THE FOLLOWING letter was sent to Give Chiefs and Band Councils by Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come on Oct. 3. The Nation obtained a copy from a Cree hunter who wishes to remain anonymous.
The letter was written in response to calls from the communities for regional direction on development questions. The question that is often asked is how do Crees reconcile the need for jobs with the need to preserve the land.
—Nation staff
I am writing to you with regards to the protection of Cree rights and the traditional way of life in the context of forestry development projects and in the context of mining and other development projects.
The Route du Nord has opened up another major portion of Cree lands to developers. We all know that in many respects the manner in which this development is being conducted violates Cree rights and also principles of sound resource management.
We currently see that the moose population in some zones is in danger, while forest cutting plans in the same zones proceed without regard to moose protections. We see that mining projects are going ahead on Cree lands. These projects threaten to pollute the waters and destroy hunting lands, but they offer very little protection for Cree rights and very little benefit for Cree development.
Where are the Cree employment, corrective measures and planning to accommodate Cree traditional land use? What are our standards with regard to the protection of our collective rights?
I am quite disturbed that here and there across the Cree territory, bands are beginning to enter into individual agreements with developers, without necessarily putting into place the safeguards for our collective rights. The Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) is the watchdog of Cree collective rights and it is in this capacity that I write to you.
In some cases agreements involve the acceptance of Quebec’s current forest management practices through the forest management agreements. In other forums we deem these arrangements to be illegal. Do we compromise our collective legal position through the signature by individual bands of such agreements? I think this erodes Cree rights.
In some cases the guarantees for employment and training seem to be less than substantial. Will the benefits be forthcoming?
In some cases the compensation for the loss of lands or for other impacts has been arranged directly with individuals or on their behalf. How can we reconcile such arrangements with a strong protection of our collective right to our traditions? Will the building of a cabin or purchase of a vehicle compensate for the impacts suffered over 20, 50 or 100 years? I do not think they will.
If we had not stood together in 1975 and worked together, we would not have the Income Security Program, Cree School Board or Cree Health Board or other of our collective rights. I understand the frustration of those who have been forced by companies off their lands, who have been forced to stand in the dust of the forestry trucks taking away the Cree trees.
It is time for us to hold a regional forum on forestry and mining to deal with the issues and to define a strategy and principles for any future Cree actions, coordinated actions, on the impacts of forestry and mining, on the involvement of Crees in such activities and on the way in which we can act in the future to give us more control over these activities and at the same time protect our rights.
The time to act is now, while we can still have a say in the way in which these activities impact our communities. In the month of November I will meet with five Chiefs whose communities are impacted by forestry. Let us talk about this forum and others at that time.
In the meantime I await a reply from all Chiefs and Councils on this proposal.
