produced seven management plans, one for each Traditional

Management Area in the trilateral agreement territory, Annex 2. These plans identify the

areas of concern for the Algonquins of Barrière Lake and the level of protection that will be

given to these areas of concern. We recommend that these forestry management plans be

approved as frameworks for the ongoing management of forestry resources in the Annex 2

territory and that a process be undertaken to consider the extension of these forest plans

principles to the Annex 1 territory.

2.2 Wildlife: The parties have examined five wildlife management plans, one for each of the

following species: moose, bear, fur-bearing animals, small game and fish. A joint document

has been produced which summarises the extent of the consensus on wildlife issues and this

document will serve as a guideline for our recommendations.

2.3 Lands: The Lands section of the ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife has joined

the talks. The Algonquins of Barrière Lake have indicated that they do not support the

proposal submitted by Lands for the development of cottages in 2006. Lands has indicated it

is aware of the need to work co-operatively with ABL to reconcile its comprehensive land

use plan with the IRMP.

2.4 Social indicators: We recommend that the impact of the IRMP and subsequent resource

development on the society and the culture of the Algonquins of Barrière Lake be monitored.

To do this, a list of indicators has been developed and we recommend that the parties use

this list as a basis to begin assessing the social and economic development of the Algonquins

of Barrière Lake community. We also recommend that the continuation of this assignment be

entrusted to the co-mamagement committee to be set up when a final agreement is signed.


7/46

7

3. Participation in the management of renewable resources: This item is listed in article 7

of the bilateral agreement of 1998. We make two basic recommendations on this item. First,

in order to provide for ongoing input by the Algonquins of Barrière Lake in the management

of resources, we recommend that a joint Québec / ABL co-management committee be

instituted and mandated to oversee the implementation of the IRMP, to manage the IRMP

process on an ongoing basis, to make recommendations to the parties on changes to the

IRMP and to make recommendations to the parties on issues not already addressed in the

IRMP. Secondly, we recommend that a local Barrière Lake natural resources office be put in

place in Rapid Lake.

4. Revenue sharing and access to resources: We recommend that the economic aspect of

the Algonquins of Barrière Lake's asserted interest in the trilateral agreement territory be

accommodated by way of an annual financial contribution by the Government of Québec to

the Algonquins of Barrière Lake. We recommend that this annual contribution be established

at $1.5 Million and include the monetary value of a theoretical volume of timber. We

recommend that this amount be increased yearly to reflect any increase in revenue

generating resource development activity on the trilateral agreement territory, Annex 2, and

also on the trilateral territory, Annex 1. We further recommend that this yearly contribution

be paid to a fund managed by a duly constituted corporation of ABL of Barrière Lake for the

purpose of supporting and promoting the social and economic development of the

Algonquins of Barrière Lake. We recommend that this yearly contribution be paid over and

above other regular Québec government programs namely the Aboriginal Economic

Development Fund and that measures be taken by the Government of Québec and the

Algonquins of Barrière Lake to protect this fund from fiscal, own source or any other

provincial or federal government policy that would reduce the value of this contribution.

5. Expansion of the Land Base of Rapid Lake: We recommend that the agreement in

principle reached on 27 April 1999 between Québec, Canada and the Algonquins of Barrière

Lake be confirmed and implemented. This agreement provides for the immediate transfer of

3,7 square kilometres of public land to Canada for the Algonquins of Barrière Lake and the


8/46

8

transfer of an additional 6,3 square kilometres conditional to a housing and infrastructure

development plan by Canada. These lands must be contiguous to the Rapid Lake reserve,

include the access road and be situated east of highway 117.

6. Electrification of Rapid Lake: We recommend that the village of Rapid Lake be hooked

up to the Hydro-Québec grid by way of a 34,5 kv line from Grand Remous to Rapid Lake,

operated at 25 kv for the foreseeable future. We recommend that the cost of bringing this

electricity to Rapid Lake be born entirely by Hydro-Québec, as has been the practice to

provide electricity to Quebec residents in their communities. This would appear to be

especially appropriate in this situation since the original reserve site was flooded to build a

network of hydro-electric reservoirs and that the present reserve lies on the shore of one of

these reservoirs.

7. Without prejudice: All of the above provisions will be detailed in a legally binding

agreement between the Government of Quebec and the ABL to be prepared on the

acceptance of the present recommendations. The agreement shall provide that nothing in the

present agreement shall be a recognition or denial of aboriginal right to the territory.

The seven joint recommendations above were submitted to the Government of Quebec 10 years

ago, and they are based upon two agreements: the 1991 Trilateral Agreement, which was

signed almost 25 years ago between Canada, Quebec and the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, and

the 1998 Bilateral Agreement, which was signed between Quebec and the Algonquins of

Barriere Lake signed 17 years ago. Meanwhile, resource extraction has continued on the

Territory of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake netting approximately $100 million annually,

without any benefits going to the Barriere Lake community.


9/46

9

The Trilateral Agreement Territory (TAT) was recognized by Canada and Quebec, and

encompasses, in general terms, the area over which ABL asserts Aboriginal title. (Map showing

Trilateral Agreement Territory Annexes I and II).

In the 2004 MISSION TO CANADA Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human

rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, noted:

49. By the late 1980s, the combined effect of clear-cut logging, flooding and

fluctuating water levels from the operation of dams and reservoirs, as well as the

depletion of fish and game stocks, caused the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, Quebec,

to organize a peaceful campaign of protests and blockades. Eventually, they signed a

trilateral agreement with the federal and provincial governments that provides for

local participation in resource management decisions. While the Government has

provided resources to upgrade the housing stock in Barriere Lake, living conditions


10/46

10

in the community are still below average, the housing situation is severe, and

poverty and unemployment are high. Internal community divisions continue to

plague negotiations with the authorities, and full implementation of the agreement

has not yet been achieved.1

Since May 2014, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake and the government of Quebec have been in

negotiations on an agreement to implement the 1991 Trilateral Agreement and a related 1998

Bilateral Agreement, including co-management of natural resources and resource revenue

sharing. The government of Canada remains in breach of the 1991 Trilateral Agreement even

though the federal government admits to having a “special fiduciary duty” to the Algonquins of

Barriere Lake.2

2013 Timiskaming, Wolf Lake & Eagle Village Statement of Asserted Rights

In January 2013, Timiskaming (TFN), Wolf Lake (WLFN) and Eagle Village (EVFN) presented

Canada, Quebec and Ontario with a Statement of Asserted Aboriginal Rights & Title (SAR), in

part to address the gaps in federal policy related to consultation and interim measures prior to

treaty negotiations. As explained in that document:

The purpose of this Statement is to set-out the evidence to support WLFN, TFN and

EVFN in their efforts to engage the honour of the Crown and its duty to consult them and

accommodate their interests in matters affecting their traditional territories. It is

intended to engage Canada's obligations under domestic law (Constitution Act, 1982, s.

35 and the Haida case) and international law, the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which requires free prior and informed

consent before any development activities within the traditional territories of Indigenous

Peoples.

1 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous

people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Mission to Canada, 2004: P. 182 1991 Barriere Lake Trilateral Agreement.


11/46

11

This Statement is provided as an interim step prior to the completion of formal

Statements of Claim from TFN, WLFN and EVFN, and is provided at this time to give the

Crown formal notice of their asserted Aboriginal rights and title. [...] Although this

Statement is only a summary of the evidence, it is intended to provide enough evidence to

trigger the Crown's duty and to establish that the scope of that duty is at the high end

because of the strength of the claim.3

The package that went with the SAR included extensive documentary evidence to substantiate

the assertions made. It also included a map showing the geographic extent of the area over which

the three communities assert Aboriginal title and rights (Timiskaming, Wolf Lake and Eagle

Village: Asserted Aboriginal Title & Rights area (January 2013)).

Canada has been unprepared to address the SAR in any meaningful way. It has refused to engage

the communities substantively with respect to consultation, and instead has insisted that the only

way for these matters to be addressed is for Eagle Village, Wolf Lake and Timiskaming submit

their comprehensive claims to Canada for review; but that even then, nothing will be done until

3 Statement of Asserted Aboriginal Rights & Title: Timiskaming, Wolf Lake & Eagle Village, Jan 2013: p. 2


12/46

12

all of the nine ‘Quebec Algonquin’ communities submit claims. Canada has refused to act on the

strength of evidence provided to it in the SAR.

Barriere Lake’s experience with the Trilateral Agreement and the experience of Timiskaming,

Wolf Lake and Eagle Village with the SAR, suggests that federal officials are unwilling to

consider practical alternatives to the federal Comprehensive Claims Policy, even when

confronted with significant strength of evidence in accordance with Canadian judicial standards.

RE: "Algonquins of Ontario" Agreement-in-Principle

Traditional Algonquin territory straddles the Ottawa River watershed on both sides of the

Ontario - Quebec border. There are eleven federally recognized Algonquin communities - two in

Ontario and nine in Quebec. At least five of these communities assert Aboriginal title in Ontario,

and most or all of them assert some form of Aboriginal rights in that province.

In 1991-92, Canada & Ontario began negotiating a land claim solely with the Algonquins of

Golden Lake (now Pikwakanagan) to deal with Algonquin title on the Ontario side. Over the

years, they have expanded the definition of who is entitled to participate in these negotiations, to

the point where Pikwakanagan is now outnumbered by nine groups made up of mostlyunregistered individuals who claim some Algonquin ancestry or connection. Out of the 7,714

people on the AOO voters' list, some 3,016 voters (39%) have had no intermarriage with anyone

of Algonquin ancestry for 200, and in some cases over 300 years. At least hundreds more have

had no intermarriage with anyone of Algonquin ancestry for between 100 and 200 years. In

contrast, the registered members of Pikwakanagan make up less than 10% of the voters list.

These large numbers of “instant Algonquins” undermine the legitimacy of the AOO negotiations

and threaten the interests of legitimate rights-holders.

Under the proposed agreement, the AOO would surrender Algonquin rights to approximately 3.6

million hectares in eastern Ontario, including Parliament Hill. In return, undefined "Algonquin

institutions" would receive 117,500 hectares of provincial Crown lands and $300 million in cash

(about $0.012 per hectare for surrendered lands. Canada, Ontario and Pikwakanagan have been


13/46

13

advised many times that the AOO claim negatively affects the rights and interests of other

Algonquin communities, but so far they have refused to address these concerns. In 2013, the

federal and provincial governments received a Statement of Asserted Rights to lands in Ontario

from Kebaowek (Eagle Village), Timiskaming & Wolf Lake First Nations, who together have an

overlap of over 855,000 acres with the AOO. The AOO AIP will lead to a surrender of

Algonquin rights and title to the same lands in eastern Ontario over which Kebaowek,

Timiskaming & Wolf Lake assert Aboriginal rights.

The governments of Ontario and Canada have a legal duty to consult and accommodate the

Algonquin communities who assert an interest in the AOO claim area. So far, they have refused

to consult in a meaningful way, let alone accommodate. This is in breach of their legal duties to

the Algonquin people, and a blot on their record.

In 1983, without any agreement with our Algonquin First Nations, Pikwakanagan (Golden Lake)

submitted a land claim to the Ontario side of the Kichi Zibi (Ottawa River), which the

government of Ontario accepted for negotiations in 1991 and the federal government accepted

for negotiations in 1992. Following the acceptance of the land claim for negotiations the

governments of Ontario and Canada fabricated the “Algonquins of Ontario” for the purposes of

negotiating the extinguishment of Algonquin Aboriginal Title and Rights in the Province of

Ontario.

The federal government has known for at least 21 years that there are overlapping territorial

interests among the Algonquins on both sides of the Ontario - Quebec boundary. In 1994, two

years after it had commenced tripartite negotiations with Ontario and the Algonquins of Golden

Lake (now Pikwakanagan), Canada commissioned an assessment of the state of Algonquin

research, which was carried out by ethnohistorian James Morrison. His report, which is dated

September 1994, spoke directly to the matter of overlaps:

There are also areas of overlap within what might be broadly defined as Algonquin

territory. Algonquin claims in Ontario are not neatly confined to the community of


14/46

14

Golden Lake. All the communities under study except Winneway assert some sort of

traditional claim to lands on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River, both between

Pembroke and Mattawa, and from Mattawa to Lake Temiskaming and beyond. 4

So, for almost the entire time that Canada and Ontario have been negotiating towards the

Preliminary Draft Agreement-in-Principle (AIP), the federal government has been aware of the

fact that there are overlapping assertions of rights.

The Algonquin Nation Secretariat (ANS) Tribal Council began carrying out Aboriginal title

research on behalf of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake (ABL), Wolf Lake (WLFN) and

Timiskaming (TFN) in 1996/97. Around this time, Eagle Village (EVFN) also began doing the

same work.5 As additional facts resulting from this research came to light, Canada and Ontario

have been periodically reminded about the nature and scope of the rights being asserted and the

fact that overlaps with the "AOO" needed to be addressed.

Through further research and despite being aware of the nature of the overlap issue, Canada and

Ontario extended the boundaries of the "AOO" claim area, from the south shore of the Mattawa

River northwards to Long Sault Island, apparently sometime between 2008 and 2010. There

were no consultations or discussions with our communities about this boundary change prior to it

being made, despite its impact on our Aboriginal title area. (Map of SAR overlap with AOO

claim area and boundary change in purple).

4 James Morrison, "Quebec Algonquin Historical Research: An Assessment". Prepared for INAC, 30 September

1994, at p iii.5 In January 2012, EVFN mandated the ANS to complete its Aboriginal title research.


15/46

15

We have never authorized any body or group, including the "AOO", to negotiate on our behalf

with respect to our communities' rights in Ontario. Furthermore, there are unsettling questions

around the sweeping scope of the definitions used in the AIP with respect to who is an

"Algonquin".

The definitions used in the AIP are overly broad and leave ample room for confusion and

potential damage to the interests of our communities, our members, and our Aboriginal title. As

it now stands, the scope of the eligibility requirements for an "Algonquin" contained in the

AIP are so broad that they could include many or all of our current members. The criteria

seem to be focussed on individual genealogy and not dependent on the existence of a

community.

With specific respect to Eagle Village members, some of them who were formerly on the "AOO"

rolls subsequently regained their status and are now registered members of Eagle Village. We

have been told that, when requested, "AOO" representatives have refused to remove their names

from the "AOO" rolls.

The AIP definition of beneficiaries may also provide eligibility to individuals who are not

entitled to benefit from collective rights under the law of aboriginal rights, enabling them to

make decisions regarding the extinguishment or modification of rights in our Aboriginal title

territory, while we are excluded.

The AIP also leaves open the prospect that some of our individual members might somehow

be in a position to "waive" their Aboriginal rights, including title, to the "AOO" claim area.

We wish to state unequivocally that neither our respective First Nations as a whole nor our

members in any way waive our respective Aboriginal rights, including title, in our traditional

territory within Ontario.

We do not accept the assurances of the federal or Ontario negotiators that the non-derogation

sections of the AIP will safeguard the rights and interests of our communities. The fact of the


16/46

16

matter is that some individuals who may have a degree of Algonquin ancestry are being provided

an opportunity to vote on an agreement that may extinguish and/or modify rights within our

Aboriginal title territories, without our consent, and in the absence of good faith consultations.

A July 13, 2015 letter from the federal and Ontario negotiators states that an additional clause

2.2.3 has been included in the PDAIP, which purports to protect our interests, by defining

"Algonquin communities located in Quebec" as "Aboriginal people other than Algonquins". This

is an absurd approach which has been formulated in the absence of any consultation with us, and

which we reject.

We believe that the non-derogation clause is being used as a means of excluding us from

negotiations that directly impact on our Aboriginal title and rights.

The AIP contains a release and indemnification clause which may prevent our First Nations

from making any claims against Ontario or Quebec for compensation for past infringements of

our Aboriginal rights.

In the Haida decision it was made clear that "the Crown cannot run roughshod over one group's

potential and claimed Aboriginal rights in favour of reaching a treaty with another". But it

appears to us that this is exactly what Canada and Ontario have been doing to our rights by way

of the "AOO" negotiations. This is unacceptable and the Crown need to act more honourably.

We have a growing number of legitimate questions and concerns. Many of these arise from the

fact that we have not been provided with relevant and timely information or documentation. We

have a long list of items which we will need to review in order to better understand issues arising

from the AIP. If Canada and Ontario are serious about consulting our communities, there needs

to be far more good faith and disclosure.

There also needs to be authentic engagement between our communities and Canada and Ontario.

This must be more than simply issuing letters, or the repetition of "talking points". Canada and

Ontario need to provide us with adequate financial resources, and need to dedicate human


17/46

17

resources with the requisite authority to deal with the issues that have arisen, and to engage us in

a substantive way. And we need to come to agreement on the terms of such engagement.

At the same time, without adequate resources it will not be possible to begin proper engagement.

Canada and Ontario need to provide financial support for the work that must be done,

proportionate to the outlays that have already been made, and continue to be made, by the parties

to support the "AOO" negotiations. This should include the resources required for EVFN to

complete its research to document its interests within its traditional territory.

If Ontario and Canada insist on excluding us from meaningful consultations on the AIP, then

we insist that Canada and Ontario exclude the areas where our First Nations' asserted Aboriginal

title and rights overlap with the "AOO" claims, or at least suspend negotiations over such areas,

until such time as we have engaged in meaningful consultations and reached an acceptable

accommodation.

Despite our objections in March 2016, the “Algonquins of Ontario”, Canada and Ontario have

proceeded to hold a referendum vote on the AIP.

The results of the ratification vote on the “Algonquins of Ontario” (AOO) land claim Agreement

in Principle (AIP) were released to the public on March 17, 2016. The AOO land claim involves

outstanding Algonquin Aboriginal title and rights to 3.6 million hectares of land in eastern

Ontario, including Parliament Hill. The Algonquin First Nations of Timiskaming, Wolf Lake and

Kebaowek (Eagle Village) have overlapping interests in almost 900,000 acres of that territory,

but are not party to the negotiations between the AOO, Canada and Ontario.

The results of the ratification vote throw a spotlight on the concerns the Algonquins of Eagle

Village, Timiskaming and Wolf Lake have been raising for years. There were 3,341 votes cast in

the AOO vote, and over 90% of those individuals voted in favour of the AIP. But the eligibility

criteria are so loose that over 3,000 people on the AOO voters list have not even had


18/46

18

intermarriage with any Algonquins for over 200-300 years.6 How can these individuals be

allowed to have a decisive voice in the land claim negotiations when the legitimate rights-holders

who assert Aboriginal title to large parts of the territory aren’t even at the table?

To add to the uncertainty, a separate vote was held for the registered members of the Algonquins

of Pikwakanagan, the only federally-recognized First Nation that is actually participating in the

AOO negotiations. Of those who voted, fully 57% voted against the AIP.7 The fact that the

majority of Pikwakanagan members who voted, voted against the AIP, sends a strong signal to

all who are impacted by the AOO claim. The members of Pikwakanagan are outnumbered at the

negotiating table. The AOO claims process seems to be controlled by individuals and groups

who are not actually rights-holders. These results take away any legitimacy that the negotiations

may have had.

This result throws the legitimacy of the entire AOO land claims process is into question. We

continue to object to Canada and Ontario proceeding with Final Agreement negotiations based

upon the AIP. These governments need to engage with the rights-holders, including our

Algonquin communities, to properly address outstanding Aboriginal title and rights in the

territory.

B. NEED FOR ONGOING INTERNATIONAL OVERSIGHT AND SUPPORT BY

CERD:

We support the April 4, 2016, Early Warning Urgent Action Submission to the UNCERD by the

Secwepemc, St’at’imc, Lheidli Tenneh and Tsawasswen People.

6 Algonquin Nation Secretariat, Review of AOO Voter’s List of December 2, 20157 March 17, 2016, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Chief & Council Notice to Members on results of separate

Referendum Vote by Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation members on the proposed AIP.


19/46

19

We ask that the United Nations Human Rights Committees question Canada on their response to

the Assembly of First Nation’s Special Chiefs’ Assembly Resolution 47/20158, which provides:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chiefs-in-Assembly:

1. Call upon the Government of Canada, on a Nation-to-Nation basis, in direct

consultation with Aboriginal Title First Nations, to undertake a process to replace the

federal Comprehensive Claims Policy (CCP) with a policy that recognizes and respects

Aboriginal Title and Rights in accordance with Canada's Constitutional obligations, the

Tsilhqot'in Nation decision, and consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

2. Call on the Government of Canada to forgive all outstanding loans incurred by First

Nations as a result of negotiating under the federal CCP.

3. Call on the Government of Canada to exclude all areas that are subject to overlapping

Aboriginal Title and Rights claims from Comprehensive Land Claims Agreement-in-

Principle negotiations and to assist, where possible, and when requested by First Nations,

the negotiation of shared territory agreements between First Nations.

C. OVERARCHING UNDERLYING ISSUES

We support the April 4, 2016, Early Warning Urgent Action Submission to the UNCERD by the

Secwepemc, St’at’imc, Lheidli Tenneh and Tsawasswen People.

8 The Trudeau government has a 2015 Indigenous Policy Platform, which includes recognizing Aboriginal Title and

implementing UNDRIP. The question remains “what specific policy measures will the Trudeau government take to

replace the federal Comprehensive Land Claims Extinguishment Policy with a recognition of Aboriginal Title

policy?”


20/46

20

ATTACHMENTS

1. 1991 Canada-Quebec-Barriere Lake Trilateral Agreement

2. 1998 Quebec-Barriere Lake Bilateral Agreement

3. January 2013 Algonquins of Wolf Lake, Timiskaming & Eagle Village/Kebaowek

Statement of Asserted Rights and Title

4. Review of “Algonquins of Ontario” Voter’s List of December 2, 2015 (Without

Voters List Attached)

5. March 17, 2016, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Chief & Council Notice to Members

on results of separate Referendum Vote by Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First

Nation members on the proposed “AOO” AIP

6. Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs’ Assembly Resolution 47/2015 to Develop a

Federal Comprehensive Land Claims Policy Based on the Full Recognition of

Aboriginal Title


21/46


22/46


23/46


24/46


25/46


26/46


27/46


28/46

Agreements with NativeCommunities

Localization of theAboriginal Nations inQuébec

Consult, order and payonline for many of theDepartment’s productsand services. You caneven pay certaininvoices online!

Home > The Department > Native Affairs > ...

Agreements wi th NativeCommunities

AGREEMENT ON APPROACH AND PROCESSFor Completing Phases Two, Three

And Undertaking Negot iat ionsUnder the Trilateral Agreement

BETWEEN: THE ALGONQUINS OF BARRIERE LAKE, also known as, Mitchikanibikok Inik,represented by their Customary Chief, Mr. Harry Wawatie (hereinafter referred to as

"Mitchikanibikok");

AND: THE GOUVERNEMENT DU QUÉBEC represented by Mr. Guy Chevrette, Minister ofNatural Resources and Native Affairs (hereinafter referred to as "Québec");

WHEREAS the parties signed the Trilateral Agreement on August 22, 1991, as a pilotproject to promote sustainable development and the reconciliation of resource-uses byMitchikanibikok and non-Mitchikanibikok people within the territory identified by theTrilateral Agreement;

WHEREAS the Trilateral Agreement contemplates carrying out the followingworks/activities:· Phase one: studies and inventories of the renewable natural resources within theterritory;· Phase two: preparation of a draft integrated resource management plan (IRMP);· Phase three: formulation of recommendations for carrying out the draft IRMP; and· Negotiations: Mitchikanibikok and Québec negotiate an agreement on carrying out therecommendations retained;

WHEREAS the parties have not completed the Trilateral Agreement but have madesignificant progress in the sense that:

Phase one has been completed and an important and useful body of scientific andtraditional knowledge has been accumulated with respect to the renewable naturalresources within the territory;

Phase two is incomplete, however substantial work has been undertaken towardthe preparation of the draft IRMP;

Phase three and Negotiations have not yet been started;

WHEREAS the parties are committed to completing the works/activities contemplated bythe Trilateral Agreement, specifically phases two and three;

WHEREAS the parties have a mutual interest and desire to proceed to negotiations inadvance of finishing phases two and three, based upon the following considerations:

WHEREAS the federal government, signed the Trilateral Agreement pursuant to its"special fiduciary responsibility toward the Algonquins of Barriere Lake";

a) the parties wish to implement and make practical use of the knowledgeaccumulated during phase one while the knowledge is still current;

b) the parties have acquired sufficient knowledge and information aboutresources and resource-uses to enter into certain negotiations;

c) the preparation of the draft IRMP is contingent on the adoption of a set ofmutually acceptable objectives (as quantifiable and/or specific as possible);

d) the socio-economic situation of the Mitchikanibikok people is unacceptablypoor and there is an urgent need to begin rebuilding the community;

e) the negotiation between Mitchikanibikok and Québec would enhance certaintyand benefit economic interests within the region.

Page 1 of 3MRNF- Agreements with Native Communities

03/09/2009http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/department/affairs/department-affairs-...


29/46

THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:

Reaffirmation of Trilateral Agreement

1. This agreement is being entered into pursuant to section 6 (b) of the TrilateralAgreement for the different phases contemplated therein.

2. The parties reaffirm their commitment to finalize the work begun under theTrilateral Agreement to the satisfaction of both parties.

Dual Approach 3. The parties agree to pursue a dual approach. They will simultaneously:

· complete the works contemplated by the Trilateral Agreement;· enter into negotiations provided herein.

Phases Two and Three 4. The parties agree to constitute a technical committee to finalize a work plan to

complete phases Two and Three. This technical committee will be co-chaired bythe Special Representatives of the parties and its membership shall includeofficials within affected Québec ministries as well as Mitchikanibikokrepresentatives.

5. The technical committee will put the emphasis on two aspects of the work plan:· the elaboration of objectives for the IRMP; and· the identification and definition of the scenarios respecting projected resources-uses within the Trilateral Agreement territory.The starting point for the discussion on objectives shall be the sixprinciples/objectives formerly agreed upon by Dr. André Lafond and DavidNahwegahbow.

6. The parties agree that the technical committee must come to a quick agreement onthe workplan. If agreement is not reached within 30 days of signing thisAgreement, then an outside party shall be brought in to assist and facilitate thesediscussions. This outside party must be mutually agreed upon by the Special

Representatives of the parties.Negociations

7. (1) The parties agree to immediately enter into negociations respecting thefollowing subjects:

(2) The exact scope and schedule of the negotiations, as well as the agenda fornegotiations shall be developed by the Special representatives immediatelyfollowing the signing of this Agreement.

8. Any matter which has not been negotiated and agreed upon as part of negotiationsunder section 7 shall be negotiated following the completion of phases two andthree as provided in the Trilateral Agreement.

Provisional Measures 9. The parties agree that the provisional measures process will continue to be in

effect until all phases contemplated by the Trilateral Agreement are completed.Upon the signing of this Agreement, the Special representatives of the parties shalldevelop a procedure and budget to ensure the smooth and stable functioning ofthe provisional measures process.

Schedule and Budget 10. The parties agree as follows with respect to the time-frame:

the schedule to complete the works contemplated by the Trilateral Agreementalong with the negociations provided herein (section 7) shall be determined by theSpecial representatives of the parties without exceeding a maximum of two yearsafter agreement on a workplan and budget.

11. The budget for office and technical costs related to phases Two and Three shall bedeveloped by the Special representatives of the three parties to the TrilateralAgreement.

12. The representation costs incurred in the negociations are assumed by each of theparties, as provided in the Trilateral Agreement.

13. This Agreement shall be in force when signed by both parties.

a) identification of an area of land for the exclusive use of the community ofMitchikanibikok to meet the basic needs for community dwellings andcommunity infrastructures, it being understood that this does not engage thegouvernement du Québec in the financing of infrastructures and activities whichare the responsabilities of the federal government;

b) participation in economic spin-offs according to models to be defined (forinstance partnerships, economic benefits, resources revenue sharing, access toresources, etc.);

c) participation in management and sustainable development of resources;d) electrification of the community; ande) economic development of Mitchikanibikok including potentially hydro-electric

projects.

May 22, 1998)Date

(Hector Jérôme)Witness

MITCHIKANIBIK

(Harry Wawatie)Chief Harry Wawatie

(May 22, 1998)Date

QUÉBEC




31/46

Timiskaming, Wolf Lake and Eagle Village

Members of the Algonquin Nation

Statement of Assertion of Aboriginal Rights & T itle

OVERVIEW

11 January 2013

For further information contact:

Chief Harry St. Denis, Wolf Lake 819-627-6211

Chief Terence McBride, Timiskaming 819-629-7091 (English/ Français)

Chief Madeleine Paul, Eagle Village 819-627-6884 (English/ Français)

Peter Di Gangi, Algonquin Nation Secretariat 819-723-2019


32/46

1

TIMISKAMING, WOLF LAKE & EAGLE VILLAGE, MEMBERS OF THE ALGONQUIN NATION:

STATEMENT OF ASSERTION OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TITLE

11 January 2013

OVERVIEW

Strong Prima Facie Claim

This Statement of Asserted Aboriginal Rights and Title (Statement) establishes that the Claimants

possess a strong prima facie claim to their traditional territories, which straddle the Ontario-Quebec

border along the Upper Ottawa River, as depicted in the map attached to this Overview. The

claimants have never surrendered their Aboriginal rights and title by treaty or otherwise, and have

never authorized any Aboriginal group in Quebec or Ontario, including the Algonquins of

Pikwakanagan (Golden Lake), to negotiate for them in in relation to such rights.

Timiskaming, Wolf Lake and Eagle Village First Nations are Rights Holders

The Statement has been prepared on behalf of the First Nations of Timiskaming (TFN), Wolf Lake

(WLFN), and Eagle Village (EVFN), who are all members of the Algonquin Nation. It provides a

summary of the evidence collected to date, supporting their assertions of Aboriginal title and rights

within their traditional territories.

TFN, WLFN and EVFN are all descended from the Algonquin Bands who traditionally used and

occupied the territory in question, namely the Timiskaming, Dumoine and Mattawa Bands of the 19th

century. Their members can trace their ancestry and continued use and occupation of this territory

back to time immemorial.

TFN, WLFN and EVFN are all recognized as “Bands” within the meaning of the Indian Act , and come

within the meaning of “Indian peoples” in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They have never

entered into a land cession treaty surrendering their Aboriginal rights and title; nor have they

authorized any other nation or entity to negotiate on their behalf for such title and rights. Therefore,

their Aboriginal rights and title have never been extinguished and exist to this present day.

The Crown Owes a Duty to Consult and to Obtain Rights Holders’ Free Prior and Informed Consent

The purpose of the Statement is to set-out the evidence to support WLFN, TFN and EVFN in theirefforts to engage the honour of the Crown and its duty to consult them and accommodate their

interests in matters affecting their traditional territories. It is intended to engage Canada’s obligations

under domestic law (Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 and the Haida case) and international law, the

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which requires free prior

and informed consent before any development activities within the traditional territories of

Indigenous Peoples.


33/46

2

The Statement is provided as an interim step prior to the completion of formal Statements of Claim

from TFN, WLFN and EVFN, and is provided at this time to give the Crown formal notice of their

asserted Aboriginal rights and title. The research documenting WLFN and TFN’s Aboriginal title and

rights is largely complete, and will be followed in due course with a Statement of Claim. EVFN’s

research is still underway, and will take further time before it is completed. The form and content of

this Statement reflects this: it is directed primarily to the assertions of TFN and WLFN. EVFN’sasserted rights are covered in a separate chapter, which identifies what sections of the main

document contain evidence common to all three communities, as well as additional assertions that

can be made with specific reference to EVFN based on research to date.

Although the Statement is only a summary of the evidence, it is intended to provide enough evidence

to trigger the Crown’s duty and to establish that the scope of that duty is at the high end because of

the strength of the claim.

The Claim – Asserted Aboriginal Rights and Title

WLFN and TFN assert Aboriginal rights and title over the territory identified in the body of the

Statement, outlined in a series of maps which are included to identify the general boundaries of the

“Asserted Aboriginal Rights and Title Area”, including areas over which Aboriginal title is asserted, as

well as areas over which Aboriginal rights (but not title) are asserted.

This Statement asserts both Aboriginal title and site-specific Aboriginal rights. The following

jurisprudence is relied on in support of asserted Aboriginal rights: R. v. Adams, R. v. Van der Peet , and

R. v. Côté. The area over which Aboriginal title is asserted is identified in the maps contained in the

Statement and is supported by the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Delgamuukw v. British

Columbia.

Date of Contact is circa 1680 and the Date of Sovereignty is circa 1850

The date of contact for purposes of the legal tests for Aboriginal rights is sometime after 1680, when

the French built trading posts in the Temiscamingue region. The evidence shows that the ancestors of

TFN, WLFN and EVFN were present in the territory at this time.

For purposes of proving Aboriginal title the date of Crown sovereignty is circa 1850, the time the

Crown began to exercise effective sovereignty in the region. The evidence indicates that the

Timiskaming, Dumoine and Mattawa Bands, ancestral to today’s Timiskaming, Wolf Lake, and EagleVillage First Nations, occupied their territories at this time to the exclusion of other groups.


34/46

3

Establishing Aboriginal Rights and Title: Culture and Social Organization

WLFN, TFN and EVFN belong to what is now known as the Algonquin Nation, and self-identify as

Anishnabe. The social organization of the Algonquin Nation was such that the Band, made up of

extended families, was the land holding unit. Some responsibilities lay at the nation level. The nationand its member bands were governed by commonly recognized traditional laws and customs that

regulated land ownership, tenure, access, and resource use.

The activities asserted as Aboriginal rights by WLFN, TFN and EVFN are those which are integral to the

culture and traditions of the Algonquin people at first contact, and which continue to be exercised in

the modern context. There are territorial (site-specific) and non-territorial aspects to these activities,

that include such things as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering, all of which had economic and

trade aspects, and which find contemporary expression today.

These activities are not unique to WLFN, TFN and EVFN, but are practiced in common across theAlgonquin nation, and their importance and continued significance are amply demonstrated by

current use and occupancy studies commissioned by the Algonquin Nation Secretariat.

Establishing Aboriginal Rights and Title: Occupancy

WLFN, TFN and EVFN assert that they meet the evidentiary requirements for use and occupancy

under the tests for both Aboriginal title and Aboriginal rights. Their members continue to use and

occupy lands and waters within their respective traditional territories, as well as lands within the

boundaries of the Algonquin Nation territory. Historically, they relied on well-established customs

and laws to regulate tenure, land use, and allocation, therefore meeting the tests for legal occupancy.

There is sufficient evidence to satisfy a connection to the areas identified, and to satisfy the legal tests

needed to establish occupancy. Current use and occupancy is put forward as presumptive proof of

Aboriginal rights and title.

Analysis of Continuity: Pre-History and History of the Region

Archeological, historical and genealogical evidence confirms the presence of the ancestors of WLFN,

TFN and EVFN in the area for centuries. Archaeological evidence at the Obawjeewong / Fort

Temiscamingue site confirms continuous occupation for a period of between 6,000 and 7,000 years.

General knowledge of the Algonquin-speaking groups by the French dates back to the first half of the

seventeenth century with the earliest contact occurring around the year 1603. As previously

mentioned, sustained contact with the ancestors or WLFN, TFN and EVFN began after 1680 when the

French began building trading posts in the Temiscamingue region.


35/46

4

Analysis of Continuity Particularly for Aboriginal Title: Bands and Band Territories

The territories of WLFN, TFN and EVFN changed considerably in the period 1850-1951 as the

dominant economic activities transitioned from the fur trade, to lumbering, to colonization and

agriculture, and finally hydro, mining, and tourism. Dispossession of their traditional territories,

coupled with devastating waves of epidemic diseases, had a dramatic impact on the people, and

required significant adaptations, including the reconfiguration of traditional bands, and a realignment

of use and occupancy patterns. However, despite these changes, the current rights holders and their

ancestors maintained significant continuity in terms of their membership, and in the use and

occupancy of their traditional territories. This is demonstrated by the evidence.

The Crown has Consistently Recognized the Aboriginal Rights and Title of the Algonquin Nation and

TFN, WLFN and EVFN: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Treaties of 1760-64

The historical evidence shows a long history of political recognition of the existence of TFN, WLFN,

and EVFN and their predecessors. The French, the British Crown, and the Crown in Right of Canada

recognized the traditional territories, rights and interests of the Algonquin Nation, including the

ancestors of TFN, WLFN and EVFN. Their traditional territories were included in the area covered by

the Royal Proclamation of 1763, a fact which has been acknowledged by recent Canadian

governments.

A series of treaties made with the British between 1760 and 1764 recognized the territorial rights of

the ancestors of WLFN, TFN and EVFN. However, despite these things, over time the Crown allowed

the lands of WLFN, TFN and EVFN to be overrun by third parties, without their consent and without

any form of compensation. The Crown did not fulfill its duty to protect the land as obligated by the

honour of the Crown and its fiduciary duties; nor did it enter in a land treaty in accordance with therequirements of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. As a result, TFN, WLFN and EVFN suffered significant

harm.

Non-Extinguishment

The Aboriginal title and rights of TFN, WLFN and EVFN have not been extinguished by treaty or any

other lawful means, and there is no evidence of there being a clear and plain intention to extinguish

such rights. There are no land cession treaties covering the portions of WLFN, TFN or EVFN territory

now lying in Quebec. Although there are several treaties in Ontario which purport to cover the parts

of the traditional territories of the Algonquins generally, and TFN, WLFN and EVFN in particular, a

review of these treaties will make it clear that neither TFN, nor WLFN, nor EVFN, nor their

predecessors, participated in any of these treaties. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 stipulates

that these rights can only be extinguished by consent, in accordance with the test proving

extinguishment laid down in R. v. Sparrow . Furthermore, TFN, WLFN and EVFN have never authorized

any Aboriginal group in Quebec or Ontario, including the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan (Golden Lake),

to negotiate in relation to their Aboriginal rights and title.


36/46

Memo

From: Peter Di Gangi & Alison McBride, Algonquin Nation Secretariat

Date: 25 February 2016

Re: Review of AOO Voter’s List of December 2, 2015

Background

We have reviewed the “Algonquins of Ontario” (AOO) voter’s list of 2 December, 2015. This is

the list of voters who are deemed eligible to vote on the ratification of the proposed AOO

Agreement in Principle (AIP), which will affect Algonquin rights and title to about 36,000 square

kilometers of the Ontario portion of the Ottawa Valley.

The AOO voters’ list contains approximately 7,714 individuals.1 Of these, only 663 (8.6%) are

actually registered members of the Pikwakanagan First Nation (formerly Golden Lake). Theremaining 7,051 individuals are not registered members of Pikwakanagan, but are people who

claim their eligibility by way of one or more “root ancestors” contained on a master list

prepared by the AOO.2 It is not clear what criteria were used to determine the list of “root

ancestors”, or to decide on the rules for eligibility and enrolment in the AOO claim. These

decisions were made during the negotiation process between the AOO and the governments of

Ontario and Canada

Based on the actual identity and history of some of these “root ancestors”, there appear to be

some significant questions about large numbers of voters on the AOO list, and whether they in

fact have any legitimate connection to the Algonquin nation for the purposes of voting on an

AIP which is intended to modify or extinguish Algonquin Aboriginal title and rights.

Summary of Findings

In the process of review, we identified a very large number of individuals who have relied on

root ancestors whose only connection to the Algonquins or Nipissings appears to date back to

the 1600’s or early 1700's. It appears that these root ancestors relocated to New France during

that period, and were entirely absent from the territory until their descendants moved back to

the Ottawa Valley as French Canadian or Franco-Ontarien settlers in the mid-1800's. In other

cases these “root ancestors” are actually descended from Abenakis, not from Algonquins or

Nipissings.

1 Note that we have only had access to a pdf copy of the AOO voters’ list of Dec 2, 2015. Our counts are

approximate and there may be a small margin of error.

2 See Chapter 3 of the AOO AIP, “Eligibility and Enrolment”, May 2015.

Algonquin Nation Secretariat Analysis of AOO Voter’s List. 25 February, 2016 1


37/46

It also appears that the “Algonquins” who are relying on these root ancestors have had no

intermarriage with anyone of Algonquin or Nipissing ancestry for at least 200, and in some

cases, more than 300 years. By our count, this category of individuals makes up 39% of the

entire AOO voters’ list. In contrast, as pointed out above, only about 8.6% of the voters’ list is

actually made of up registered members of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan.

The Root Ancestors in Question

Individuals must be able to connect themselves to one of a list of “root ancestors” in order to

be enrolled to participate in the AOO claim. All of the material in the following summaries is

public information, readily available on internet genealogical forums, including the

genealogical site Ancestry.ca.

This analysis is based on the following ten “root ancestors” whose origins date back to the

1600's or early 1700's.

• Madeleine Euphrasie Nicolet (c 1628-1689). Probably born Lake Nipissing. Father

French trader, mother local First Nations (Nipissing) woman. Grew up in Quebec City.

Two marriages to Frenchmen in Quebec City (1643 Jean Leblanc; 1663 Elie Dussault).

Died in Quebec City. At least 10-15 generations of French-Canadian descendants over

300 years.

• Etienne Pigarouche-Pikarwiche (c1621-c1660). Algonquin, originally from Allumette

Island area. Converted to Christianity and moved to Jesuit missions at Trois Rivieres

(1639) and Quebec City (1643). Death date unknown. Father of woman below.

• Marguerite Pigarouche-Pikarwiche (c1643-c1682). Daughter of above. Before 1671,married French soldier and trader Pierre Lamoureux dit St Germain. Lived at Ste Anne

de Bellevue (west end of Montreal Island). At least 10-15 generations of

French-Canadian descendants over 300 years.

• Paule Ouripehenemick (c 1660-1697). Not Algonquin, but Abenaki (so no connection to

Algonquin territory). In 1680 married Frenchman Jean-Francois Lienard in Quebec City.

Died in Quebec City. At least 10-15 generations of French-Canadian descendants over

300 years.

• Roch Silvestre Manithabehick (Manitouabeouich) (born late 1500's, death dateunknown). Most likely Abenaki, not Algonquin. Died in Quebec City area. Father of

Marie below.



38/46

• Marie Olivier Silvestre Manithabehick (c 1624-1665). Daughter of the above. Married

Frenchman Martin Prevost (1644) in Quebec City. Died in Quebec City. At least 10-15

generations of French-Canadian descendants over 300 years.

• Marie Mitewamewkwe (c 1631-1699). Probably Algonquin, birthplace unknown.

Married Frenchman Louis Couc in 1659 at Trois Rivieres. Died in Trois Rivieres. At least10-15 generations of French-Canadian descendants over 300 years.

• Marie Nicole Matinikinan (c1698-1745). From Nipissing village at Lake of Two

Mountains (Oka/Kanesatake) near Montreal. Married Frenchman Pierre Hery Duplanty

(married formalized at Oka in 1739). Buried at Oka. At least 10 generations of

French-Canadian descendants over 250 years.

• Thomas St. Jean dit Laguarde and wife Sophie Emilie Carriere. This couple were married

on 20 Aug 1827 at Saint-Eustache (near Lake of Two Mountains). There is virtually no

historical documentation that they were Algonquin. Based on information provided at

the hearing into their eligibility for membership in the AOO, their immediate ancestry

was entirely French-Canadian (as are their descendants). The couple later moved to

Calumet Island. In the appeal, the presiding Judge decided, on the sole basis of an 1845

missionary letter (and over protests from Pikwakanagan), that Thomas St Jean dit

Laguarde was probably Algonquin.

Although we could find no relevant information on them, the following two “root ancestors”

are almost always associated with the “root ancestors” listed above, so we have included them

for the purposes of this exercise:

• Veronique Matkateinins• Jacques Paquette

Of the 7,714 people on the AOO voters’ list, it appears that 3,016 rely solely on one or more of

the above-named individuals for their eligibility. This accounts for about 39% of the entire AOO

voters’ list.

Breaking these numbers down further according to the non-registered groups that make up

the majority of the AOO membership provides an indication of where the descendants of these

“root ancestors” are concentrated:

• Mattawa / North Bay: 1,779 out of a membership of about 3,372 (53%)

• Greater Golden Lake: 705 out of a membership of about 1,170 (60%)

• Bonnechere: 368 out of a membership of about 812 (45%)



39/46

The List of Voters and Root Ancestors

The following information was taken from the AOO Voters’ list dated December 2, 2015, which

is publicly available ( http://www.tanakiwin.com/our-treaty-negotiations/rv/ ). This chart lists

the individuals who rely entirely on one or more of the “root ancestors” named above for their

eligibility to vote on the AOO AIP.

Name Affiliation Root Ancestor

Adam, Patrick Hunter Greater Golden Lake Thomas St. Jean dit Laguarde

Sophie Emilie Carriere

Adam, Peggy A. Greater Golden Lake Thomas St. Jean dit Laguarde


Adam, Sara Michelle Greater Golden Lake Thomas St. Jean dit Laguarde


Adams, Bradley H. Greater Golden Lake Jacques Paquette

Adams, Gail M. Greater Golden Lake Jacques Paquette

Adams, Kayla M. Greater Golden Lake Jacques Paquette

Ainsile, Leah J Greater Golden Lake Jacques Paquette

Thomas St. Jean dit Laguarde


Algie, Lori L. Sharbot Lake Marie Mitewamewkwe

Allard, Andrea K. Greater Golden Lake Thomas St. Jean dit LaguardeJacques Paquette


Allard, Sandra Mionne Mattawa/North Bay Thomas St. Jean dit Laguarde

Margeurite Pigarouche-Pikarwiche

Etienne Pigarouch-Pikarwiche


Allen, Jessica Leigh Mattawa/North Bay Marie Mitewamewkwe

Allison, Dylan Mattawa/North Bay Marie Nicole Matinikinan

Margeurite Pigarouche-Pikarwiche

Etienne Pigarouch-Pikarwiche

Amyot, Arthur Jr. Vincent Mattawa/North Bay Marie Olivie Silvestre Manithabehick

Roch Silvestre Manithabehick

Amyot, Denise Marguerite Mattawa/North Bay Marie Olivie Silvestre Manithabehick

Roch Silvestre Manithabehick


http://www.tanakiwin.com/our-treaty-negotiations/rv/http://www.tanakiwin.com/our-treaty-negotiations/rv/


40/46


41/46


42/46


43/46


44/46

SPECIAL CHIEFS ASSEMBLYDECEMBER 8, 9 , & 10, 2015; GATINEAU, QC Reso l u t io n no. 47/2015

Certified copy of a resolution adopted on the 8th day of December in Gatineau, Québec

PERRY BELLEGARDE, NATIONAL CHIEF 47 – 2015Page 1 of 3

TITLE: Develop a Federal Comprehensive Land Claims Policy Based on the FullRecognition of Aboriginal Title

SUBJECT: Aboriginal Title and Rights

MOVED BY: Chief Harold St-Denis, Wolf Lake First Nation, QC

SECONDED BY: Chief Judy Wilson, Neskonlith Indian Band, BC

DECISION Carried by Consensus

WHEREAS:

A. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) contains many articlesrelevant to land rights, including:

i. Article 26 (1): Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they havetraditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

ii .

Article 26 (2): Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territoriesand resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation oruse, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

iii. Article 26 (3): States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories andresources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and landtenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

Article 27: States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, afair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenouspeoples' laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems .

iv .

Article 32 (1): Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies forthe development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.


45/46


PERRY BELLEGARDE, NATIONAL CHIEF 47 – 2015Page 2 of 3

v. Article 32 (2): States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concernedthrough their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior tothe approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly inconnection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

vi . Article 32 (3): 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, culturalor spiritual impact.

B. The federal implementation of Canada's Comprehensive Claims Policy (CCP) has led to three classes of Aboriginal Title First Nations:

i. First Nations that have entered in final comprehensive claims agreements;

ii . First Nations that were or have been in comprehensive claims negotiations; and,

iii. First Nations that have never agreed to negotiate under the federal CCP.

C. The September 2014 interim policy, Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy: Towards a Frameworkfor Addressing Section 35 Aboriginal Rights, was unilaterally issued by the Harper government and was the

basis of the Douglas Eyford "engagement" process.

D. This federal "interim" policy does not acknowledge the Supreme Court of Canada Tsilhqot'in Nation decision ofJune 2014. In addition, Mr. Eyford's report gives little substantive weight to the game-changing impact of theTsilhqot'in Nation decision. Aboriginal Title holders, who in some instances have been waiting over 250 years tohave their Rights and Title addressed, find this deeply troubling.

E. Despite the gap between Canadian jurisprudence (Haida, Delgamuukw, Tsilhqot'in Nation) and the federal"interim" CCP, as well as the failure of the Eyford "engagement" process to address the Tsilhqot'in Nation decision, the Liberal Party of Canada 2015 federal election platform endorsed all of the Eyford Report'srecommendations.

F. Resolution 30/2015,Rejecting Canada’s Process for Comprehensive Claims Policy Reform, rejected Canada'sprocess for comprehensive claims reform, calling instead on the federal government to undertake afundamental overhaul of the CCP jointly with First Nations, including those not currently in negotiations underthe CCP. The resolution also required that this work be carried out in light of the Tsilhqot'in Nation decision, aswell as international legal norms, including the UN Declaration.

G. During the 2015 federal election the Liberal Party of Canada made a number of promises, including:

i. Immediately re-engage in a renewed nation-to-nation process with Indigenous Peoples to makeprogress on the issues most important to First Nations.

ii . Prioritize developing (in full partnership with First Nations) a Federal Reconciliation Framework. Thisframework will include mechanisms to advance and strengthen self-government, address outstanding

land claims, and resolve grievances with both existing historical Treaties and modern land-claimsagreements.


46/46


iii. Enact the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, including theadoption of the UN Declaration.

iv . Recognize and respect Aboriginal Title and Rights in accordance with Canada's Constitutionalobligations, and further those enshrined in the UN Declaration.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chiefs-in-Assembly:

1. Call upon the Government of Canada, on a Nation-to-Nation basis, in direct consultation with Aboriginal TitleFirst Nations, to undertake a process to replace the federal Comprehensive Claims Policy (CCP) with a policythat recognizes and respects Aboriginal Title and Rights in accordance with Canada's Constitutionalobligations, the Tsilhqot'in Nation decision, and consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.

2. Call on the Government of Canada to forgive all outstanding loans incurred by First Nations as a result ofnegotiating under the federal CCP.

3. Call on the Government of Canada to exclude all areas that are subject to overlapping Aboriginal Title and

Rights claims from Comprehensive Land Claims Agreement-in-Principle negotiations and to assist, wherepossible, and when requested by First Nations, the negotiation of shared territory agreements between FirstNations.

algonquin un cerd ewua submission apr 26 16 final

Documents