The Dominion - North

Uranium Territory

Sandra — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:53:58 +0000

Inuit campaign for referendum over mine in far north

BAKER LAKE—A conflict over a uranium mine in the far north, four decades in the making, has pitted members of a small Inuit community against their territorial government and a French company.

Inuit in the community of Baker Lake, located west of Hudson Bay in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, have raised a hue over what they call a faulty, biased process and the Government of Nunavut's uncritical support for uranium mining.

John*, an Inuk from Baker Lake who spoke with The Dominion, said the Nunavut Government’s support for uranium mining was biased.

“The new government policy with regards to uranium, I think that’s biased,” he said. “Them knowing their own people don’t really want uranium mining and the impact it would have on the people. We’ve heard for years now the environmental impact it’s going to have in our community.”

He later commented, “I think there should be a ban on uranium mining...no uranium mining in Nunavut, period.”

Bill*, also an Inuk from Baker Lake, said that he was unsure whether or not the new policy truly reflects the opinions of Nunavummiut (“the people of Nunavut”).

“I think they should have held a [public] vote on the issue.”

Outrage over the government’s new policy has been expressed by Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), (“The People of Nunavut Can Rise Up”), the region’s only environmental NGO, which called the process to develop the policy “biased” and “flawed.” High on the list of Makita’s complaints is the fact that the government relied on consultants with close ties to the uranium mining industry to develop its uranium policy.

Makita was formed in 2009 by residents of Baker Lake and Iqaluit, out of frustration over barriers to public participation in decision-making. Makita’s objectives include promoting public participation in decisions related to uranium development, promoting accountability and transparency in the territory’s governing institutions and promoting public awareness of the impacts of uranium mining.

Makita was the driving force that initiated the Nunavut government’s development of a new policy. In 2010, the group demanded that Nunavut hold a public inquiry into uranium mining, citing concerns that “a uranium industry in Nunavut would pose serious risks to the environment, to public health and safety and to Inuit traditions and practices.”

Instead, the government held a “public forum,” which involved hiring consultants to undertake research on uranium mining and a series of public consultation meetings. The outcome was the June 6, 2012 release of a policy providing conditional support for uranium mining. It differed little from a policy the government issued in 2007.

At the centre of the uranium debate in Nunavut is a proposed mine by AREVA Resources Canada Inc, the Canadian subsidiary of the French, mostly state-owned owned multinational corporation AREVA. Located 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, the proposed “Kiggavik” project is only the latest of uranium proposals.

The struggle against uranium mining dates back to the 1970s. At that time, Inuit in Baker Lake unsuccessfully initiated legal challenges against uranium exploration near their community. In the late 1980s, Inuit successfully opposed a proposal by German company Urangesellschaft to mine the same Kiggavik uranium ore body that AREVA plans to exploit. In a local plebiscite in 1990, over 90 per cent of the residents of Baker Lake rejected Urangesellschaft’s proposal.

At the time, all major Inuit organizations opposed Urangesellschaft’s proposal.

The rights to the Kiggavik ore body were eventually acquired by AREVA, which now wants to develop a mine with four open pits and an underground component, a milling operation, a winter access road and potentially an all-season access road. The Nunavut Impact Review Board is currently conducting an environmental review of the Kiggavik proposal.

The community of Baker Lake is divided over AREVA’s proposal, with Inuit expressing a wide range of perspectives on the matter. Inuit Elder Margaret Niviatsiaq, a member of AREVA’s community committee and strong supporter of the Kiggavik mine, said that she supports the proposal due to hopes that it will provide her grandchildren with employment. “We have to think of the next generation. Where are they going to work? How are they going to survive? We have to think about our children.”

However, some Inuit in the community remain highly critical or outright opposed to uranium mining.

Janet* expressed serious concerns with AREVA’s proposal. “[I’m concerned with] how it’s going to affect the environment, the wildlife,” she said. “Even though they say it’s going to be safe, accidents happen all over the world and if anything happens here, especially with our drinking water...I have many concerns.”

She was also suspicious of the industry’s promises of prosperity and economic development. “I always say, the local people are going to get crumbs while someone gets the steak.”

Paul*, a hunter from Baker Lake, was worried that the Kiggavik mine might disturb caribou. “That area where they want to build the mine is along the migration route of three caribou herds.”

He was also concerned that opening the Kiggavik mine might lead to other uranium mines opening in the area. “The problem with uranium is we have so much of it around here. Once they open up one mine, how many others will follow?”

Lucy*, a young Inuk woman, formerly of Baker Lake, was concerned about the colonial implications of developing the economy of her home community by doing business with multi-national mining corporations.

"Relying on mining companies to come in and employ Inuit is still a reliance on ‘outside help’. It does not empower Inuit to become owners and producers of their production. It not only reduces Inuit to be trained just enough to ensure that...a specific sector succeeds in the north...it [also] keeps Inuit and non-Inuit living in the north in a state of dependency. It's backward. It's not progress."

Some who were critical of uranium mining also felt that their concerns and opinions were being suppressed. Janet said that some people in town are afraid to speak out, because they are “intimidated by other people” or “worried that they will lose their jobs”.

Paul felt that his views were being suppressed because his influence was small compared to that of the mining industry. “They [the mining industry] have all sorts of consultants and lawyers and money,” he said. “Those of us who are opposed, when you compare it, we basically have nothing.”

Until recently, there were a number of political barriers to uranium mining in Nunavut. Following the settlement of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, several institutions issued policies that either forbade uranium mining or provided the public with the right to refuse uranium mining. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (an Inuit organization that attained mineral rights to the Kiggavik ore body as part of the Nunavut land claim) initially maintained a policy that forbade mining for uranium on lands to which it held title. The 2000 Keewatin Region Land Use Plan contained a section that stated, “Any future proposal to mine uranium must be approved by the people of the region.”

However, these political barriers were quickly overcome with, some suggest, no meaningful public participation. In 2007 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated reversed its stance on uranium mining and adopted a policy that gave conditional support for uranium mining.

The same year, the Government of Nunavut issued a similar policy when then Baker Lake MLA David Simailak tabled six “guiding principles” on uranium mining in the Legislative Assembly.

In 2008, the Nunavut Planning Commission ruled that “the people of the region” approved uranium mining, based on resolutions of support from various hamlet councils in the Kivalliq.

In a 2010 media release, Makita condemned these policy changes, arguing that they were made “without involving [Inuit] in the decision-making process” and “without regard for the democratic standard set in Baker Lake by a public plebiscite.” Makita further argued that these policies left the question of uranium mining up to environmental reviews, which would ultimately result in “bureaucrats in Nunavut and Ottawa decid[ing] whether or not [uranium mining] is in [Nunavut’s] public interest.”

Accordingly, Makita demanded that the Government of Nunavut hold a public inquiry “on whether or not to open Nunavut to uranium mining.” The group argued that a public inquiry is more “transparent, flexible and democratic than a regulatory process is,” and that the government needed to seriously assess whether or not Nunavut’s institutions had the ability to properly regulate uranium mining.

Petitions demanding a public inquiry, initiated by Makita, were tabled in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in June, 2010.

In August, the government responded by announcing that, instead of a public inquiry, it would hold a “public forum” on uranium mining to help the Government of Nunavut develop a more comprehensive uranium policy.

Makita responded with heavy criticism to the decision to hold a public forum instead of a public inquiry. In a press release, Makita argued that “the proposed process is window dressing—public meetings without a mandate for research and reporting, and without clear standards for transparency or process, will be a waste of time and money.”

During question period in the Legislative Assembly in October, 2010, Premiere Aariak defended the government’s choice of a public inquiry, stating that the government “concluded that the public would be fully consulted with greater participation through a public forum.”

The public forum was held in 2011. Golder Associates—the same consulting firm hired by AREVA to conduct feasibility studies and write sections of their impact assessment for the Kiggavik mine—was hired by the Nunavut government to conduct research into uranium mining. The outcome of this research was harshly criticized by Mining Watch Canada, an Ottawa-based NGO that had been invited by Makita to participate in the consultation meetings held during the public forum.

Jamie Kneen of Mining Watch slammed the Nunavut government’s decision to have its research conducted by Golder Associates. “Golder should not be expected to produce a document on its own that could put its primary clients (the mining industry) in a bad light,” he writes in the report A Flawed Foundation.

Kneen further charged that the information provided by Golder is “biased, inaccurate and incomplete,” that it “misrepresent[s] the nature of environmental regulation and health protection” and that it “presents assumptions and theories as facts.”

Representatives from the Government of Nunavut were not available for immediate comment on their choice of Golder Associates to conduct research for the public forums.

Consultation meetings were held in Baker Lake, Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay in spring, 2011. Comments were also accepted by internet and telephone submission. According to a report by Brubacher Development Strategies Incorporated, local residents from communities throughout the territory asked many questions and voiced a variety of opinions on the possibility of uranium mining in Nunavut.

While some residents spoke about the potential employment uranium mining could bring to Nunavut, others voiced concerns about the potential impacts of uranium mining on the environment. Major concerns included the potential for mine roads to impact caribou migrations, the possibility of contamination of wildlife and water and potential impacts on human health. Many of these concerns were related to the possibility that impacts on wildlife might negatively affect Inuit hunting and fishing. Some indicated that they had moral objections to mining activity in their territory that might support the creation of nuclear weapons. Some residents expressed frustration that the majority of the panel the government commissioned for the consultation meetings was supportive of uranium mining, which they felt ensured that discussions during the consultation meetings were also biased.

On June 6, 2012, the Nunavut government released the results of the consultation meetings and a “new” policy statement on uranium mining.

Aside from some minor changes, the new policy statement is essentially the same as the original guiding principles issued in 2007, and indicates support for uranium mining subject to five conditions. Included in these conditions was an assurance that “uranium mined in Nunavut shall be used only for peaceful and environmentally responsible purposes,” that the people of Nunavut “must be the major beneficiaries” of uranium mining and that uranium mining must have the support of the people of Nunavut “with particular emphasis on communities close to uranium development.” The policy also stipulated that environmental standards must be “assured” and that the health and safety of workers “shall be protected to national standards.”

Makita criticized both the policy and the process by which it was developed. In a press release, Makita again criticized the government’s choice to have Golder Associates help develop the uranium policy. Chair Sandra Inutiq called the consultation process “clearly not an ‘objective’ policy review” and “biased from the outset.” She further argued that “the Nunavut government’s ‘public forums’ were a way to deflect Makita’s call for a public inquiry,” according to the June 8 press release. Due to what the organization considers to have been a “flawed process” with an outcome that supports uranium development, Makita reiterated its position that Nunavut’s institutions are “incapable of protecting the public interest in matters of uranium.”

In an e-mail to The Dominion, Makita member Jack Hicks took issue with the government policy’s assertion that uranium from Nunavut would only be used for “peaceful and environmentally responsible purposes.”

“We know where and how uranium from Nunavut could end up in nuclear weapons. Almost everyone I've ever spoken with—including people who are in favour of opening the territory to uranium mining—knows perfectly well that the [Government of Nunavut] and [Nunavut Tunngavik, Inc.] have zero control over how uranium will be used if it leaves the territory.”

“And given that the world has not found a way to safely store the highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, despite having spent countless billions of dollars trying, the idea that even non-military use of nuclear energy can be called 'environmentally responsible' is absurd,” Hicks said.

“What is tragically fascinating is that in a single generation the Inuit leadership has shifted from holding principled anti-nuclear positions (for example the Inuit Circumpolar Conference’s 1983 Resolution on a Nuclear Free Zone in the Arctic) to repeating the 'peaceful and environmentally responsible' lies of the politicians of the dominant society.”

With regard to the condition that the uranium industry must have the support of communities close to uranium development, Hicks felt that only a plebiscite could be used to determine community support.

“This should take the form of a public vote, such as the one that was held in Baker Lake in 1990. Nothing less than a free and democratic vote is acceptable. And if a majority vote in favour of the Kiggavik proposal, so be it.”

On the question of a plebiscite, Inuit from both sides of the issue agreed with Hicks.

Margaret Niviatsiaq, who strongly supported the Kiggavik mine, told The Dominion, “There should be [a] vote...if there’s no vote there will be a lot of conflict between the community and the mine.”

Janet, who was very critical of AREVA’s proposal but stopped short of expressing opposition, said that there should be a vote “where people are not intimidated and they can vote freely.”

“Looking at the history of proposed uranium in Baker Lake, I still feel that there are a lot of people against it.”

*Due to the controversial nature of AREVA’s proposal, many people spoke under the condition of anonymity. In these cases, pseudonyms have been used.

Warren Bernauer is a graduate student at York University.

Northern meltdown

Plan Nord Under the Microscope

dawn — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:48:35 +0000

Public involvement in diamond venture ends once gems are found

MONTREAL—Since the mid 1990s, every man, woman and child living in Quebec has donated the equivalent of $20 towards exploration costs for the province's first diamond mine project. But when a mine was finally discovered and the promised rewards for years of the province's investment began to be realized, the Quebec government sold the project to a private company. Not only that, but Quebeckers can expect to shell out even more as the now privately owned mine moves towards production.

According to documents obtained by The Dominion, all that’s left for the public after they invested over $157 million in the Renard Diamond Project is a 37 per cent stake in a private company, and token public representation on the company’s board of directors.

The diamond mine is today being hailed as a model operation by the Quebec government. But a deeper look into what this model would mean for Quebeckers casts a long shadow over the government’s economic policies.

For the last seven years, the sun has been shining over Quebec’s mining sector. Between 2009 and 2010, total mining investments in Quebec increased by almost 43 per cent, totaling $2.9 billion. Over the past six months, things have gotten so hot that the skin has started to peel off the hands of boardroom executives, geologists and international investors. The key moment came in May 2011 when Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced his now-famous legacy project, the Plan Nord.

The good times in the mining industry could last for the next 25 years, if Charest is to have his way. “The Plan Nord will lead to over $80 billion in investments... and create or consolidate, on average, 20,000 jobs a year,” reads the Plan Nord website. The idea behind the plan is to "stimulate" the energy, mineral resources, forest and wildlife sectors, as well as those of tourism and "bio-food" production.

The Renard Diamond Project is one of 11 mega-mining projects proposed as part of the Plan Nord. Unlike most of the other mining projects, the $675 million Renard project is the only mine venture whose development involved a serious public partnership approach—the rest of the projects are private sector initiatives.

The Renard Diamond Project got its start in 1996 in the Nord-du-Quebec region, about 600 kilometres north of the great Lac-St-Jean, as a 50-50 joint-venture between Diaquem—a wholly-owned subsidiary of crown corporation Quebec Society for Mining Exploration (SOQUEM)—and Ashton Mining of Canada Inc—a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto plc.

Founded in 1965, SOQUEM is a holdover from the “maitres chez nous” (masters in our own house) economic doctrine which saw the creation of many Quebec-owned corporations. At one point, SOQUEM was an exploration powerhouse, employing more than 1,500 people and at the forefront of geologic mapping.

After 45 years in the business, SOQUEM’s mandate has shrunk to supporting specific projects only. In the first quarter of 2011, SOQUEM—now a 50-employee entity—was swallowed up by the mammoth Investissement Quebec (IQ), the Quebec government's investment arm.

Fifteen years down the risky road of exploration, the Renard Diamond Project promoters discovered a field of kimberlite intrusions—volcanic rock known to contain diamonds—with a mineral reserve of 18 million carats. Exploration risks stem from the fact that anomalistic (diamond containing) geological formations are hard to find, and expensive to analyze.

Ashton Mining was bought out and the Renard Project is now under the Stornoway Diamond Corporation flag. “Excluding potential deposits, we evaluate the life duration of the project at at least 25 years,” Ghislain Poirier, Vice President Public Affairs at Stornoway told a local newspaper last winter. The plan for the mine includes two 100-meter-deep open pit mines, one 600-meter-deep open pit mine and several underground mines. The Renard mine would be Quebec’s first diamond mine.

Stornoway released its conclusive feasibility study in November 2011. According to the company, the mine will begin commercial production by 2016. Mine permits, community hearings and negotiations with the Cree Nation and other local communities have yet to be completed.

Public money for a private mine

Beyond the celebratory press releases, the course of events in the boardrooms and corporate headquarters linked to the deal has been anything but usual. In December 2010, a sudden and unexpected transaction occurred. Just as the public finally stood to make a return on the $57 million it invested in exploration, IQ sold its stake in the Renard project to Stornoway.

The transaction left IQ with a minority share of Stornoway, and a meager two per cent revenue royalty on net smelter returns on future production. Three senior IQ administrators joined Stornoway’s 11-member board. IQ also agreed to provide Stornoway with an additional $100 million to fund mine construction.

“They're just being nice to the company,” said MiningWatch Canada’s Jamie Kneen.

IQ spokesperson Chantal Corbeil refused to comment on the rationale behind this divestment.

“They are not allowed to reveal what's being discussed on the board, not even to Cabinet,” said Kneen of the three IQ board members now serving Stornoway. “The public is not represented in this mining project,” he said.

Before the Renard mines produce a single diamond, the people of Quebec have already spent $157 million, and been left without representation that will guarantee a return on their investments in the actual mine development. But according to IQ’s Corbeil, the good news is that IQ owns 37 per cent of Stornoway, and if the company is successful, the government will cash in royalties and taxes. Royalties of two per cent on net returns amount to very little. Had the royalty been applied to both net returns and extracted value, it could have amounted to a more significant sum.

Without diving too deep into economic detail, it's worth noting that 100 per cent of exploration costs are tax deductible in Quebec, and a significant portion of them are reimbursable. In other words, beyond the $157 million already committed, additional fiscal incentives are handed to Stornoway through tax credits and exploration reimbursements.

Diamonds will come out of the ground at the Renard mine site until the company signs an agreement with the Cree of the Otish region. Stornoway is currently negotiating an Impact and Benefits Agreement (IBA) with the Cree Nation of Mistissini and the Grand Council of the Crees.

“The Cree Nation has adopted a mining policy,” said Cree negotiator Abel Bosum. “This policy makes clear what our conditions are for supporting a mining project on Cree land. It also sets out who needs to be part of negotiations to make a mining project work: The Cree Nation, the local Cree community and/or the Cree users of the land.”

In addition, Route 167 will need to be extended 243 kilometers, from the town of Mistissini to the Otish Mountains. Finally, a 165-kilometre Hydro-Quebec transmission line will also have to be built, connecting the Nikamo sub-station to the future Renard sub-station.

Premier Charest has already made an infrastructure announcement through which Plan Nord is to pump $287.6 million into Route 167. Stornoway is expected to put $44 million into the pavement effort.

Proponents of this infrastructure spending argue that these expenses will also benefit a conservation megaproject, carried out by the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (MDDEP) in collaboration with the Mistissini Cree Nation, which plans to establish the 11,000 square kilometre Albanel-Temiscamie-Otish National Park, at the end of Route 167.

This major northern infrastructure spending bumps public expenditures to $444.6 million.

Figures for the cost of setting the electricity line to power the Renard project are not yet public, as Hydro-Quebec is still in the process of completing its pre-project study. Details of preferential electricity rates—a standard Hydro-Quebec practice—are not available yet either. It is expected, as announced in the Plan Nord, that Hydro-Quebec will pay the bill. The exact corridor and final design of the 165-kilometre line, should be ready by the fall of 2012, as confirmed on the phone by Richard Simard, manager of community relations at Hydro-Quebec.

“I can't tell you the cost, I don't have the cost,” the Hydro-Quebec manager told The Dominion, when pressed for an estimate of total expenditures. “But one thing's for sure,” Simard said.

“As far as I can remember, this is the first time that we build such a long line.”

Old Rules for a New Game

The Renard mine site is just one project encompassed by the ambitious Plan Nord, which covers a territory of 1.2 million square kilometers, encompassing crown, Cree, Innu, Inuit and Naskapi lands.

“The Cree support the Plan Nord for now,” said Abel Bosum. But even the largest official Cree organization is not giving the government a blank check on Plan Nord.

“We support it, [on] the condition that we can conclude a reasonable and fair settlement on governance issues, that the Cree vision of the Plan Nord in different sectors—even beyond mining—be taken into account and that we participate in its planning and development in the respect of the Cree way of life,” Bosum told The Dominion by phone. Bosum invoked section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to underline the fact that his nation, like other northern First Nations, has the right to a review process on major projects, and expects proper consultation.

The scope of Plan Nord and its potential impacts on rural and Indigenous communities is mind-boggling, as is the money to be made: its release is timed with growing demand and higher prices for precious metals. What may come as a surprise, however, is that the laws and regulations that will guide mining activities under Plan Nord are more than 140 years old.

The Mining Act of Quebec, first minted in 1880—and almost untouched since—prioritizes mining activity over other types of land use.

“The law is wrong because it has priority over many other laws on land development,” said Ugo Lapointe of the Coalition for Better Mining in Quebec. “What we denounce are the great powers that are given to mining corporations, compared to the power of municipalities, First Nations and citizens."

Quebec’s mining law is currently under review. A new Quebec-wide standard known as Bill 14 is about to be adopted though it satisfies neither opposition parties nor civil society groups.

If the rules of the game seem old fashioned, consider the royalty regime. The government recently increased the royalty rate from 12 per cent to 16 per cent of net profit on a mine-by-mine basis: an improvement, it may seem, but only on the surface, since net profits are lowered with accounting tricks, as the Auditor General of Quebec revealed in 2009.

Building an economic strategy as big as Plan Nord around antiquated rules of the game has led some to speculate that the Quebec government is stuck in a colonial model of development.

“Mining in 2011 continues to be a colonial development, like in 1870,” said Martine Ouellet, Parti Quebecois spokesperson and Official Opposition critic on mining and shale gas. “It's pitiful to watch the Liberal Party [of Quebec] perpetuate this colonial development to the advantage of foreign multinationals, instead of to the benefit of the Quebecois.”

The mass transfer of funds from public to private hands isn’t unique to the Renard Diamond Project. Plan Nord's first action, which covers the years from 2011 to 2016, proposes making $2.1 billion in investments. Of the total, $500 million will be taken from the pockets of IQ and dumped into private sector projects.

The next months will reveal how much more money will be pumped into the Renard Diamond Project, further calling into question the economic strategies behind Plan Nord.

Frederic Dubois is a reporter and interactive documentary maker. Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

Renard Project

Renard Project Map

Witnessing the Tar Sands Dead Zone

dawn — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 05:48:05 +0000

Asserting the need to heal

FORT MCMURRAY, AB—In the face of the enormous devastation that is destroying forests across northern Alberta, a peaceful group of people are steadfastly asserting the need to heal the land and waters. On June 25, 2011, the second annual Healing Walk for the Tar Sands brought together Indigenous people, Keepers of the Athabasca, elders, children and supporters, who walked 13 kilometres through the heart of where Syncrude and Suncor extract bitumen on a massive scale.

Bitumen, a tar-like substance that holds petroleum, sits below what the industry, in an Orwellian turn, calls “overburden”—not forest

The destruction we saw is so vast it goes far beyond the visible horizon. The urgent need for healing is evident to anyone who visits this barren expanse. People from many places came to support and join in—including activists who participated with Zapatista Indigenous communities and the movement in Oaxaca, Mexico. Together they chanted, “Zapata vive! La lucha sigue!”

The Healing Walk for the Tar Sands was led by elders such as Lillian, a Cree woman, and Violet, an 83-year-old elder and the oldest woman in the community of Fort McMurray First Nation. These elder women possess a wonderful sense of humor and sharp minds, and with other elders, guided the traditional prayers, smudge and ceremonies. This walk faced the enormity of the land stolen from Indigenous peoples that is now destroyed, lifeless, and empty save for ugly scarecrows called “bit-u-men” to keep out the birds from its poisoned soil. Horrid continuous booms from sound cannons scare the birds from landing in the enormous reservoirs of toxic waste. We marched beside the machinery of destruction, the surreal gigantic Tonka trucks, cranes and pipes. The air pollution, a putrid stench, gave a headache to many of the people who participated in the healing walk.

The day was rainy with occasional bursts of sun, but the walkers were not deterred by the weather. A couple walkers had brought protective dust masks, remembering how terrible they felt last year after the six-hour walk, their lungs absorbing toxic dust from the tar sands. However, it was not appealing to wear wet masks so we continued, mostly mask-less, through the rain along the shoulder of Highway 63, accompanied by a heavy police presence.

This walk was started by people heartbroken by what has happened to their traditional homelands. One of the organizers, Cleo Reece, helped to start the Memorial March for the Murdered and Missing Women when she lived in Vancouver years ago. She spoke of the murdered and missing waters in northern Alberta: an eerie, disturbing connection between the violence against Indigenous women and against Indigenous land. Colonization is not a thing of the past; it continues today in virulent, violent forms and materializes in the increased rates of cancer found in communities downstream from the tar sands.

Resistance and commitment to peace also continue, as they have for the past 500-plus years. This is a form of power that is based in love for community, a community of the living that includes not just people, but bears, eagles, rivers, wind and forests. It is a deeply humble, peaceful power that stands in ethical contrast to the forms of power that greedily exploit and forcefully violate the land and those who live on it. It is a power that cannot be bought or sold because it is freely shared, residing in a respect and a grief for the land that gives us life.

We began and ended the day at the Nistawoyou Friendship Center in Fort McMurray where a feast for the walkers had been prepared by a chef with a joyful laugh and a team of dedicated volunteers. At the closing circle, Cree Elder Lillian Shirt was presented with tobacco in gratitude for her leading the day’s ceremonies, and she shared with us stories of survival and creativity.

We learned a lot from the tar sands healing walk and from visiting the surrounding Indigenous families, some who live in crowded old trailers, accessible by unpaved, muddy roads. The living conditions on some of the reserves are not unlike those in poor communities in Latin America.

Where are the economic benefits of the tar sands to these communities? What have they gained from these industrial projects? Witnessing the poverty, health problems and environmental destruction in person helped us respond to these questions. A huge economic gap remains between the living standards of Caucasian and Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities are marginalized in Canadian politics and are fighting institutional racism as their long-term interests are undermined.

On the walk, an elder weighed the cost of lost culture, water and foods and asked what all this destruction has been for. The question points to the global interests that have developed the Alberta tar sands in order to sustain a privileged way of life for some at the expense of others. We had travelled from Vancouver, a landscape dramatically different from the tar sands wasteland but which is nonetheless endangered by the latter's economic grip on land. Our Pacific Coast is threatened by proposed pipelines, with their inevitable spills, and a rapid increase in tanker traffic. In an era of climate change, those of us who live in urban centres cannot afford the disconnect between our cities that reap the temporary benefits of this destruction and the Indigenous homelands that have been desecrated. Through global waters, winds, and ethical human relations, we are linked with the people who are witnessing the eradication of their boreal forests, traditional hunting grounds and once-pristine waters.

On the edge of the dead land and toxic reservoirs, wild flowers, forests and Indigenous families live in trailer homes. Life here is simple, humble and warm, filled with good humour and jokes. Inside, Indigenous artwork on the walls portrays wolves, traditional carvings and pictures of ancestors and grandchildren.

In this community, women, men, children, young people and elders resist their displacement and speak up about the destruction of their land, water and wildlife.

“Giving up is not an option,” said Dene Suline Elder Warrior Brian Grandbois from Cold Lake, Alberta. Brian’s community is struggling to protect Berry Point at English Bay in Cold Lake, the land where they hold ceremonies and sacred burials, smoke fish and gather medicinal plants. This sacred land is threatened to become an RV park by ministerial order. Indigenous peoples of the area have set up their peace protection camp with tipis, tents and campfires, even though police are pressuring them to leave. Colonialism, Eurocentrism, and capitalism are killing Indigenous peoples, destroying our planet, La Pachamama—our Mother Earth.

That the pollution from tar sands extraction projects has spread to affect the waters of the Athabasca River and Fort Chipewyan is no secret. Beginning in the 1990s, these waters became unsafe to drink, and people are sick as a result of their toxicity. These polluted waters empty into the Arctic. This is a fact of hydrology. Tar sands pollution as a source of acid rain in Saskatchewan is a meteorological certainty. Airborne pollutants are also reported to be concentrating in lake water in neighboring Saskatchewan, reducing the availability of certain fish species.

While the ailing of these once-healthy waters is cause for alarm, corporate negligence has been responsible for at least three recent pipeline spills in Canada and the US. In July 2010, Enbridge spilled 3.1 million litres of oil into Tallmudge Creek and the Kalamazoo River, Michigan. In May 2011 in the Plains Midwest, 4.5 million liters of oil were spilled in Lubicon Lake Cree territory, the homeland of Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a young woman from the Lubicon Cree Nation who spoke eloquently at the Friendship Center. She described the horror of experiencing 28,000 barrels of oil spilling right beside her family’s homes, in the largest oil disaster in Alberta since 1975. In June 2011, Enbridge was also responsible for about 1,500 barrels spilled near Wrigley in the Northwest Territories. This last spill is said to have been kept out of waterways, but still seeped into the soil.

Horrific spills are not the only danger posed by industrial activity in Northern Alberta. In December 2010, a gushing saltwater aquifer at Shell’s Muskeg River operation raised questions about ground water contamination. This incident was preceded by another round of duck deaths in October 2010 in a Syncrude tailings reservoir. It’s a tragic irony when cultures that see water as something that comes from a tap have to learn about the interconnectedness of the earth’s waters through violent corporate operations that destroy Indigenous people’s homelands and cultures.

The Second Annual Healing Walk in Alberta’s Tar Sands was deeply inspiring. In the midst of massive greed and destruction, a community gathered to transform ground zero into a place of solidarity and social change. The call for healing is compelling, as simple and as necessary as breathing clean air and drinking clean water. The walkers shared an understanding—respect for ecological integrity must come first.

Aidee Arenas subscribed to the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona, Christine Leclerc organizes enpipeline.org, Choo-kien Kua is an artist and Rita Wong is a poet. They are all based in Vancouver. This article was originally posted on the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Tar Sands Healing Walk

Tar Sands Healing Walk II

Staking the North

hillarybain — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:53:05 +0000

The Arctic is being developed—in whose interest?

MONTREAL—On March 28 Indigenous leaders and environmental activists called for a moratorium on Arctic oil and gas exploration, as Foreign Affairs Ministers from Canada, Norway, Denmark, Russia and the United States met at the “Arctic Summit” in Chelsea, Quebec to discuss their plans for the resource-rich North.

Canada has acknowledged its interest in metals, oil and gas in the Arctic, which the melting sea ice is opening up to exploration. But critics are expressing concerns about the impact of Arctic industrialization on Indigenous peoples and the climate.

“New oil and gas development is anything but responsible in the face of a very serious climate crisis,” says Andrea Harden, Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. “It is no small irony that increased access to exploit reserves in the fragile Arctic Ocean ecosystem is largely the result of melting sea ice.”

The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), the Alaska-based Resisting Environmental Destruction On Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) and the Council of Canadians travelled to the Arctic Summit to deliver their appeal for a moratorium on oil exploration.

According to a joint press release issued by the IEN, REDOIL and the Council of Canadians, 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have been discovered in the arctic. Clayton Thomas-Muller of IEN is concerned that talk of developing oil and gas reserves in the north is just part of a larger initiative to exploit the world’s remaining natural resources.

“The Arctic development plan is part of an ongoing psychotic initiative lead by the G8/G20 nations to exploit the world’s last remaining pristine ecosystems for energy [and] for raw resources,” explains Thomas-Muller.

According to past communiques, G8 meetings have explicitly encouraged the development of new oil reserves. A new resolution to phase out G20 country subsidies to oil companies was passed at a G20 meeting last September but the resolution lacked any time-frame for action.

Thomas-Muller was also concerned by the lack of Native representation at the Arctic Summit considering the difficulties Inuit people face as a result of oil and gas exploration.

“Indigenous peoples in the circumpolar region are the true canaries in the coal mine when we think about the global climate crisis,” Thomas-Muller explains. “They carry a disproportionate impact from the global climate crisis and then are doubly impacted by the immense presence of unsustainable energy development in that region.”

Inuit have observed changes in animal populations and behaviour, thinning sea ice and unpredictable weather patterns. An Inuit hunter was stranded in January when the ice floe he was on broke off and started to drift in the Northwest Passage.

Ongoing explorations in Nunavut are going after nickel, diamonds, sapphires, uranium, gold, silver and other metal deposits. The exploratory process may also adversely affect caribou herds on which Inuit depend for sustenance.

According to the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), caribou populations suffered a “major population decline” since 1994. A 2004 position paper published by the BQCMB suggests that increasing demands for caribou, effects of climate change, and infrastructural and industrial development on caribou ranges—including exploration—are the major contributing factors to this decline.

Incidentally, food harvesting rights and land use planning with consideration of health, housing, education and other social services are guaranteed to the Inuit people of Nunavut, according to the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). This agreement concurrently handed over immense swaths of land in modern-day Nunavut to the Crown.

G7 Finance Ministers met in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in February. Some speculated that Canada’s recent strategy of promoting “Arctic Sovereignty,” including Canada’s staking of subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed and control over the disputed Northwest Passage, played a role in the choice of location.

The Harper government has bolstered its talk of Arctic Sovereignty through its “Arctic Strategy,” and, since 2007, has announced $3.1 billion in military spending for infrastructure development, annual military training exercises in Nunavut and the creation of the Canadian Northern Development Agency (CanNor).

Since the signing of NLCA Canada has been handing out exploration permits within the territory. Mining companies have invested at least $700 million in exploration in the territory since 2007, according to Nunavut Minister of Economic Development and Transportation Peter Taptuna.

Meanwhile, critics have accused Canada of not fulfilling its obligations under the NLCA. The Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) is suing the federal government for $1 billion for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary obligation. NTI would not elaborate on the ongoing court case.

A judicial review of the NLCA produced a number of suggestions which the federal government dismissed as being too costly. The announcement for $3 billion toward military infrastructure in the Arctic was announced less than a year later.

Shailagh Keaney is a writer based in occupied Atikameksheng Anishnawbek territory.

This story was published in The Dominion's special issue on the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario. We will continue to publish independent, investigative news about the G8 and G20 throughout the month of June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Arctic Canary

Concerns

Paula LaPierre — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:45:41 +0000

The Dialogue Denied Us

A Place at the Table?

macdonald — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:43:01 +0000

A Place at the Table?
The Great Bear Rainforest and ForestEthics

from "Offsetting Resistance: The effects of foundation funding from the Great Bear Rainforest to the Athabasca River", a special report by Dru Oja Jay and Macdonald Stainsby.

Released September, 2009.

http://www.offsettingresistance.ca/

Nuxalk Nation hereditary chief Qwatsinas (Ed Moody) explains that logging was causing concerns for his people on the Central BC Coast around Bella Coola, and that resistance began because “In the boom of the 1960’s and 1970’s, a rush [for logging companies] to get all the timber they could” was already underway. In response, “There was action with the hereditary chiefs and the elder people, and eventually the band council.” In 1994, the Nuxalk Nation invited Environmental Non- Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) large and small into their territory to see large scale clearcut logging then well underway.

“We sat down and discussed the pros and cons of any kind of relationship, and we set up a protocol and signed a protocol agreement.” The alliance with Greenpeace and smaller ENGOs Forest Action Network, People’s Action for Threatened Habitat and Bear Watch, says Qwatsinas, “started out really basic. The key people signed the agreements and we had our goals and our objectives and what we want to do to protect the environment.”

“That was the common goal between the environmentalists and ourselves as the First Nation, the Nuxalk, still had the outstanding issue of the land question. There had been a process developed in British Columbia called the BC Treaty Process. We could see that it wasn’t what we wanted because it was very limited, was kind of corrupt and really bent towards the industry.”

Arctic Fox

dru — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:00:54 +0000

Because a serious world needs serious cuteness

In the farthest northern reaches of Turtle Island, Asia and Europe, right to the shores of the Arctic ocean, this extraordinarily hardy creature and its brethren hunt and wander. To adjust to widely varying seasonal temperatures, the fox grows a head-to-toe coat thick enough to walk on ice without freezing, and then sheds massively in the spring thaw. Other adaptations include powerful vascular circulation and a proportionally small skin surface area. These foxes will eat any available meat, but most commonly dine on lemmings—small rodents that share the foxes’ circumpolar territory. —DOJ

Arctic Fox

Lemming

dru — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:09:50 +0000

The life and mythology of a northern rodent

Lemmings are small, hardy rodents who live in the tundra of northern Canada, Greenland, Europe and Asia. Rather than hibernating through the winter, lemmings eat stored grass clippings, and forage beneath the snow for roots and bulbs. The lemming's long, soft fur keeps it warm in harsh weather, and its extremely short tail cuts down on heat loss.

Though they are close relatives of hamsters, gerbils and mice, lemmings have long been distinguished by their place in pseudo-scientific folklore. A 16^th century geographer from Strasbourg, France, posited that lemmings fell from the sky during stormy weather. A century later, this theory was refuted by a Danish scholar, who concluded that lemmings could be carried by the wind, but were not generated by clouds.

More recently, lemmings have come to be known as creatures that spontaneously commit group suicide, gripped by a sort of herd mentality. The myth largely dates to a 1958 Disney documentary, White Wilderness. The film's producers had difficulty finding migrating lemmings in northern Alberta, where the creatures are not native. Disappointed but not discouraged, a photographer paid Inuit children from Manitoba to catch dozens of lemmings. The furry rodents were placed on a turntable covered in snow and made to run, simulating migration. Later, the hapless creatures were herded off a cliff, with cameras recording the apparent suicide from a low angle.

The myth of lemming suicide has its roots, however, in what appears to be adaptive migratory behaviour on the part of these industrious furballs. In times of abundant food, lemmings can reproduce rapidly. From birth, the creatures can reach sexual maturity within a month, and produce litters of around 10 baby lemmings. When the lemming population in an area outstrips the food supply, the small herbivores disperse in all directions in search of shoots, grass and roots. In their migratory fervour, lemmings will sometimes overestimate their capacities, and die while swimming across a particularly swift river or large body of water.

In addition to limited food supply, lemmings must also contend with predators that depend on the long-toothed rodents for much-needed sustenance in a sparse landscape, including the snowy owl, the arctic fox and the long-tailed skua.

While lemmings' periodic population booms and busts have led to some misunderstanding, the behaviour may be a potent strategy for the species' continued existence. In a land where food is quite scarce, these population explosions and migrations keep the lemming population vital over a vast, inhospitable, globe-circling expanse. Some observers have noted that in areas with much less variable conditions such as rainforests, lemming-like population growth is far less likely to occur.

Beyond its own survival, the lemming is a major source of food for other northern animals such as ermines and gyrfalcons, whose populations in many cases rise and fall with that of the lemmings. —DOJ

Lemming

The Need to Reflect on History

Paula LaPierre — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:07:46 +0000

Abundance

hillarybain — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:28:33 +0000

Art and trash in Dawson City

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK–One woman stood on tiptoes, biting through fishing line for a full minute until she ‘released’ the paper raven. Another well-dressed woman bent awkwardly over a hard-to-reach shelf, rummaged around, and then held the garbage she found up to her nose to smell it, smiling in delight. A third person spent half an hour surrounded by garbage, left, came back and pondered the garbage for another twenty minutes before selecting a small part to take home.

Each of these people participated in Abundance: The Dawson City Trash Project in late August. Abundance was a gallery installation of a miniature diorama of Dawson City, Yukon, made entirely out of Dawson City’s trash. The installation was the raw material of a performance: each of the 1,000 pieces in the exhibition was available to be taken away by gallery viewers at any time during the show.

While my project engaged in environmental activism on a material level by moving objects out of the landfill, it also set out to achieve a loftier goal: the redefinition of garbage. If trash is generally defined as unwanted, disgusting, diffuse, useless, and unowned, I aimed to make it desirable, beautiful, unique and popular. My success would be measured by the rate at which my art installation disappeared, piece by piece, when people were invited to take the ‘garbage’ home. Locals were friendly when giving me lifts to the landfill to gather the trash I needed, or when donating their used teabags (post-waste-stream teabags are in pretty rough shape and usually moldy), but I wondered: Would they want their teabags back?

The gallery was concerned that perhaps there would be no art to show after the first few days. I was nervous that the gallery would be full until the end. My dream was an empty gallery. Predictably, something in between happened. During the opening, nothing could be taken to ensure that everyone had a chance to see the installation in its entirety. The next day, the audience could literally do anything they wanted, from taking the art, to playing with it, to damaging it. And they did.

People came in little groups and took three or four items at a time. The biggest and best items went in the first week, but not on the first day. Most participants touched the art, even if they didn’t take anything, and many started conversations with other “shoppers.” People searched, played, regarded the piece like a science display with plenty of pointing and comparison, picked pieces up and carried them around before putting them back, taking them away or just moving them around. Some people made messes. Some people stepped on things. To my knowledge, no one added anything. I made a bet with several people who worked in the gallery that no one would take the little plastic Christmas tree parts remodeled as trees or the bottle caps that represented the rivers because they were not sufficiently transformed into art and still resembled their source as garbage. I lost the bet. An eight year old took some trees — and many other pieces — to remodel a diorama in his room, and a visiting artist took bottle caps to hold glue for her art camp students.

In the end, of 1,000 pieces (not including bottle caps), around 500 were taken. Considering the fact that Dawson City’s population hovers around 1,000 and that the show occurred at the end of the tourist season, I believe solid waste management should reconsider its treatment of trash, in light of the fact that trash can be useful, desirable, and aesthetic material, with the potential of creating positive social interactions. The term ubiquitously used to describe Abundance was “fun.”

There is one aspect of Dawson City that made this project possible and a potential leader in the future of solid waste. Dawson City’s dump is not heavily regulated and scavenging in its landfill is not only viable, but occurs as a matter of course. Things are very expensive in Dawson, and there are plenty of good, free materials at the dump. There is even a “free store” at the Quigley landfill, where people can leave their still-serviceable items for others to use. In every other municipal dump I have visited, even if they have a free store, the gates are closed to scavenging. Dawson City, like many other rural communities, has a culture of scavenging and reuse. In many ways, the residents of Dawson City already know that rubbish is valuable, and Abundance: The Dawson City Trash Project was merely a coordinated and playful effort to make this fact measurably visible.

Abundance: The Dawson City Trash Project was made possible by the generous support of the KIAC Artist in Residence Program, the ODD Gallery, The Canada Council for the Arts, and a New York University Dean’s Grant for Student Research. The installation-performance ran from August 14 to September 23, 2008 at the ODD Gallery in Dawson City, Yukon.

Max Liboiron is an artist and Doctoral Candidate in Visual Culture at New York University. She would like to thank the residents of Dawson City for an informative and inspiring project.

Art&TrashParticipation

Art&TrashQuiggley

110-Year Rush

dawn — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:57:28 +0000

Songs moved to survive the goldrush are returned to the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in

WHITEHORSE, YUKON–When 10,000 men showed up in Dawson City, Yukon, 110 years ago they were chasing gold in Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in territory. Prospectors and settlers arrived in hoards, almost overnight.

Chief Isaac of the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in nation saw the influx of settlers as a threat to preserving the way of his people. He sent their precious legacy – the community's stories and songs – to a safe place: extended networks of family in the interior of Alaska

Ever since, newcomers have come in waves, seeking the earth's resources and building roads. In the process, First Nations have been denied access to some of their traditional hunting and gathering areas and other areas have become degraded and contaminated.

Today, Western Copper is aiming to open a mine near Carmacks. The company plans to use a form of sulphuric acid heap leach technology in the Yukon River watershed, which was approved by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB). Heap leaching involves piling the crushed ore and irrigating it with sulpheric acid in order to dissolve the copper from the ore. The heap leach pile in this example will be as high as a thirty-story building and cover 31.5 hectares on the side of a mountain nine kilometres from the Yukon River.

“The YESAB screening report acknowledges that there is no example of this kind of heap being successfully detoxified anywhere in the world,” says Yukon Conservation Society Executive Director Karen Baltgailis. “Yet, YESAB is recommending that the project be allowed to proceed, using the first cell of the heap as a ‘field trial.’”

While an industrial scale field trial could be useful to determine whether or not the project is environmentally responsible, the so-called ‘field trial’ is occurring as the mine goes into full commercial operation. Thus, say critics, it is more accurate to call the entire mine experimental.

“Do we want to experiment with the Yukon River like this? How is this going to work? We can’t stop them from continuing if their experiment goes wrong,” says Eddie Skookum, Chief of the local Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation.

But the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation does not have the right to refuse the mine, according to provincial and national law.

Experts consulted by the First Nation include Dr. Lionel J.J. Catalan, Canada Research Chair in Industrial Waste Management and Site Remediation, and Dr. Kendra Zamzow, Aqueous Geochemist at Center for Science in Public Participation in Anchorage, Alaska. Both expressed doubt that complete leaching could ever be achieved given the size and complexity of the heap. This means that decontamination is not certain and it is likely a significant amount of copper will remain in the heap after the mine is closed.

This copper, highly toxic to salmon, may eventually find its way into the watershed. To date, no one has been able to challenge the findings of these experts.

“These chemicals will poison the salmon," says Chief Skookum. "It’s our duty to other First Nations to protect the river… We still have a big mess at the Mt. Nansen mine site and we don’t need to hear any more apologies from bureaucrats about a new disaster on our land.”

To thrive in the Yukon for millennia, First Nations have had to consider the long term consequences of their decisions. In 1898, at the height of the Gold Rush, Chief Isaac’s deliberate protection of Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in stories, songs and dances is an example of foresight.

After 100 years of safeguarding, Alaskan elders have been returning the oral traditions home to the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in.

Chief Skookum and others concerned by Western Copper's mine are worried that the "modern" Yukon lacks the vision and skill to protect and preserve the traditional and ecological value of the Yukon River.

Chief Isaac of the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in nation

Cinderella

Moira Peters — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:13:15 +0000

Mining Cartoon.jpg

Riot Police Target Barriere Lake Algonquin Blockade

Lia Tarachansky — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:44:23 +0000

aaabl.jpg

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, October 6, 2008

Quebec police threaten to mass arrest peaceful Algonquin road blockaders: Community determined to maintain blockade until Canada and Quebec honour their agreements and respect leadership customs

Kitiganik/Rapid Lake, Algonquin Territory / - Families from the Barriere Lake First Nation in Northern Quebec set up a peaceful blockade at 6:00 am this morning, promising to maintain it until Canada and Quebec respect and implement widely praised agreements, and Canada appoints an observer to witness a leadership reselection in the community, and respects its outcome.

"We maintained a peaceful presence all day, but Canada and Quebec would now rather have the Quebec police arrest youth, elders and mothers, than deal in good faith with our community," said Norman Matchewan, a youth spokesperson, from the site of the blockade, as riot police from Montreal prepared to make arrests.

- 30 -

Media Contacts:

Norman Matchewan, Barriere Lake spokesperson : 647 - 227 - 6696, 514 - 831 - 6902

Michel Thusky, Barriere Lake spokesperson: 819 - 435 - 2171

For more information: www.barrierelakesolidarity.blogspot.com

Collectif de Solidarité Lac Barrière
*******************************************
www.solidaritelacbarriere.blogspot.com
barrierelakesolidarity@gmail.com
514.398.7432

-------------------------------------------
Christian Peacemaker Teams Canada
25 Cecil St., Unit 307
Toronto ON M5T 1N1
Tel: 416-423-5525; Fax: 416-423-7140
canada@cpt.org
www.cpt.org

MEDIA ADVISORY

October 6, 2008

Contact: Joel Klassen (613) 331-0969 (English & French);

Christine Downing 647-296-0969 (English)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Goose Break

hillarybain — Sun, 27 May 2007 21:01:49 +0000

The changing climate and hunting in the North

It can be hard to concentrate when you're stuck inside a stuffy classroom in springtime. For the kids of Eeyou Istchee, the territory of the James Bay Cree, it can be nearly unbearable: after a long winter, the sunlight is getting warmer every day and the sound of the first Canada geese flying overhead can drive the entire classroom -- as well as the janitor, principal and everyone else in town -- to the window to gaze up at this graceful embodiment of the changing seasons.

Kids as young as four years old can do a perfect two-tone goose call. A few well-executed throaty honks, and the whole flock will change course, circle gently and alight on the lake.

In these communities, Goose Break is a big deal. It's a two-week holiday during which schools and offices close, and just about every family heads into the bush to hunt geese and hang out at the camp. Sort of like France in August, and bigger than Christmas, the communities become ghost towns as everything is put on hold to allow people to go after the geese.

But Goose Break's character -- and timing -- has changed over the past few years. Parents pull their kids out of school as much as two weeks in advance of the scheduled start of the break, because the geese don’t follow the calendar and they’re coming sooner than the school board has calculated. Experienced hunters put their snowmobiles away earlier and earlier, not willing to risk their lives on ice that is thinner with each passing spring. Even the elders, whose advice has been followed closely for decades, are not always able to predict the weather patterns. No one can be sure whether crossing the river at the regular spot is still a safe bet, and every year there are stories of seasoned hunters going through the ice. Some families opt to hire a helicopter -- not a cheap ride -- to get to and from their favourite hunting grounds, rather than travel over the lakes and rivers as they have done for generations.

Scanning the skies, hunters watch in wonder as flocks continue heading northward. Usually, Canada geese can be coaxed out of the sky if they see ice below on which to land. But this year, lakes that would normally be frozen are open water, and the geese are passing right overhead.

A Cree boy usually shoots his first goose at age nine or ten, and the whole camp celebrates with a feast in his honour. The goose's head is preserved as a keepsake -- a symbol of this transition from childhood to maturity. But some mothers are beginning to wonder how long the tradition will continue. There are plenty of geese this year -- fluttery heaps of feathers outside the camps attest to that -- but with so much changing so quickly, it's hard not to speculate about re-scheduling Goose Break for early March next year. Some worry that it will be cancelled altogether by the time this year’s first-time hunters have kids of their own.

Recipe for Shigabon (Canada goose roasted over an open fire)

-Pluck the goose

-Chop off the wings, feet and head. These can be boiled to make soup

-Run two slender pieces of wood crosswise through the goose, at the points where the wings and legs attach to the body

-Tie a string to these wooden sticks

-In the tipi, place fresh pine boughs on the floor to create a heavenly aroma

-Before building a fire at the centre of the tipi, install wooden poles horizontally at about shoulder height over the fire

-Suspend the goose by its string from the wooden poles over the fire

-Place a stainless steel bowl or tray below the goose to catch the drippings

-Roast, turning occasionally, until the goose is thoroughly cooked –- about three hours. Try hanging it with the breast side down for the first two hours, then turn to cook the other side for the final hour

-Serve along with drippings

Jaime Little works with CBC North Quebec

Geese Feet

Operation Narwhal will not be welcomed

dru — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:53:30 +0000

Here's a pretty interesting press release coming out of Denendeh.

---

Government of Denendeh
DEHCHO FIRST NATIONS BOX 89, FORT SIMPSON, N.W.T. X0E 0N0 TEL: (867) 695-2355/2610 FAX: (867) 695-2038
e-mail: dcfn@dehchofirstnations.com

For immediate release TROOPS AT FORT SIMPSON WILL NOT BE WELCOMED