Letters: June 3

Re: Response to “Of cigarettes and land claims”, Rem Westland

Library Board Should Listen Too, Helen Forsey

Re: Sustainability and Viability, Gray Merriam

South Frontenac Twp water resources, M. Kesteven

Re: Response to “Of Cigarettes and Land Claims”

I am commenting upon an article that appeared in the May 27 edition of the Frontenac News (Response to “Of cigarettes and land claims, Letters), submitted by the Chief and Council, Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation.

I begin by citing the Chief and Council’s suggestion that a May 13, 2010 editorial in this paper shared a perspective which is “potentially dangerous when it serves as a catalyst for racism” because the May 13 perspective did not take full account of Canada’s history regarding European and Aboriginal relations back in 1763 and before. The review of history which followed placed the Algonquin, and only the Algonquin, in this part of Ontario when the French and English established themselves in Canada.

I recall commentary in the Frontenac News from a person of Mohawk descent who moved to Sharbot Lake a few years ago (I think she has since moved away again). She believed the dominant Aboriginal presence in the Frontenacs from the early 1600s until the 1800s was the Six Nations. She supported her position with historical information on the fur trade and early European data on First Nation populations. It is unfortunate that the history of Aboriginal peoples in the Frontenacs appears to remain unclear.

Whatever may have been the movement of peoples and the joys and the sorrows over the last 400 years, however, in one very important respect the air has cleared. There is only one comprehensive claim being negotiated in our area of the province and it is with the Algonquin First Nation of Ontario.

I regret that our words often seem to endorse a divide between First Nations and “Settlers”, or claimants and non-claimants, or rights-holders and non-rights holders. I think the history of this area suggests there has not been a clear division between peoples in this part of the world for many generations.

While there are risks of increased division associated with the federal and provincial claims process (who is eligible? who benefits?) I nonetheless strongly support the ongoing negotiations. I agree with the suggestion in your May 13 editorial that a successful claim settlement could overcome the risks and unite all area residents around a common goal. The common goal you identified is the economic development of our whole area.

The Chief and Council observed that Canada could not have become the wealthy and enviable country we are today without First Nations sharing their knowledge and their skills at various times in our history. I am certain we all agree.

It may be expecting a lot but I think your May 13 editorial asks the Algonquin to share yet again. You are asking the Algonquin to share claim benefits that will come to the Frontenacs owing entirely to First Nation leadership and First Nation determination. I look forward to hearing from the Algonquin what they will ask from the rest of us in return! For far too long the sharing of opportunity and wealth has been mostly one-way.

I think you were correct in your May 13 editorial to suggest that working towards a common goal will require, at some point, for all those pulling in the same direction to work with the same information. Let’s begin to earn a full sharing of information by being steadfast in our support for the claim negotiations and by confirming our willingness to lend a hand to the Algonquin leadership in any way we can.

Rem Westland

Library Board Should Listen Too

Thank you for following up on the ongoing saga of our beloved little Ompah Library, and for giving us the great news about the school board's decision not to close the Land o'Lakes and Clarendon Central schools. It's interesting that the two stories appeared in the same issue, because they reflect opposite sides of the same coin: to listen - or not - to rural people.

In the case of the Kingston Frontenac Library, it would seem that some of the higher-ups are feeling the pressure to deny any plans they may have about closing down Ompah and other small branches. If so, that's good. They will be feeling even more pressure before long.  

It's ironic that the Library decision-makers seem to be keen to close out local branches and centralize services when the rest of the world is beginning to realize that we need to do the very opposite. In an era in which both money and oil are becoming scarce, we need to strengthen our local communities, not weaken them. 

This is about more than our tiny Ompah branch of the library and our miniscule allotment of hours. It is about the plight of small communities, and the threats to cherished rural services, not only in our region but right across this country.

The Limestone School Board has set a wonderful example by listening and respecting the realities of our smaller communities. On the Library front, our "small group" -- and our very large and widespread group of supporters -- urge the KFPL Board to do the same.

Helen Forsey

Re: Sustainability and Viability

Re: Sustainability and viability

A response to Lynn Shwadchuck

Lynn made some good points in recognizing that the future local economy is unlikely to depend on widget factories and more likely to depend on knowledge workers. However, some of the reasoning is unsupported; for example, the notion that waterfront dwellers “…consume expensive services…” I am one of them and I don’t receive expensive services, not even maintenance of an entry road. What services?

It may be time to recognize that the best industry found so far by the local economy is the import of people with all their life savings and the flow of that money into the local economy.

Elevation of taxes on non-waterfront property is related to general increases in costs and demands for services by many taxpayers. If the taxes paid by waterfront owners were not received by the municipality, Lynn and many others would see their services severely reduced.

Gray Merriam

Re:  South Frontenac Twp water resources

(South Frontenac Council, May 27, 2010)

How sad that Councillor David Hahn appears to be the lone voice on Council pointing out the need to protect existing wells (and the welfare & property value of their owners) before approving development in areas of high ground water sensitivity.

Back in the 1970s, we had a well drilled on a one-acre lot in such an area. It yielded a modest flow of good, potable water, so we built our home there. At the time we received assurances that the impartial county committee overseeing development had ruled that no more severances would be granted in the neighbourhood, and residents at that time understood the need for conservation. We thought our aquifer was protected.

In the mid-80s, responsibility for approving development was downloaded to township councils; and most members have seemed to share the view that municipal responsibility ends when any new well can pump 3-5gpm, regardless of the time of
year and state of the water table.  Our frequently expressed concerns have been constantly ignored, as suburbia and swimming pools engulf our home.

Now, our well produces a meagre trickle of iron-laden water, and has not lately been challenged by a typical dry summer. If it ceases to function, our lives will be miserable and our property worthless; we have no alternative source of water.

I hope that this year's elections will bring us more councillors who share Mr. Hahn's view that the need to protect our fragile groundwater should be one of our highest
planning priorities in South Frontenac. A big thank-you to him for raising this important issue!

M. Kesteven