The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (Ontario) has sponsored a series of meetings throughout the region to talk about the Agreement in Principle that has been reached between the Algonquins of Ontario and the governments of Ontario and Canada.

Last week meetings were held in Ottawa, Perth and Kingston, and this week the travelling land claim road show will be in North Bay, Pembroke, Mattawa and Bancroft.

The meetings are set up as drop-in information sessions. There is a lot of information available about the agreement, lots of maps on the wall, and lots of detail about the agreement itself. Eager Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs officials are available at every turn to explain exactly how far the Algonquin Land Claim process has come and how much further it has to go.

The meetings run from 3:00 until 8:00 pm, and they shift from quiet drop-ins to free-wheeling question and answer sessions at 6:30 when seats are set out for a public forum. The senior negotiators for all three parties to the agreement present very brief remarks and then face the public.

A parallel set of meetings took place earlier in February in most of the same cities. They also featured maps on walls, copies of documents, etc., but they were put on as primers by groups that are critical of the land claim process and the Agreement in Principle as well. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), the Federation of Ontario Cottage Associations (FOCA) and the Canadian Sport Fishing Industry Association (CSFIA) jointly sponsored those meetings and also an accompanying website, Algonquinlandclaim.com.

Matt Demille, a researcher with the OFAH, pointed out some of his organisation's key concerns with the Agreement in Principle, such as: potential uses for the 200 parcels of land that are going to be transferred to the Algonquins of Ontario; some of the muddy language in the agreement as regards harvesting rights; and the lack of clarity about what kind of a park will be established in North Frontenac surrounding Crotch Lake.

But the leaders of the three groups had a more basic political point to make. They said they have participated in stakeholder meetings with the governments about the land claim for 15 years, but at those meetings the governments shared little or no information and never listened to any of the concerns expressed by the stakeholders.

“We have been vocal in asking questions and demanding answers over the years, and we’ve got none. As far as the input at the public meetings that are coming up having an impact, don’t hold your breath. But it is important to show the government we will not roll over,” said OFAH President Bill Blackwell.

I attended one of the OFAH/FOCA/CSFIA meetings on February 22, and the general feeling that I came out of the meeting with was that there is a lot of anger and mistrust, directed not only at the government but at the Algonquins as well.

I also attended the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs-sponsored meeting in Perth last Thursday night, March 7, and the public session at that meeting did not change that impression at all.

The first question at the March 7 meeting immediately strayed from the land claim into a long-standing grievance.

“I'd like to talk about the need for conservation of resources,” the questioner said, “I'm wondering whether, once the land claim is settled, there will be any restrictions on the Algonquins netting Walleye in the spring. Will they continue to have the right to rape the walleye population? I'm sick of seeing Algonquin from Sharbot Lake spearing walleye and using chicken wire to block streams, while fisheries officials do nothing. Was chicken wire part of their traditional harvesting patterns hundreds and thousands of years ago?” said the man, who identified himself as being involved in Walleye spawning programs in Westport.

Brian Crane, who is a lawyer and the long-serving chief negotiator (since 1998) for Ontario, pointed out that the land claim is not about settling Aboriginal rights.

“Under the law the Algonquins have Aboriginal rights to hunt and fish and there cannot be an agreement that abridges those rights. The agreement will not extinguish those Aboriginal rights, but there is also a conservation issue at play. That is the job of the fisheries department.”

The second questioner of the night then came forward.

“Somehow or other we all have to get along together. Rights that go to one and not another end up looking preferential. Will this agreement draw us together or will it push us further apart?”

This question cuts to the heart of the entire public debate about the land claim.

The land claim is an attempt to resolve a legal issue of jurisdiction over the land we all live on, the land where many of us were born and where our parents were born and where our children were born. The land we have invested our energy in and the land from which we draw the water that keeps us alive.

The property we own, the businesses and institutions we have built over the centuries, are all located on land that was never legally acquired by the Government of Canada. Since everything we have built here flows from land grants that came from Canada, and its junior partner, Ontario, we have a collective interest to settle this land claim once and for all.

That is all well and good for lawyers and government officials, but on the ground, the concerns expressed at the meetings are more concrete.

How can one person, by virtue of an Aboriginal right, have the right to trap Walleye in chicken wire during the crucial spawning season, when there is a crisis in the Walleye fishery?

For that matter, how can the Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation operate smoke shops with impunity when shopkeepers across the road have been hounded out of selling any kind of cigarettes by the Smoke Free Ontario Act?

What does that have to do with reconciliation and with living together into the future?

The land claim will head behind closed doors again after the public flurry we are seeing this month. It will not emerge to the public for another 5 years or so, at which time it will truly be a fait accompli.

In the interim there is time for the local Algonquin communities to begin to move on from the land claim and the pre-occupation with enrolment that they have been engaged in for years, and begin to prepare for a new role as landholding institutions with economic clout, and as First Nations that are ready to take a central role in the cultural life of our local communities.

After all, the distinction between indigenous and non-indigenous people in our communities is rather subtle and is only one of the many elements that define what is in reality an integrated whole.

To move forward we will have to come out of the shadows more, however. We need to hammer out our differences in our own communities and not in front of government officials and lawyers who live somewhere else.

In an invitation-only meeting, property owners whose lands border the proposed 30,000 acre provincial park surrounding Crotch (locally pronounced as Crutch) Lake in North Frontenac were received by officials from the Ontario Ministries of Natural Resources and Aboriginal Affairs at the Clar-Mill Hall last Wednesday evening (February 20)

Also on hand were Brian Crane, Ontario’s long-time chief negotiator for the Algonquin Land Claim as well as Shabot Obaadjiwan Chief Doreen Davis, who is one of 16 Algonquin Nation Representatives to the land claim negotiations.

The meeting was run by Sydne Taggart, an associate-negotiator and the MNR lead negotiator to the Algonquin Land Claim.

The discussion about a new provincial park at Crotch Lake is linked to the Agreement In Principle (AIP) because it is in that document that the proposed park was first mentioned.

I was not permitted to attend the meeting and this report is based on interviews with people who were there and on information I have been able to gather from government officials.

Shirley Giffin, who co-owned Tumblehome Lodge with her husband Ed for many years and has been a member of the Committee of External Advisors to the Land Claim for 15 years, prepared a statement in response to the meeting

Her first point is that the area around Crotch Lake “should not become a park.”

She points out that in 1999, the Ontario government released a report, "Ontario’s Living Legacy, Land Use Strategy".

“The plan states that ‘the addition of the protected areas that are recommended for regulation will complete the Provincial Parks system’ … The Crotch Lake area was not selected at that time as having the necessary features for a provincial park. The area did not have provincially significant natural regions in 1998 and it does not now,” said Shirley Giffin.

Giffin also said that there has been little or no definitive information available from government officials, before, during or after the meeting in Plevna, about how the park will be managed.

“There is no plan for local landowners to have a real say in developing a Management Plan and in the operation of the park but the AIP provides for the Algonquin Planning Committee to ensure the priority of the interests of this small group. The very least that would be required would be a stakeholders' committee to voice concerns of the vast majority of people in the area and in all of Ontario,” Giffin said.

I put the question about what the plans are for the management of the new park to the MNR, and received the following response this week: “The classification for this recommended park is Natural Environment. This classification best reflects the natural, cultural and recreational values of the area. This recommendation for a provincial park will provide for the protection of historic and cultural values the Algonquins are seeking while still maintaining excellent recreational opportunities enjoyed by the public such as fishing, hunting, camping, canoeing/kayaking, nature viewing, and snowmobiling.

“Pending a future boundary refinement process, this recommended park could be one of the largest parks in south-eastern Ontario. The recommended park area is ~30,000 acres.”

I was also able to gain some insight into how the park became included in the AIP for the land claim when going over some of the mapping with Sydne Taggart earlier this month.

She said that during the Land Claim negotiations the Algonquins were very concerned that the Crotch Lake area be kept in its natural state and never be subjected to development. She also said it became clear early on in the land negotiations that it would not be acceptable to include the entire land mass of the park as lands that would be transferred to the Algonquins, and the Algonquin negotiators were very receptive to the alternative idea of creating a park to protect the lands.

According to a written account of the meeting in Plevna by Megan Hughes of Ardoch Road, Ontario Chief negotiator Brian Crane said that the protection of the land in question will include provisions for no new commercial interests; no new mining claims; a rescinding of lands that are currently under claim should those claims lapse; the end to forestry operations once current harvesting contracts run out; no new trapping licenses; no changes to private land holdings on or near the proposed park; and the continuation of the Frontenac Parklands campsites opportunities on Crotch Lake into the future.

The eastern portion of the proposed park includes some of the lands that were in dispute during the uranium exploration dispute and blockade of 2009 that was centred at the Robertsville mine.

The blockade featured a one-time alliance between the Shabot Obaadjiwan and the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, who have opposed the land claim negotiations for the past 10 years.

Paula Sherman led a delegation of Ardoch Algonquin First Nation members who attended the meeting in Plevna last week.

Again, according to Megan Hughes’ account, Paula Sherman read out a prepared statement asserting Ardoch’s claim to the lands that are slated to become the Crotch Lake Provincial Park. Sherman pointed out that the Ardoch Algonquins were not invited to participate in consultations, and requested a government reply to her statement within 15 days.

There was a public meeting on the land claim held by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Federation of Ontario Cottage Associations, and the Commercial Fishing Industry Association of Canada in Perth on Friday, February 22. We will have a report on that meeting next week. The Public Hearings on the Land Claim start next week.

If the Algonquin Land Claim Agreement in Principle (AIP) were a great big pot of stew, it might be said that concerns about some of the provisions and language within the pot have started to bubble over, from all sides.

On January 23, the chiefs from the Algonquin communities of Timiskaming, Wolf Lake and Eagle Village, located along the Upper Ottawa River on the Quebec side, put the Ontario, Quebec and federal governments on notice that they are asserting their rights to their traditional territories.

The timing of the assertion is no coincidence, since much of the territory involved overlaps with territory included in the AIP between the two levels of government and the Algonquins of Ontario.

"Our communities retain un-extinguished Aboriginal title. We have never surrendered our rights, by treaty or otherwise. What we need today is a recognition of those rights, and we are presenting this evidence to ensure effective consultation on matters affecting our interests," said Chief Terence McBride of Timiskaming. "We want to participate as true partners in the regional economy."

Gilbert Whiteduck, the chief of the Kitigan Zibi First Nation, which is located further inland on the Quebec side, has also said that he is consulting with lawyers to see how the Ontario Algonquin Land Claim can be halted, so that a comprehensive claim on the Ontario and Quebec sides of the border, can be negotiated, and he welcomed the assertion of rights by Timiskaming, Wolf Lake and Eagle Village.

There are 10 status Algonquin communities on the Quebec side of the border, and only one, Pikwàkanagàn, on the Ontario side. One of the unique features of the Algonquin Land Claim in Ontario is the inclusion of nine non-status Algonquin communities in the claim.

Recipient status in the claim is not limited to those individuals and communities who fit within the framework of the embattled Canadian Indian Act.

Instead of the blood quantum requirements of the Indian Act, any individual who is able to prove they are a direct descendent from a registered Algonquin individual is eligible for inclusion in the claim.

This requirement has worked well over the years in bringing more individuals and communities on stream. This week, however, there are proceedings underway at a hotel in Pembroke that could have a major impact on at least one Algonquin community, the Shabot Obaadjiwan.

A former Ontario judge will hear the appeal of the Algonquin status of Simon Gene Bedard and Simon Jude Bedard. The two brothers were among the first Algonquin settlers to be established in the vicinity of Sharbot Lake in or around 1840, and about 2/3 of the membership of the Shabot Obaadjiwan trace their Algonquin lineage to them. The appeal intends to settle a question that has dogged the local community ever since the Land Claim talks got underway over 20 years ago. Some members of the Sharbot and Badour families have continually claimed that the families’ roots are Mohawk and not Algonquin. By settling whether the Bedard brothers were Algonquin or Mohawk in a formal hearing, that question may be put to rest. The implications if the judge rules the two men were Mohawk is not clear, but it could potentially shrink the membership of the Shabot Obaadjiwan considerably.

While all of these issues have been sorting themselves out on the Algonquin side, there has been activity among the general population as well.

Frontenac Lennox and Addington MPP Randy Hillier held two public sessions last week, one in Sydenham and one in Perth.

At the Sydenham session, Hillier outlined his analysis of the Agreement In Principle, and pointed to some of his concerns. When the floor was open for comment, a number of people talked about the future prospects for hunting on the parcels of land that are slated for transfer to the Algonquins of Ontario.

“I have a small hunt camp that is surrounded by Crown Land, where we hunt, but most of that land will become Algonquin Land,” said one man.

Hillier said that it is imperative for anyone with a historic connection to the land that is to be transferred, to let the land claim negotiators know.

“Anyone who has a piece of land that they have been using, that is part of the claim and that is undocumented, needs to get in touch with land claim negotiators,” said Hillier, “and if you could cc me with any correspondence, my office can keep track of what is going on,” said Hillier.

Much of the concern expressed at the meeting in Perth came from property owners in the vicinity of Crotch Lake, the site of a proposed provincial park.

The proposal for the park, which would encompass a large swath of land that is bordered by Hwy. 509 to the east and north, and Ardoch Road to the south, has raised concerns, even anger, among some of the adjacent landowners.

Ginny Schnupp, who co-owns the Land O'Lakes Lodge on Crotch Lake with her husband, was left with a host of questions when she received notification from the Ministry of Natural Resources about the park.

“First of all, we don't know what kind of park they are talking about or who is going to manage it,” said Schnupp.

The notification she received described the proposed park as “a natural heritage park that will be part of the provincial park system. It will provide for the protection of historic and cultural values the Algonquin are seeking, while maintaining recreational opportunities for the public.”

A lack of clarity about whether it would be the Algonquins, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), or the township who would have authority over land use, campsites, fishing and hunting on the surrounding lands makes Schnupp wonder about “the impact on my property values and the viability of my business.”

Land O'Lakes Lodge is a 6-acre resort on 800 feet of waterfront. It has 10 cabins ad two other units. The Schnupps sold everything they owned to buy the business and built their own year round home on the site.

Their business is also their home and their only major financial asset.

“We need answers to some of our questions about the park, and about the three islands on the south part of the lake that are marked for transfer,” she said.

Among those islands is one called Long Island, and one nicknamed Honeymoon Island, which has the best sand beach in that part of the lake.

“Our customers have used those islands for years, but they are going to be turned over,” she said.

“The biggest problem I have right now is that every person I talk to at the MNR or Aboriginal Affairs or the land claim team has something different to say about what is going to happen,” she said.

There will be a meeting, admittance by invitation only, on February 20 at the Clar-Mill Hall for landowners directly affected by the park. 

The long-promised Ontario Algonquin Land Claim Agreement-in-Principle (AIP) was quietly released in early December, and comments about its implications have been somewhat muted since then.

To a certain extent this is due to the political focus on Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More protests against new environmental laws and proposed changes to the Indian Act.

There is also little in the AIP that came as a total surprise. It consists of, as the negotiators have been indicating for at least the last two years, a transfer of land and a cash settlement that includes provisions for harvesting rights.

Nonetheless, some of the municipal councils within the claim territory, some landowners in the vicinity of certain proposed settlement lands, as well as a number of Algonquins, are concerned and in some cases dismayed by the implications of the AIP.

About two thirds of the large Lanark Frontenac Lennox and Addington political riding is within the claim territory, and this has led MPP Randy Hillier to take an interest in the AIP.

Hillier has been in contact with the federal and provincial negotiating teams for clarification and has written to the Federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, John Duncan, expressing some of his concerns about the agreement. However, his basic attitude about the agreement is positive.

“I'm certainly not opposed to it,” he said in a phone interview earlier this week. “This agreement is long overdue, and there are elements that are exceptionally good and should be a pattern for other agreements.”

Hillier is particular pleased with the process for the transfer of Crown Lands.

As he said in his letter Minister Duncan, “It is proper and appropriate that those crown lands that will be transferred to Algonquin ownership be appropriately zoned and in compliance with municipal regulations at time of transfer. If this streamlined process is practical for disposal of crown lands to the Algonquins the same streamlined process must be adopted for all other future transfers of crown land.”

Hillier said that in the past when Crown lands were sold to private landowners for personal or commercial interests, there has been no certainty about municipal zoning.

“Someone can buy 100 acres from the Crown hoping to open a resort, and then face a long, tortured zoning process that can lead to the proposed use not being approved after years of expense. The process being used for the Algonquins is an improvement; the zoning process is part of the purchase. I am seeking assurances that this will be the case for future transfers of Crown land for everyone, so there is no advantage for one group over everyone else,” he said.

Among other things, Hillier also expressed his concern about the language in the agreement about forestry rights, which he said was “disconcerting and will cause discontent unless clarified to ensure it does not convey favourable status to the disadvantage of those presently engaged in the forestry sector.”

The other thing that troubles MPP Hillier is the uncertainty about the proposed use for the lands that will be transferred and the nature of the corporate entity that the lands will be transferred to.

“As of now, an undefined and unknown number of Algonquin institution(s) will in practice own over 100,000 acres of lands and $300 million,” he said.

The Federation of Ontario Cottage Associations (FOCA) views the AIP with suspicion, at least partly because of the timing of its release and plans for public consultation.

“The Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations (FOCA) was distressed to receive word of the Preliminary Draft Comprehensive Algonquin Land Claim Agreement-in-Principle (AIP) immediately before the holiday break, and to see these discussions arrive at such a critical phase of stakeholder consultation during the winter months when many affected waterfront property homeowners and their support associations will be dormant,” wrote FOCA Executive Director Terry Rees. “FOCA notes that there has been little fact-based discussion, and a lack of in-depth consultation on issues like land use planning, enforcement, fish and wildlife management plans, fair sharing, and other issues. The proposed public consultation is scheduled for a very brief period in early 2013 - a timetable wholly inadequate for such a complex process.”

Concern has also been expressed to the councils of both Addington Highlands and North Frontenac Township from residents, particularly as concerns some of the parcels of land that are to be transferred. Two of the largest parcels are located on opposite sides of Highway 41 north of Bon Echo Park and Mazinaw Lake in Addington Highlands.

In North Frontenac, the proposed provincial park surrounding Crotch Lake has raised questions as well.

At a meeting of North Frontenac Council on Monday of this week, Mayor Clayton said that the township has been informed that the proposed park will not impact on the campsites the township runs on Crown land surrounding Crotch Lake and others in the Mississippi River system for at least five years.

Clayton also said that public meetings are being set up for early March to discuss the Agreement-in-Principle.

He also said North Frontenac has requested that a meeting to talk about the boundaries, access and management of the provincial park be arranged, and that it take place in North Frontenac.

Within the Algonquin community, the claim has been the subject of controversy for some years. The source of much of that controversy is opposition to the component of the plan that most pleases MPP Hillier, the fact that the entire claim territory is to be ceded for a certain amount of land and cash, leaving the Algonquin's with no aboriginal rights over the ceded territory, and no more governing authority over the lands that they will end up owning other than those that any landowning corporation would be entitled to.

Algonquin academic Dr. Lynn Gehl recently wrote a blog post encouraging Algonquin voters to reject the deal when it comes to a vote later this year.

She says that through the AIP “our jurisdiction, land, and land related rights are not protected but rather further denied and placed within the confines of a small box ... Canada imposes on us what Canada thinks Indigenous Nations are entitled to: a very small percentage of our traditional territory and a one-time buy-out. Clearly 117,000 acres which merely amounts to 1.3% of our traditional territory and $300,000,000 is a bad deal.”

Gehl's concern is that the agreement will not lead to a rebirth of the Algonquin First Nations in Ontario, but rather their demise.

“I am pointing out the error in the ways of so-called Algonquin leadership sitting at the table and making a deal with the devil. And yes, I do appreciate their heads are in a vice. Regardless, it is a bad deal that will only lead to our demise,” she wrote.