2017-Oct-16
GBA Seeks Changes to Environmental Study on Land Claim
My task was to write a brief update of the Wiikwemkoong land claim, but given the complex and ever-evolving nature of this claim, brevity is a
challenge. For background details and further information, please see www.georgianbayassociation.com/wiikwemkoongislandsboundaryclaim/
To start, we must reiterate that the GBA supports the need for a settlement of the subject claim that is fair and equitable to all. We also maintain that it is essential that we continue to develop a constructive dialogue and an enduring relationship with the Wiikwemkoong that is based on mutual respect. Some feel that we are being too accommodating in our approach to the proposed settlement. Others feel that we are being heavy-handed and raising the spectra of adverse consequences if the claim goes through. Let me assure you that the NGBA and GBA have weighed each decision and action very carefully.
Agreement with Property Owners
The NGBA and GBA met with Chief Duke Peltier and band representatives several times as we strive to reach an agreement in principle with Wiikwemkoong that addresses NGBA members’ concerns and proposed solutions on preserving access to recreational lands and other matters. By early summer, we were close to a final agreement and although not finalized, it was presented to NGBA members at their August AGM in Killarney. There was not unanimous agreement on all points, so the agreement will likely undergo more tweaking. Ultimately, it will need to be ratified by the Wiiky, NGBA members and the GBA Board before it becomes binding. The important point in this process is that the stakeholders impacted, most
notably property owners in the NGBA association area, have been left to their own devices to negotiate with the Wiiky, with little or no support from the Province.
Province’s Draft ESR
GBA’s main objective is to preserve the pristine condition and freedom of access to lands that NGBA members and many other stakeholders have enjoyed for over 100 years. With that in mind, we are disappointed with the way that the Environmental Assessment (EA) process has been carried out and with the results reported in the Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) released by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (MIRR) in early June. Overall, the Draft ESR provided only limited information on impacts to NGBA members and other stakeholders who are interested in and have concerns for the area, and offered no solutions or mitigating measures to address those impacts.
Here is an abbreviated list of our primary concerns with the Draft ESR:
≥ Only two alternatives were provided: accept the proposed settlement as presented or reject it. Consequently, any opposition by us to the ESR alternatives would be interpreted as opposition to the claim itself, which GBA and NGBA want to avoid.
≥ Fitzwilliam Island is one of the 41 Fishing Islands that were the basis of the original claim. The Province never made a concerted effort to negotiate a purchase price with the island’s private owner but instead, without public notice, substituted the Philip Edward Island archipelago plus other parcels of onshore land (taken together, the “Alternative Lands”).
≥ It now appears that Fitzwilliam Island is available for sale; the Province must consider this option to buy Fitzwilliam, regardless of current progress towards a claim settlement.
≥ Despite our urging, the Draft ESR was released prematurely. By not addressing concerns raised by NGBA and GBA and by not considering other alternatives it has had the effect of sending a message that the settlement is a done deal politically, fostering cynicism and discouraging further input.
≥ Outreach by the Province to others (campers, canoeists, kayakers, boaters), was insufficient, an issue that the NGBA and GBA have attempted to address. NGBA’s and GBA’s goal is to reach a separate and binding side agreement with Wiikwemkoong. We maintain that this must occur before the release of the Final ESR in early 2018 so that the Province can fulfill its obligations under the EA Act. Furthermore, it is essential that our final and binding agreement is clearly referenced and appended to the Final ESR, and ultimately referenced and appended to the Settlement Agreement between the Province and Wiikwemkoong and any subsequent agreements with the Federal government.
Need for a Commitment to a Park
All parties recognize the unique and vulnerable features of the pristine lands included in the proposed settlement and the need to preserve them. Furthermore, all appear to accept that the best solution is to make certain defined areas (from our perspective, lands encompassed by Ontario Policy P189 boundaries and George Island – see web site) into a provincial wilderness park co-managed by the Wiiky and the Province. For years, the Province has earmarked these lands for a park. The commitment to a sizable and contiguous park along Georgian Bay’s eastern shore, for use by all people for all time, cannot be fulfilled anywhere else along the coast. This opportunity will be lost forever if commitments are not made now to ensure that this area is preserved by the establishment of a park. However, achieving a written and binding commitment to the creation of a park has proved impossible so far, even though having the Wiiky co-manage a park of this size, as GBA has suggested, would provide employment and training opportunities for them.
There are two land claims in play: Wiikwemkoong’s current central or interim claim that is the focus of this article, and once this is settled, a larger claim by Wiikwemkoong on all Crown islands from Sault Ste. Marie south to O’Donnell Point. The GBA believes that this interim claim should be the full and final settlement with Wiikwemkoong, and this should be reflected in a Treaty document between the Crown and Wiikwemkoong. This will avoid a continuation of land claims on Crown islands along shorelines in Georgian Bay that have been used extensively by the public for over 150 years. It will also help to ensure that ongoing relations between Wiikwemkoong, other First Nation bands on Georgian Bay and all other stakeholders continue to improve and strengthen for the benefit of all. One solution would be to enshrine the existing moratorium on future sales of Georgian Bay Crown Land in an agreement, with Wiikwemkoong, other First Nation bands, and Georgian Bay based organizations and individuals working together with the Province on a permanent “Living Legacy” style guardianship plan for those lands.
The GBA and NGBA will not cease to contest claim-related matters that we believe are unacceptable and not in the best interests of all stakeholders. We will strive to identify and explore solutions to this land claim that address the needs and interests of both Wiikwemkoong and other stakeholders.
We want to thank the many who took time to write to the Province, expressing their wishes for a satisfactory settlement and their disappointment in the Draft ESR and approach taken to date.
As pblished – GBA Update – Vol 27, No. 3, Fall 2017 – John McMullen, Past President, GBA