Mushkegowuk wants treaty honoured

After another spring that highlighted the poor infrastructure among James Bay communities, Mushkegowuk Council is calling for the federal and provincial governments to honour and implement the treaty they agreed to.
Four James Bay communities had to declare a state of emergency this past spring as high water levels led to sewage back ups or lagoon problems in Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany.
Mushkegowuk Grand Chief Stan Louttit said he is frustrated with the poor living conditions the Cree people on the western coast of James Bay have to endure on a daily basis.
But that can change if the governments agree to honour the treaty, Louttit believes.
“We, the Mushkegowuk, want to be self-sufficient,” Louttit said in a May 21 media release.
“We welcome development that will benefit us, the province and the nation. That will be possible when the Ontario and Canada governments agree to a new revenue sharing agreement allowing the Mushkegowuk to collect revenues from our resources.”
Louttit pointed to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement signed in 1975 by the Eeyou Istchee, a Cree tribal council in northern Quebec, and the Quebec and Canadian government as an example of a “modern day treaty” agreement.
The agreement gave the Eeyou Istchee full control of their territory and economy so they could build a healthy Cree nation, Louttit said.
“The happiness and prosperity enjoyed by the Eeyou Istchee … is a direct result of a treaty being honoured and implemented, and this is exactly what we want,” Loutit said.
Prior to the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the land claims court ruled that Quebec and Canada must work with the Eeyou Istchee to develop a large hydro-electric dam project. That court ruling prompted the eventual negotiations between the governments and the Eeyou Istchee.
Mushkegowuk is attempting to follow a similar path. In 2003, the tribal council filed a lawsuit calling for natural resource sharing in its territory. Referred to as the Rupert’s Land Case, the lawsuit is based on Canada’s constitutional obligations from promises it made in 1869 and 1870 to acquire Rupert’s Land territories from England.
In exchange, Canada pledged to protect the interests of Aboriginal groups in the region. However, Mushkegowuk asserts that a number of federal and provincial laws, including the Ontario Mining Act and federal Indian Act, violate that commitment.
Because the pledge predates Treaty 9, Mushkegowuk sees its contents as being the real basis of their relationship with Canada.
The tribal council believes it gained leverage in its Rupert’s Land Case in 2010 when the personal diaries of an Ontario treaty commissioner indicated that oral promises were made that were not reflected in the treaty.
While the lawsuit is ongoing, Mushkegowuk continues to try work with the Ontario government.
In November 2011, the two parties agreed to establish a treaty roundtable to provide a forum that explores possible treaty implementation strategies. The roundtable is currently developing a model for resource revenue sharing and discussion of governance. The two sides are working on formalizing such an agreement.
Meanwhile, Louttit said all kinds of studies and reports have been submitted and presented to the prime minister and other ministers but “no fundamental changes have been achieved.”
“We are not sure what else the (federal) government wants or needs,” Louttit said. “Our people have been poor and asking for a decent standard of living to the government of Canada for decades and still today we find ourselves still asking for equality, even for the basic rights of child welfare, education and justice.”