TURTLE ISLAND
February 20, 2002
President, Algonquin
Nation Negotiations Directorate
83 - A Kakagimin Inamo
Golden Lake, Ontario
KOJ IXO
Dear ANND:
I am writing in response to the several letters sent from members
of your staff which I will list by date for convenient reference.
They include:
November 27, 2001
December 4, 2001
January 7, 2002
January 15, 2002
January 30, 2002
February 7, 2002
In relation to Greg Sarazin and Alan Pratt's letter of November
27, 2001 requesting a meeting to discuss the possible basis of
the return of Council to ANND's negotiation process we met that
request and dealt with this subject in our December meeting.
Dan and Kirby participated on our behalf in the conference call
that Greg was inquiring about in his December 4, 2001 letter.
In relation to Peter Bernard's letter of January 7, 2002
proposing a joint Council/ANND response to the questions raised
by the Federal and Provincial Negotiators at the December 17
meeting which were: Who are you? Who do you represent? And, do
you have the capacity to negotiate? Council's response is the
following.
Pikwakanagan Council is currently implementing a strategy, which
does not include a working relationship with ANND. In relation to
the three questions Council knows who they are; we know who we
represent, and we do have the capacity to negotiate. In fact we
believe that we can turn the table into a performing table which
is a concern we are hearing from both governments right now.
In relation to your letter of January 7, 2002 to the two
government negotiators and to Council seeking discussions with
Council to find a solution to continue working together on the
land claim negotiations, I must respond as above; Council is
currently implementing a strategy which does not include a
working relationship with ANND. You also indicate that ANND Board
Members will represent Status Pikwakanagan Members.
This was also the position provided by your Chief Negotiator to
the Federal and Provincial Negotiators at the January 15, 2002
negotiation meeting. This concerns us because we do not believe
it is possible or acceptable for the Board of a Not for Profit
Corporation like ANND, and which Board is composed of a majority
of Non-Status directors to make a unilateral decision to
politically represent Pikwakanagan Status Members in our land
claim negotiations. In December, we received the support of
members who came out to a meeting, where we sought their support
for our decision to politically represent all members regardless
of where they reside. We continue to receive support on this, in
the response to our written request, which was later mailed out
to the full membership.
On January 30, 2002 Peter Bernard on behalf of ANND wrote the
Federal and Provincial Negotiators commenting on the effect of
our decision to repeal the Enrollment Law. We disagree with that
analysis and would add;
The Algonquin Enrollment Law was the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan
First Nations' law. Canada and Ontario had no role whatsoever in
its development and certainly no role in it's approval. As well
they had no role in any decisions taken in respect of the law and
it's operation. There is now a vacuum, in respect of the kind of
recognition that the Enrollment Law provided and at this time,
only Canada, Ontario or Pikwakanagan can make a decision to fill
that vacuum.
The repeal of our Algonquin Enrollment Law was taken with the
support of our members as a result of our decision to, at this
time, represent and consult with members only. The law is no
longer considered relevant given that its sole intent when it was
enacted was to establish preliminary criteria to identify
non-status people of Algonquin descent in the territory who may
have aboriginal rights and then to include them in consultations
only, on the land claim negotiations.
In our opinion the removal of the Enrollment Lw has the effect of
reinstating the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan as the sole Algonquin
claimants with whom Canada and Ontario can legitimately negotiate
a settlement of the claim Pikwakanagan documented during the
1970's and 1980's. It is our further opinion, that if Canada and
Ontario wish to negotiate a claim settlement agreement with the
individuals who previously used the Enrollment Law to self
identify and to validate their participation in the negotiations
then, Canada and Ontario should first take some action to
validate both, who they are (i.e. fill the vacuum, I previously
noted) and also then take some action to validate their claim to
the Ottawa Valley.
At this time, there is no existing formal mechanism recognized by
government, that identifies, who is an Algonquin claimant aside
from those of us who are registered as members of Pikwakanagan.
Those principles Council addressed and endorsed when we passed
the Enrollment Law are still with us. However, we have been
forced into the opinion that those principles should now only be
given effect through the formal mechanism of official
"Beneficiary Criteria". On the bottom line, that
appears to be what the non-status people of Algonquin descent
want. We are of the opinion that this will meet the condition of
Canada and Ontario to involve those "Algonquins", that
ANND says it represents.
On January 30 th Peter also wrote to Council apologizing for any
part in letting our relationship decline. He also advised us,
that the Board was taking action to address internal corporate
and administrative issues, and he also advised us that you have
engaged a new lawyer. These are positive developments, however,
we also recently wrote to you concerning our ownership of records
and equipment. We also asked specifically that ANND secure and
stop using the Enrollment records. Council is very interested to
hear your response on these matters.
We have also received a copy of the "Crow Document". We
will be preparing a response on this for Peter.
Sincerely,
Lisa Ozawanimke -SIGNED-
Chief, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan
Lisa Ozawanimke
end -
Page created by: muckwa
Changes last made on: Sunday April 14, 6:11 pm 2002