Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

June 20, 2006

Mr. E. A. Hyde
District Manager
Ministry of Natural Resources
31 Riverside Drive
Pembroke, On K8A 8R6
Via e-mail

Dear Mr. Hyde

Thank you for the correspondence dated May 24, 2006 in response to my communications
regarding our expression of interest regarding the cooperative exercise of our Constitutionally
protected Aboriginal rights surrounding harvesting, hunting, fishing and gathering within our
traditional Algonquin territory.

As you are aware Aboriginal rights are dependant on a number of conditions, such as use and
occupation of land. Qualifying criteria usually requires that an Aboriginal group “prove that their
ancestors were an organized band level of society in 1763; that, as an organized society, they had
exclusive occupation of the Land Claim Area in 1763; or that, as an organized society, they
continued to exclusively occupy and make aboriginal use of the Land Claim Area from 1763 or the
time of coming of settlement to the date the action was commenced.” Kichesipirini Algonquin First
Nation, Kichi Sibi Anishnabe, clearly meet those criteria, continuing to act as a formally recognized
political entity well into the 19th century.

Concerning the exercise of those rights the Crown is bound by fiduciary responsibility. The Crown's
fiduciary obligations to Aboriginal peoples have been explored by a number of experts. Turpel
(1992) described the implications as "nothing short of vast". She suggests that in Sparrow, the
S.C.C. has recognized a general constitutional fiduciary responsibility of the Crown in all types of
relations with Aboriginal peoples. The responsibilities extend to all Aboriginal peoples, not only
those identified as status Indians. That is to say, the Indian interest in the land is a legal right
predating the Royal Proclamation, the Indian Act, or other legislative provision. The provincial
governments as well as the federal government are bound by the responsibility. As determined by
the S.C.C. in Sparrow, the Court determined that the Government has a trust-like fiduciary
relationship with Aboriginal people and that this fiduciary duty is incorporated in S.35(1) of the
Constitution Act, 1982, that recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights. The Court
also determined that any restriction of aboriginal rights must have a valid objective and be justified.
It went on to indicate that conservation measures should be designed to have as little effect as
possible on aboriginal rights; that aboriginal groups to be affected by conservation measures should

1
be consulted about the proposed measure; and that where expropriation of a right occurs, fair
compensation should be available. Aboriginal peoples' rights to traditional lands are sub generis or
unique. They go beyond the concerns of any Canadian interest group or stakeholder. It should also
be noted that the province cannot act to contravene the rights of Indians, nor can it authorize others
to do so.

As you have correctly stated the Kichesipirini Algonquins have been in regular contact with the
various Algonquin land claim negotiators in an attempt to cooperatively work together to address
the legal, constitutional and practical issues raised by the land claim, in the hopes of a modern-day
treaty which will provide certainty of legal title to lands in the region, giving legal force to a lasting
and comprehensive settlement of all outstanding issues. Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation has
attempted to proactively address a number of serious concerns with the current negotiations table.
Unfortunately, to date, those concerns have yet to be resolved, but we are hopeful that proactive
solutions can be found, within the Algonquin community. Despite these differences, Kichesipirini
has no intention of further complicating those matters by triangulating the issues. Kichesipirini is
asserting their Indigenous rights, as are protected internationally and constitutionally.

"Indigenous Nations have the right of self-determination, in accordance with international law, and
by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development without external interference."

It should be noted that according to the United Nations Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention,
1989:

Article 1
2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for
determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.

Article 2
1. Governments shall have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the
peoples concerned, co-ordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples
and to guarantee respect for their integrity.

2. Such action shall include measures for:

(a) Ensuring that members of these peoples benefit on an equal footing from the rights and
opportunities, which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population;
(b) Promoting the full realisation of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples with
respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions;
(c) Assisting the members of the peoples concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may
exist between indigenous and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible
with their aspirations and ways of life.

Article 3
1. Indigenous and tribal peoples shall enjoy the full measure of human rights and fundamental
freedoms without hindrance or discrimination. The provisions of the Convention shall be
applied without discrimination to male and female members of these peoples.

2
 2. No form of force or coercion shall be used in violation of the human rights and fundamental
freedoms of the peoples concerned, including the rights contained in this Convention.

Article 4
1. Special measures shall be adopted as appropriate for safeguarding the persons, institutions,
property, labour, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned.

2. Such special measures shall not be contrary to the freely-expressed wishes of the peoples
concerned.

3. Enjoyment of the general rights of citizenship, without discrimination, shall not be

prejudiced in any way by such special measures.

It is our position that despite differences currently experienced by the Aboriginal parties involved in
the land claim process the federal, provincial, and Ministry of Natural Resources fiduciary
obligations towards the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation remain the same. Referral to another
Aboriginal community or organization for validation cannot be used as a means to avoid fiduciary
responsibility. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation adheres to our right to self-determination,
independent of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, the Algonquins of Ontario, the Algonquin Nation
Tribal Council, the ANND or the Algonquin Negotiations Representatives, (ANRs). Kichesipirini
Algonquin First Nation has not participated in the activities of the ANR election and is therefore not
represented or obligated under the existing agreements. According to article 20 of the Protocol
Agreement of March 25, 2004 between the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan and the affiliated not for
profit corporation ANND ‘The Parties agree that this Protocol Agreement and the anticipated jointly
agreed to beneficiary eligibility criteria are designed to assist them in fostering
Algonquin unity and in working co-operatively towards the best achievable Algonquin Treaty, and
is not intended to create or alter legal rights or obligations, including in respect of Indian Status or
Canadian Citizenship.

As well the subsequent Addendum of July 30 2004 also states in article 5 that ‘The Electoral
Officer’s decision in that regard shall be final for purposes of the election in question, but is without
prejudice to any subsequent application for recognition as a Community of Algonquins for election
or other purposes related to the Treaty Negotiations.’ Article 6 states ‘The ANR shall conduct
themselves in accordance with the Protocol Agreement dated March 25, 2004 and this Addendum.
The ANR shall have the responsibility of consulting with and taking direction from each of their
respective Communities and to instruct the Principal Negotiator in respect of the Treaty
negotiations.’ I see no mention of jurisdiction regarding title or inherent rights.

According to our understanding of the said documents and procedures the ANRs, nor Bob Potts,
have any authority other than consulting their respective communities regarding Treaty negotiations
and have nothing to do with hunting, fishing, resource distribution or political activities apart from
such negotiations. The recently developed Terms of Reference of Sept. 26, 2005 state that in Article
3, subsection g, that the ANRs are mandated to ‘develop and implement a meaningful consultation
and communication strategy to ensure that there is an effective ongoing dialogue with the
Algonquins relating to the Negotiations’. There has been no such response to our repeated efforts.
With further respect to hunting, it is understood that the MNR has entered into Annual Hunting
Agreements or Resource Management Agreements, which have evolved over time, in response to
3
circumstances. Such flexibility is a responsibility of the Ministry. It should also be noted that such
accommodations to meet collective Algonquin harvesting rights should not be interpreted to mean
that all Algonquins must be organized into one homogenous body to exercise collective rights. It is
my understanding that collective rights means that a community holds the rights and shares the
benefits, and differs from individual rights. It seems unfortunate that semantics are causing such
confusion amongst the parties but does seem to affirm our expressed concerns that there has not
been adequate preparation before entering into proceedings of such a magnitude. Your suggestion
that any Algonquin hunter who meets eligibility criteria established by the “Algonquins of Ontario”
to participate in the hunt on an equal basis, regardless of their community or political affiliations,
may seem generous, but according to Kichesipirini historical and legal fact, as well as culture and
tradition, is not seen as a viable solution.

Separation of the rights of individuals from attachment to a particular territory and community can
be interpreted as an erosion of our full realisation of social, economic and cultural rights with
respect to our social and cultural identity, customs and traditions and institutions, and is therefore a
breach of the above mentioned, and internationally recognized, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
Convention, 1989. Such mechanisms can be interpreted as being used to gradually chip away at the
actual rights of historically legitimate Indigenous communities while contributing to the creation of
more economically convenient Indigenous entities according to external agendas. Since all
Aboriginal rights are based on historical occupancy and use of a specific territory, demonstrated
political organization, and family and social cohesion, (inherent rights) any participation in
activities that possibly cloud or blur those criteria could have a detrimental affect on legitimacy and
certainty. It should be recognized that dialogue between the parties is entrenched in fundamental
principles--respect for each other’s jurisdictions, laws, customs, traditional practices, and beliefs.
The law has thus come a long way towards recognizing Aboriginal title in a way significantly
consistent with the nature of Aboriginal proprietary systems in land and resources 'where their
traditional interest in the lands concerned can be established' (Chretien 1973). The current process
does not respect Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation interests but furthers the domination of the
process by one particular group, and by such potentially furthers federal representation at the
expense of provincial and regional interests. It is not necessary that the Algonquin people negotiate
as one political entity for successful negotiations as demonstrated by the recently completed
Temagami First Nation - Teme Augama Anishnabai Land Claim.

Kichesipirini further contends that the problems associated with structures and processes of the
current systems have in part resulted from a lack of commitment to full fiduciary responsibility by
the federal government and provincial governments as the non-status community have never been
adequately prepared, educated or consulted concerning the issues associated with their Aboriginal
rights, nor have they received equal access to resources in order to adequately respond. The current
system has also created an environment that seems to further exploit the vulnerabilities of the non-
status communities. It is unfortunate that the past, and or existing methods of resource distribution
have been misused to facilitate the further subjugation of groups attempting to integrate political
legitimacy into the processes. Sadly, it appears a “token economy” has evolved, in particular around
the distribution of moose tags and hunting in Algonquin Park. It would seem groups unwilling to
compromise political integrity could be denied access to resources, or a compromising facsimile
group, under a compromising leader, if created, may be accepted, and then rewarded the token tag.
The “identity” issue could be incorrectly used as the rationalization of such inappropriate activities.
Aboriginal title, seen as a property right, and the associated inherent Aboriginal rights, are most
4
certainly not 'race based' rights. Similarly the question of personal legal status—who is a
beneficiary of the land claim or treaty, is not merely an issue of identity, much less one of race, it is
also one of property. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation is committed to avoiding any
activities that could be interpreted as eroding our full inherent rights and has taken preventative
measures regarding such attempts. As part of their fiduciary role, it is our understanding then that
the federal and provincial governments are obligated to ensure Kichesipirini participation,
consultation, and in restricted circumstances, consent, and fair compensation regarding resource
distribution and development. It is particularly frustrating as we are, as Canadian citizens, paying
for this process.

We would also like to stress that we are not simply initiating a relationship based on the negotiated
assertion of our rights, but would like to further communicate our interest in working together to
maintain and appreciate existing resources, and develop new and innovative solutions that
recognize the changing values and challenges now affecting the ecology, economy and
sustainability of the region. Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation would like to contribute to a
prosperous and sustainable future that can meet the demands of a global economy and information
age. We believe that it is in the best interests of all involved that there be an open and honest
dialogue concerning all matters, and that such dialogue will be an important step towards fiduciary
responsibilities.

I have attached a number of documents that outline the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation
perspective.

Sincerely,

Paula LaPierre
Principal Sachem
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

Attached; Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation Proclamation, Proclamation Letter, Kichesippi

Current 1, Kichesippi Current 5

Cc; Ken McWatters, Bob Potts, Brian Crane, Robin Aitken, Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation
members

Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

By Honouring Our Past We Determine Our Future

kichesippi@hotmail.com