Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

February 19, 2007

Open Letter to Mr. Robin Aitken

Federal Negotiator
Algonquins in Ontario Land Claim Negotiations
Via e-mail

Mr. Aitken,

While it was a pleasure to have met you this Thursday past, February 15, 2007, in Pembroke, at what
was supposed to have been the negotiations meeting held in the Pembroke area. It is unfortunate that
our meeting within Kichesipirini territory could not have been under more cordial circumstances.

It is our understanding that the community meeting had been cancelled at short notice, by Mr.
Richard Zohr, for a number of reasons, however, it must be noted that there had been no publication
of the meeting in local media or on the negotiations website, indicating that there had been a change
in the schedule for some time

Myself and members of the Kichesipirini community would like to take this opportunity to express
our concerns regarding the use of Kichesipirini territory for meetings while there is continued
dismissal of Kichesipirini assertions or rights regarding our participation in negotiations. We find it
particularly difficult when we attend a public meeting, within our own territory, that was to have
been cancelled and find instead the ANRs from several communities, councilors and Elders from
certain communities, and the federal representatives in attendance of what appeared to be some type
of clandestine meeting being hosted by the Bonnechere Algonquins and the Algonquins of Greater
Golden Lake. Pembroke is clearly Kichesipirini territory. We are indignant by such demonstrations
of complete lack of respect. We consider such activities as encroachments on our territory and
blatant infringement of our constitutionally protected rights.

If it was decided that the meeting should become a social event because of some extenuating
circumstances preventing the Principal Negotiator from attending common courtesy and traditional
protocol should dictate that all local Algonquins, including Kichesipirini Algonquins, at least be
invited and proper notice be given. There was time to communicate the change in plans. Failure to do
so has robbed the many local Kichesipirini Algonquins the opportunity to directly communicate with
the negotiations table. Already marginalized by the federal governments continued dismissal or
redirection of Kichesipirini communications, the loss of such an opportunity is particularly
destructive.

While ignorance may be justification on the part of some Aboriginal communities in attendance,
neither the federal or provincial governments can exercise such excuse. You have both been
adequately informed that there is strong evidence to presume that the Kichesipirini Algonquin First
Nation still hold title and legal jurisdiction throughout the traditional territory of the Kichi Sibi
Anishnabe, and both the federal and provincial governments are legally bound by fiduciary
obligation to consult with, accommodate, and compensate the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation,
and are further mandated to act in their best interests. Court law has found that obligation “...
imposes upon it a positive obligation to reasonably ensure that aboriginal peoples are provided with
all necessary information in a timely way so that they have an opportunity to express their interests
and concerns, and to ensure that their representations are seriously considered and, wherever
possible, demonstrably integrated into the proposed plans of action…”

The Canadian Constitution protects the rights of the Aboriginal people of Canada. The Supreme
Court of Canada has established that Aboriginal rights include those practices, customs and traditions
that were integral to the culture of a historic Aboriginal people. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First
Nation represents Aboriginal people, through descent, who have never relinquished their inherent
Aboriginal rights to their territory. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation can also demonstrate
that they were organized as a political sovereign nation prior to the assertion of sovereignty of the
Crown. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation can also demonstrate that their control of
economic, commercial, and international trade and political activities were part of the practices,
customs, and traditions of their community and that those traditions, customs and practices also
included their political representation of a significant portion of the Algonquin people and territory.
Part of that tradition includes the organizing and promotion of social events within their own
territory.

Court law has affirmed that the Crown's obligation to consult, accommodate and compensate extends
to Aboriginal Nation's who assert a prima facie case to aboriginal title. The Crown's failure to live up
to its constitutional obligations to Aboriginal Nations could affect the economic interests of third
parties. In some circumstances, the third party licensee, itself, may owe an independent legal
obligation to accommodate the interests of the First Nation still holding title. These third party
licensees may then be forced to seek compensation from the provincial and federal governments
regarding resulting liabilities.

By clarifying the terms of land and resource use and ownership, claims settlements can create a
stable and positive climate for economic investment and development on both Aboriginal lands and
in surrounding communities. The continued exclusion of the Kichesipirini from this process
jeopardizes the possibility of clarity. Continued failure on the parts of the federal and provincial
governments to consult, accommodate and include the Kichesipirini poses the risk of serious
economic failures and liabilities throughout the entire Algonquin territory in Canada. Forcing the
matters to be dealt with through litigation further risks the possibility of economic losses and severe
liabilities.

Jean Teillet, in The Role of the Natural Resources Regulatory Regime in Aboriginal Rights Disputes
in Ontario quotes:

“In the beginning Ontario was theirs. Aboriginal peoples made the first maps of Ontario. It was their
story based on their land, their resources, their history, culture and life. Thus, Aboriginal history was
woven into the geography of Ontario. Their long and continuous connection with their lands created
deep roots of identification with their place and with each other.
That connection to the land began to change with the arrival of Europeans in Ontario. After contact,
the Aboriginal story is largely one of progressive and cumulative dispossession. When Aboriginal
peoples are dispossessed from their lands and resources, their connections with people, spirit and
culture are eroded. No peoples acquiesce to such dispossession and cultural erosion. Therefore, it
should not surprise anyone that there are ‘Aboriginal rights disputes’ that arise because Aboriginal
people resist dispossession and struggle to maintain their connections with their lands and resources.
Nor should it surprise us if the struggle itself becomes a source of cultural identification or a strategy
st
for survival. Yet Ontario’s Aboriginal peoples have survived as “peoples” into the 21 Century.
Their very survival is a testimony to their enduring ingenuity, strength and passionate resolve to
endure. They refuse to be “wiped off the map of history” ( Steve Pile and Michael Keith, eds., Geographies
of Resistance (New York: Routledge, 1997), xi, emphasis mine).

The Kichesipirini Algonquins and the associated Kichi Sibi Anishnabe have been dispossessed of
their land and resources. They have been wiped off the map of history. Considering the realities that
several federal services and corporations have illegally placed themselves within Kichesipirini
territory and the national capital is within Kichesipirini jurisdiction, without proper compensation,
consultation, or accommodation, such matters dealt with through litigation would not only be lengthy
but very expensive. Such actions would literally cripple the regional economy. Litigation would also
be very embarrassing for Canada. It would be particularly embarrassing since Canada would be
forced to explain how an Aboriginal community as well documented as the Kichesipirini, with a
proven genealogical record going back to the earliest of contact and proving a continued attachment
to the territory by the direct descent of the earliest recorded Aboriginals, having a proven record of
traditional customs and practices consistent with at least involvement in politics and trade could be in
any way legally excluded from such processes as these land claim negotiations.

I would think that the courts, through a thorough application of the Rules of Law, would be forced to
draw the same conclusion that we, and numerous others, have drawn, being that the Kichesipirini
Algonquins have been and continue to be the victims of a very cleverly crafted and sophisticated
form of political, cultural and ethnic genocide. But why target the Kichesipirini? Because they are an
Aboriginal people who possess a documented history of international political and economic
activities as an integral part of their traditional culture, who have indisputable jurisdiction and legal
title concerning not only a land base, but also a major river, and because there has been extensive
illegal encroachment upon their land and their dignity as a distinct Algonquin people.

Ultimately the responsibility to consult, accommodate and compensate the Kichesipirini Algonquin
First Nation lies with the federal and provincial governments. As I have stated in earlier
correspondence, your receipt of which was acknowledged through an automated e-mail response,
Jan. 25, 07, that genocide relies on the concerted efforts of individuals, and ultimately, individuals
are held accountable. Regardless of under what authority genocide is done, it is formulated, planned,
and conducted by individuals, and it is individuals that the International Criminal Court, (ICC), will
prosecute for the crime of genocide. It would be hoped that every effort would be taken to ensure
that an Aboriginal community that has been as obviously “avoided” as the Kichesipirini would be
certain to be adequately informed, consulted, and accommodated to prevent such continued breach of
fiduciary responsibility and potential liability.
Teillet again quotes:

“And few Canadians realize the connections between all these stories – the recurring pattern of the
disintegration of entire communities as a direct consequence of assaults made by the institutions of
modern Canadian society. (Geoffrey York, The Dispossessed: Life and Death in Native Canada (London: Vintage
UK, 1990) at xii-xiii, emphasis mine.).”

It is unfortunate that you didn’t introduce me to your associates that were with you at this social
event within Kichesipirini territory. I would have liked the opportunity to have properly welcomed
all of you to Kichesipirini territory. I will be submitting documents representing Kichesipirini
interests later this week so I am certain we will have the opportunity to work together in the near
future, as it is our understanding that you, as a federal representative, are legally bound to
communicate with us. Please clarify if we have misunderstood.

Sincerely,

Paula LaPierre
Principal Sachem
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

c.c.; Brian Crane, Kichesipirini Algonquins

“The culture, values and traditions of the native people amount to a great deal more than
crafts and carvings. Their respect for the wisdom of the elders, their concept of family
responsibilities, their willingness to share, their special relationship with the land – all of
these values persist today, although native people have been under almost unremitting
pressure to abandon them. Native society is not static. The things the native people have
said to this Inquiry should not be regarded as a lament for a lost way of life, but as a plea
for an opportunity to shape their own future, out of their own past. They are not seeking
to entrench the past, but to build on it. (Berger Inquiry, supra note 14 at p. xviii-xxiii.).

By Honouring Our Past We Determine Our Future